The Radio Equalizer: Brian Maloney

09 March 2007

John Edwards, FOX News Channel Presidential Debate, Air America

HEY HEY, HO HO

Libs: Fox News Has Got To Go!







If John Edwards has even a shred of common sense, he will realize his serious mistake in backing out of an upcoming FOX News Channel- hosted presidential debate to be held in Reno.

In order to appease the moonbat left, Edwards decided to skip out on a key Nevada forum for Democrat candidates. That's after liberal bloggers had mounted a significant pressure campaign.

Simply because these "progressives" see FOX as having a right- leaning tilt, they believe Democrat Party candidates should have nothing to do with a debate overseen by the network. And even the proposed addition of Air America Radio to the mix, supposedly to "balance out" FOX, didn't satisfy the angry left.

Score one for the empty- headed "hey hey, ho ho" crowd.


As we're hearing now, however, it's crazy for Edwards to claim any sort of "principled" stand against FOX, given the many appearances he's recently made on the network:


Although presidential hopeful John Edwards abruptly pulled out of an upcoming debate on account of its association with FOX News Channel, he doesn’t appear to have had a problem using Rupert Murdoch’s airwaves in the past.

As recently as January 23rd, the lady-killing former Senator from North Carolina appeared on FOX News Channel’s Hannity and Colmes, one of 33 times Edwards has appeared on the network since August 2000.

So what’s really going on here? Perhaps we have to assume the Edwards camp double-booked their boss—and you know how difficult it can be to reschedule those hair appointments…


In fact, if the angry left ever actually watched FOX, as millions of others do every night, they would quickly recognize a significant group of regular liberal guests who love to pop in for visits.

Why must a guest agree with the network's general slant? Why not take the opportunity to reach millions of normal working people who don't frequent snooty coffee houses or enjoy tenured faculty positions?

It's not just a great way to win converts to your cause, it's also key to winning elections. Next time, Mr Edwards, try shutting out the moonbats, it will do wonders for your campaign.


UPDATE: the debate has been cancelled. Now the entire Democrat Party has fallen for this silly, petty campaign.


Will you support the Radio Equalizer?

Your Amazon orders that begin with clicks here, regardless of what you ultimately purchase, greatly assist this site's efforts.

Or, please consider making a contribution at the Honor System box. Thanks to those who have already helped out!

Technorati tags:

published by Brian Maloney at 05:00

27 Comments:

  • He should concentrate on expressing his views and policies to the public. He shouldn't be concerned with what some psychotic, attention-crazed wonan says.

    By Blogger darkangel, at 09 March, 2007 10:17  

  • sorry lonewatchman

    Limbaugh lied to you. Liberals won all over America. Deal with it, your degenerate talk radio heros lied to you. Liberalism won the election in November. Just look at the Senators that won, LIBERALS, deal with it

    you just do not get it
    Conservatism was rejected by America, even with a complict media on cavble television cheerleading for the right

    Your filthy party runs the entire media, and you lost in November 2006

    your icons on AM radio all lie to you

    By Blogger Minister of Propaganda, at 09 March, 2007 10:59  

  • first off

    it's hey ho let's go

    secondly

    the answer to why moderate liberals
    have completely given up on fox
    is demonstrated in your attitude
    toward the "democrat" party
    in general

    lonewatchman in truth
    get a grip
    liberals won the last three

    the actors just forgot
    the lines you wanted to hear

    By Blogger hashfanatic, at 09 March, 2007 11:05  

  • Edwards might try winning his home state in '08 should he run for Pres.
    Had he done so last time it may have put Kerry/Edwards over the top. Just like Al Gore who couldn't win Tenn.
    in '00. That would have put him in the White House. Can't win your home state?
    How many primaries did the Breck Girl
    win anyway...one?

    By Blogger raccoonradio, at 09 March, 2007 12:32  

  • >>Why must a guest agree with the network's general slant?

    It's interesting that the new owners of Air America have actually proposed
    hosting a _Republican_ presidential
    debate in N.H. Hmm...

    seen on a left-leaning messageboard:
    "We need our own cable channel to
    balance Fox" (Yes folks there is no liberal TV media out there, none!
    Not on broadcast TV news, cable TV news, broadcast or cable entertainment shows...all right-wing
    biased stuff, eh? :) )

    By Blogger raccoonradio, at 09 March, 2007 12:36  

  • it's hey ho let's go

    That would be "Blitzkrieg Bop".

    What was referenced here (explicitly, at the top of the article) was the "Hey hey ho ho, (insert whatever you're protesting) has got to go" chant, which predates the Ramones by a few years. Not the same thing.

    By Blogger Snowed In, at 09 March, 2007 13:09  

  • Liberalism won the election in November. Just look at the Senators that won, LIBERALS, deal with it

    You asked for it, you got it!

    The Democratic pickups in the 2006 Sendate were...

    MO: Claire McCaskill rode the coattails of Amendment 2, which said on the ballot that cloning would be banned even though the law itself specifically called for cloning. McCaskill portrayed herself as a moderate.

    MT: Jon Tester beat Conrad Burns by focusing on tax cuts and gun rights. Big lib?!?

    OH: Sherrod Brown beat Mike DeWine. The Libs were pulling for Paul Hackett.

    PN: Yeah, voters dumped the conservative Santorum. But Casey remained a cypher throughout, refusing to take a position other than his last name, which he shared with his dead dad, a beloved former gov.

    RI: When you're nominee is Lincoln Chaffee, it's hard to frame this as a refferendum on conservatism.

    VA: Webb over Macacca.

    You wanna know who did run as an unabashed liberal? Ned Lamont...

    NONE of the 6 Senate winners portrayed themselves as liberals. So while it's true that in these races, the country picked Democrats over Republicans, they certainly didn't pick Liberal over conservative.

    By Blogger BF, at 09 March, 2007 14:53  

  • Irish cheese assortment?

    By Blogger John, at 09 March, 2007 18:13  

  • BF, let me try to dig a little further in the posting you made:

    The Democratic pickups in the 2006 Sendate were...

    "MO: Claire McCaskill rode the coattails of Amendment 2, which said on the ballot that cloning would be banned even though the law itself specifically called for cloning. McCaskill portrayed herself as a moderate."

    By using Michael J. Fox as a spokesperson--only to be lambasted by Hush Bimbo. That Missouri race was butt ugly!

    "MT: Jon Tester beat Conrad Burns by focusing on tax cuts and gun rights. Big lib?!?"

    As long as Tester focused on those things, he had a chance to beat Burns, which he did.

    "OH: Sherrod Brown beat Mike DeWine. The Libs were pulling for Paul Hackett."

    Despite Brown getting washed up actor Luke Perry to campaign for him? Oh, well, lesser of two evils.

    "PN: Yeah, voters dumped the conservative Santorum. But Casey remained a cypher throughout, refusing to take a position other than his last name, which he shared with his dead dad, a beloved former gov."

    That would be PA, but I get the point. The American Conservative Union gave Santorum a rating of 96 for 2006; 88.1 lifetime. And in terms of Casey, many Pennsylvanians think they can channel the past of Bob Casey, Sr., a rare pro-life Democrat. Like father, like son? Who knows?

    "RI: When you're nominee is Lincoln Chaffee, it's hard to frame this as a referendum on conservatism."

    Welcome to New England! Where even Republicans tilt left!

    "VA: Webb over Macacca."

    You mean George Allen. ACU rating for 2006--96; lifetime 92.6. Not enough when dealing with liberal media in even a so-called Red State.

    You wanna know who did run as an unabashed liberal? Ned Lamont...

    Don't even get me started on him! We knew what happened. But don't blame me, I voted for Alan Schlessinger!

    "NONE of the 6 Senate winners portrayed themselves as liberals. So while it's true that in these races, the country picked Democrats over Republicans, they certainly didn't pick Liberal over conservative."

    Maybe so-called Blue Dog dems did win, but Pelosi, a San Franfreako liberal, wields the gavel and the power. Look at what she did to two moderate female Democrats:

    http://frontpagemagazine.com/
    Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=27238

    By Blogger The Real Bob Anthony, at 09 March, 2007 18:27  

  • "MT: Jon Tester beat Conrad Burns by focusing on tax cuts and gun rights. Big lib?!?"

    As long as Tester focused on those things, he had a chance to beat Burns, which he did."

    Tester successfully tied Burns to the Abramoff scandal. He didn't focus on tax cuts or gun rights. He didn't focus on anything accept continually screaming about how corrupt Burns was, which, is above all, a lie. Tester relied upon short attention spans.

    By Blogger Rich in MT, at 09 March, 2007 20:00  

  • "Tester successfully tied Burns to the Abramoff scandal. He didn't focus on tax cuts or gun rights. He didn't focus on anything accept continually screaming about how corrupt Burns was, which, is above all, a lie."

    Rich, how can you acknowledge Burns ties to Abramoff, and in the very next sentence call Burns' corruptness "a lie"?

    By Blogger hashfanatic, at 09 March, 2007 21:03  

  • Rich, how can you acknowledge Burns ties to Abramoff, and in the very next sentence call Burns' corruptness "a lie"?

    Tester was successful in perpetuating a lie.

    The point is Tester did not run on being the liberal he is. Liberals that are honest about their views don't get elected in most of America.

    By Blogger Rich in MT, at 09 March, 2007 21:12  

  • Well, Rich, that's really not true.

    The conservative agenda, as long as it is yoked to neoconservative principles and corrupt political figures, is essentially as dead as Kelsey's nuts for the next forty to fifty years or so.

    As far as coverage is concerned, the so-called "conservative" message and its relative success in former times has always depended on having a simple-to-understand message and a narrow vision for the nation...it literally sold itself on a low-tax, smaller-government, values-based message which has failed miserably on all fronts. It was a simpleton's philosophy that could not begin to address issues that Americans actually faced....it had to be squeaky-clean to retain any sort of legitimacy.

    Well, we all know how well that worked out....and it could hardly have been kept a secret, despite much money thrown at the problem.

    In the age of the remote, digital tuning, etc., an alternative view, and any curiosity-seeker's alternative view and perception of reality is only one click away...

    And Edwards' response vis-a-vis the Fox debate is hardly unprecendented, and is, most likely being vigorously hotly debated in-house as we speak.

    Can you honestly visualize whatever Republican candidate who is the flavor of the day, actually doing the same?

    (Incidentally, the goals of the neocon agenda do not necessary preclude a Republican president, so my pointing out the lack of a viable Republican candidate at this early juncture should not in any way be taken as derogatory to any legitimate conservative that reads this summary...I'm simply hoping to clarify the matter at hand).

    By Blogger hashfanatic, at 09 March, 2007 21:35  

  • Hash,
    Starting your comment up by calling me a liar is a piss poor way to continue a dialogue.

    Go get some fresh air.

    By Blogger Rich in MT, at 09 March, 2007 23:28  

  • Rich, I'm not sure I feel obligated to tailor my comments in order to massage whatever insecurities you may have about the observations...you appear to have some sort of guilty conscience over having made an allegation, and having been called on it. Don't you think you're being a wee bit paranoid?

    After all, I may very well have simply been pointing out that you were mistaken!

    Frankly, it's these sorts of responses that pretty much reinforce my belief, that it is difficult to engage those on the far right in political discourse.

    It always seems to be so wretchedly PERSONAL for you people.

    Perhaps, then, a valid reason for a progressive political candidate's distaste for participating in any Fox News performance may not really be needed for most voters...

    Let's wait and see.

    By Blogger hashfanatic, at 10 March, 2007 01:23  

  • Faux has been dumped by the Dems as carrier of ANY debates that our party will participate in. We are no longer lending legitimacy to a transparent GOP dis/mis-information operation headed by a bloated pasty former right wing hit man.

    Their too-small roundtable of bloated pasty potatoes stuffed into polyester suits, can continue to flatualte for every redneck in America, but starting now any Dem who lends the credibility of a decent, legitimate political party to their right wing GOP mudfest, is persona non grata in civilized company.

    Brian it occurs to me that all the lard ass you have kissed to get back on the radio has been wasted. Your pasty pudgy countenance would be perfect for television targeted to the dumbest frumpen proletariat. And like Hannity you can hide your four foot wide waddling tub butt under the formica desk.

    By Blogger gregrocker, at 10 March, 2007 04:01  

  • Hash,
    Your autorantic responses which can be clipped and pasted into any comment are aggressively boring and a testament to the disfunctionality of a brain that can influence itself to believe anything because of anything. Why you persist in such psychotic visages is beyond my comprehension and as such, makes a powerful case for dismissing you without further thought.

    By Blogger Rich in MT, at 10 March, 2007 07:48  

  • Well, I can phrase it in another way if you like.

    Die in a fire.

    By Blogger hashfanatic, at 10 March, 2007 10:48  

  • Greg....bear in mind that these folks can barely understand the words they use, and believe very little of what they are paid to bloviate.

    By Blogger hashfanatic, at 10 March, 2007 10:51  

  • Sherrod Brown is more liberal than Paul Hackett, certain liberals liked Hackett because he was a veteran againt the war, but Brown is much more left wing, almost socialist.

    Claire McCaskill: LIBERAL Jon Tester: not a liberal but supporting the second amendment does not make one "conservative", that is myopic view the radical rght tries to paint. Most "liberals" support th second amendment with some restrictions. Funny, the GOP darling Rudy is more against the second amendment than say Diane Feinstein. FACT. Rudy is 100% against the right to bare arms, he is abn authoritarian on this issue, the kind of leader who would have police bust down your door to take away your guns, yet he leads the race? Rudy is not a Republican nor Democrat, he is a FASCIST, who will turn NYC into a police state, yet the media is campaigning for him. The media wants this creep with ZERO experience to win

    Lets not forget who won in Vermont: BERNIE SANDERS
    LIBERAL!

    By Blogger Minister of Propaganda, at 10 March, 2007 15:06  

  • Hash,
    Thanks for cutting to the chase. Your wishing death upon me confirms all my expectations of you. Has anybody actually died from your wish of death? Probably not, you know what they say, wish in one hand and shit in the other, and see which hand smells like hashfanatic.

    I thank Brian for the public service he's performing by keeping you posting here. As long as you're here, you're not out inflicting yourself upon the rest of the world. Kind of like the Hate Hannity Hotline for bloggers.

    Hugs and Kisses.

    By Blogger Rich in MT, at 10 March, 2007 15:46  

  • Mini Prop:

    Claire McCaskill: LIBERAL

    While she may in fact be a liberal, her ads stressed otherwise.

    My favorite one was about how proud she was to be fellow hunter with her grandfather. It was one of a series of "She's one of us" ads. Nowhere to be found were ads that showcased her support of liberal programs or that showed her opposition to Republican policies.

    She also had her wimpy brother do an ad in response to the Talent attack about how she, the state auditor, did not pay her property taxes on her second home for 3 years. Nothing in that about policies either.

    By Blogger Chromium, at 12 March, 2007 10:54  

  • What does hunting have to do with a person being "liberal" or not?

    I'm certainly what you would call left of center, and I have absolutely no problem with the right to bear arms, or hunting, and many on my side of the aisle feel similarly...

    Too much is made of the whole gun control debate, and the divisions that have been created because of it.

    By Blogger hashfanatic, at 12 March, 2007 18:29  

  • Missuuri:It was one of a series of "She's one of us" ads. Nowhere to be found were ads that showcased her support of liberal programs

    what does supportingthe right to bare arms have to do with being conservative. This is a conservative smoke screen to paint all liberals as being against the second amendment, absolute hogwash. Only democrat I could name who is against the 2nd amendment is Feinstien in California, and she is conservstive on many other issues. Overwhellingly Liberals support the 2nd amendment, but they do not support the ability to buy hundreds of guns at wallmart to sell in the street to gangs. Sensible regulation is not being against the second amendment. Now Rudy as mayor of NYC made it impossible to get a gun license, almost IMPOSSIBLE, Rudy did this to NYC and he is a Republican. go figure. One's stance on the second amendment is not a good way to measure liberal or conservative

    By Blogger Minister of Propaganda, at 12 March, 2007 18:46  

  • Sorry this is long, it more for Brian Maloney the previous comments. Enjoy anyways.

    Hello, this is Chris from Madison, I spoke to you on the Jeff Wagner show about this very topic. I appreciate you taking my call, however, I wish you would have let me respond to some of your statements. Your nickname should be changed from the Radio Equalizer to the Radio Monopolizer. Additionally, you added nothing to the conversation besides verbalizing your blog post.

    I wish you would have let me respond, because you entirely perverted my comment. The fact is Fox News systemically disseminates lies and falsehoods regarding Democrates. Furthermore, on countless occasions, they assassinated the character of the very same presidential candidates they wish to host. Like I said, the Obama/Madrassa simply exemplifies this. However, even if that was my main point, you analysis of the situation was wrong. It was not simply a minor story reported over the weekend. It was a Fox News Alert on both John Gibson’s show and Fox and Friends. You may have dismissed this as nothing, but the facts have shown otherwise.

    Second, as you said, they simply repeated a fringe website’s story, and therefore did little wrong. That begs the question, Why would a legitimate news organization report on something without doing a modicum of research? Maybe they had an agenda. CNN had not problem discovering the truth.

    However, like you said, news organizations make mistakes sometimes. You are only rationalizing the situation! No other channel consistently makes as many mistakes about on political party as Fox (claiming Mark Foley as a Democrate, spelling Obama ‘osama,’ etc). If you need more examples, I can provide them, but that’s tantamount Einstein proving gravity exists.

    When Dan Rather reported incorrectly on President Bush’s army service, the conservative right and Fox News were up in arms, and demanded his resignation. I’m sure you did not rationalize this as a simple mistake that befalls every news organization.

    Finally, you said going on Fox provides Obama a forum to clear up the countless mistakes made the station. He shouldn’t have to do that. A presidential debate should be proactive, focusing on the issues rather than reactive and responding to every lie Fox disseminated. Further, keeping in mind, this is a Democratic primary, most Democrats do not watch Fox News. Having the debate on Fox would not help differentiate candidate amongst voters.

    In the future, rather than reacting emotionally, try and examine the situation logically. You will clearly see that Democrats have little to gain by legitimizing a station that assassinates their character and spreads countless lies.

    By Blogger cgb, at 13 March, 2007 00:23  

  • dude u don't seem to get it: Baloney IS a right wing dirty trickster. Asking him to be balanced and consider both sides is like asking a right winger to lose the extra 300 pounds. It is the badge of conservatism to be a lying pasty faced bloated morbid obesity.

    By Blogger gregrocker, at 13 March, 2007 03:12  

  • I know, I get it. I was just extremely dissappointed that the guest host of a non-political radio show I enjoy was some partisan hack that asked for callers, yet wouldn't really allow them to get their full point across. I know that in the world of radio talk shows, the host always wins the conversation, but they usually give the callers an opportunity to respond. He didn't, and I want him to understand I think he's an amateur. Beyond a superficial analysis of the news, he does a poor job controlling his show.

    By Blogger cgb, at 13 March, 2007 04:16  

Post a Comment

<< Home


 
Page Rank Checker

Powered by Blogger