Even more humiliating, most had never even heard of MSNBC's key personalities, according to Politico:
MSNBC’s personalities were largely ranked as unknown by respondents: 70 percent said they had never heard of Ed Schultz, 55 percent said they had never heard of Rachel Maddow and 42 percent said they had never heard of Keith Olbermann.
It's enough to make one want to hide in a cabin deep in the Berkshires, isn't it?
While it's easy to pin its failure on unpopular politics, especially after Air America's collapse (oddly featuring many of the same lackluster hosts), there's a fundamental issue of programming quality missing from this debate. From Friday's Rachel Maddow Show, here's one four-minute segment that captures the mess that is MSNBC:
Here, Maddow segues from the usual fringe political content right to fringe "entertainment", featuring bizarre musical instruments at an event in San Francisco.
Where is the popular appeal of this programming? It's taking narrowcasting to an extreme and the results are clear: low ratings, lousy polling results.
Perhaps this would work well on a local program in the Bay Area, but where is the potential national appeal beyond that point?
Who exactly is running this mess of a network?
Maddow's problem is that she's been showered with praise from the ruling media-political establishment, a group that couldn't possibly be more hated at the national level these days. Does she believe her own press?
While our lefty pals continue to complain about the poll results, they might consider taking a look at the content itself. Does this truly have ratings potential?
'KOS' IT'S WAR Smear Merchant Claims Conservatives Preparing For Violence
American conservatives are preparing for violent conflict, according to left-wing smear merchant Markos Moulitsas. Operator of the DailyKos, an extremist (but high-trafficked) blog site, Moulitsas is spreading his message to anyone who will listen, with liberal talk radio providing a key venue.
What exactly is his point? Yes, "Kos" has a new book to peddle, American Taliban, but it has already bombed, ranked 855 in sales by Amazon less than a month after its release.
So unless Kos truly believes sales can be revived, what's the objective of this crusade? To convince the left they must arm themselves for a supposedly inevitable war? Is he eager for an outbreak of violence?
Or, is there a coherent election angle here? If so, it's less than clear.
From Thursday's Stephanie Miller Show:
MARKOS MOULITSAS (32:48): Right now there is a six month backlog on ammunition in this country. People trying to buy bullets cannot buy bullets because they’ve been hoarding these guns. These aren’t people who aren’t people who are hoarding guns and ammo because they way to participate in a peaceful Democratic process.
STEPHANIE MILLER: Well you’ve got candidates like Sharron Angles saying second amendment remedies.
MOULITSAS: Right, when you have key top level Republicans saying that sort of thing, you have a movement that really rejects democracy as a tool and are willing to resort to violence and they haven’t yet. They started to resorting to violence after Obama was elected, cause having an African American with the middle name Hussein sort of blew their minds. But, the Tea Party movement sort of allowed them to channel their energies into something a little more healthy than shooting people.
MILLER: Well right, but Marcos there have been exactly what the Homeland Security Department report talked about. There have been a huge increase in right-wing violence.
MOULITSAS: I know and there have been.
MILLER: They all screamed about it and it’s true. It’s quantitatively provably true that there have been a lot of violence that have been, I think has been fomented by a lot of these right-wing characters.
But the ammo shortageis already over and was caused by a number of factors, including fears Second Amendment rights would be rescinded and old-fashioned production issues. In addition, the "right-wing violence" allegations made here weren't backed up with actual incidents.
Beyond his extreme rhetoric, Moulitsas' delivery is tough to take. Clearly the product of parochial, inward-looking East Bay "progressive" politics, he seems willing to accept at face value almost any conspiracy theory thrown his way.
For this especially candid and telling moment, we owe a debt of gratitude to libtalker Randi Rhodes.
Thanks, Randi, for admitting to what has long been suspected of our "progressive" friends: that taxpayers are nothing more than potential shakedown victims, depending on how much "candy" is in their "piñatas".
Of course, few outside of Wall Street's inner circle are happy with the bailouts, that's a given. But the idea that simply being "rich" means it's time for a beating with a stick says a lot about the intellectually-bankrupt state of their movement.
From the Tuesday edition of the Randi Rhodes Show:
RANDI RHODES (00:48): Aye aye aye, the whining rich, they're getting on my nerves, these pinata people!
You are a piñata, you freak, you're full of candy and the rest of us are starving down here!
I mean, I represent the Wall Street community, suddenly, Wall Street is a community, only they're having cookouts and block parties and playing roller hockey now... it's a community, the Wall Street bankers are, they're a community that we bailed out and they don't know how to say thank you!
This kind of sentiment would seem to fit perfectly with Randi's own personal history, especially her attempts to suck Air America Radio dry with huge salary demands. Despite her lack of ratings and revenue success, Rhodes has managed to pull in significant sums over the years, placing her firmly in the "rich" category.
At this point, she's syndicated by Premiere Radio Networks, the same company that oversees Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and others. No doubt she can afford plenty of piñatas on what she's making today.
Arianna Huffington's Bizarre Explanation For Christine O'Donnell's Support
SLITHERING SLIMINESS
Arianna Attacks Christine With Trademark Elitism
To smug elitist Arianna Huffington, only a primitive reptilian instinct found in less-advanced humans could explain voter support for Christine O'Donnell. Yes, it's the "lizard brain", apparently a term used frequently by the campus latte set, that accounts for such otherwise irrational behavior.
Sadly, Darwinian lizard talk is what passed for reasoning during the latest edition of Both Sides Now, a weekly syndicated radio program co-hosted by Huffington:
MARK GREEN (CO-HOST) (6:24): Given [O'Donnell's] statements, when she says that masturbation is the equal of adultery and that condoms don't reduce AIDS, these are far-out statements, but could she get competitive and win that seat which the Senate could turn on because of what you used to call people's lizard brains. They kind of look at her and like her moxie, her youth, her looks and her general approach.
ARIANNA HUFFINGTON: We have a lot of surveys that show people are making decisions from their lizard brains, and when people operate from their lizard brains which means they're operating from anger, from fear, from panic. They're not operating from rationality. Who knows what they will decide? I don't know what's going to happen.
Didn't 2008's economic panic cause many to choose Barack Obama? Emotional decisions cut both ways, they aren't exclusive to a political party. What was the intellectual case for Obama?
Arianna's resorting to a typical, childish leftist "argument": our people are smart, yours are stupid. Isn't it time to leave the elementary school playground behind and grow up?
While no one knows for certain if their family roots connect somewhere back in County Donegal (where the surname dominated for centuries), Rosie and Christine O'Donnell couldn't be more at odds here at home when it comes to American politics.
And while we knew Rosie wouldn't fail to delve into the white-hot Delaware US Senate race, her take on Christine isn't quite what one might expect. The former View co-host seemed oddly subdued after hearing audio of the Republican candidate's alleged extremism, which Rosie had earlier called "crazy s--t."
In fact, the Rosie Radio host seemed more concerned with the left's representation of her candidacy as a "joke", believing instead it should be taken seriously, lest she actually win.
Perhaps Rosie took a look at Christine's mammoth post-primary fundraising haul? Or does she remember Scott Brown's shocking January election victory a bit too well?
From Rosie Radio and The Mike Malloy Show:
MIKE MALLOY (08:47): And then this freakish, Barbie-doll-looking-woman from Delaware - where do these people come from?
MALLOY (09:11): These are robots, obviously. These are huge walking, farting dolls of some sort I guess!
Meanwhile, Rosie's not the only libtalker trying to figure out how to process (and subsequently spin) Christine's win. Hatemonger Mike Malloy quickly resorted to the usual childish insults (see above), while Randi Rhodes took her daily swim in the political sewer (via Tim Graham).
The big question: will gutter-level personal attacks work this year, or have Democrats already lost the election?
MSNBC Libtalker Furious With His Own Party's Overconfidence
'I'LL BE ARROGANT' Schultz Lambastes Dems Over Misguided Internal Analysis
Lashing out against suddenly-overconfident Democrats who feel their electoral fortunes have changed for the better, MSNBC libtalker told radio listeners yesterday "I'm going to be as arrogant as I ever have been" in order to get the message across.
With the primary election victory of conservative Republican Christine O'Donnell in Delaware, Democrats are reading internal divisions between the GOP's liberal establishment wing and tea party activists as a positive development.
But Schultz believes it's all a ruse of some sort, designed to lull liberals into a sense of complacency:
ED SCHULTZ (35:35): But it took the Republicans from Matt Lauer’s interview with Christine O’Donnell and her victory last night all the way to noon today for everybody to get in line. For everybody to get smacked up in the Republican Party.
In the meantime we’ve got Democrats out there saying ‘whoa, look at this Civil War that is going on.' Ain't no civil war going on. They're all being good soldiers, they're going to line up no matter how psycho they are. Because they hate Obama. Because they want to win. Because they want power! It's about power!
It's not about policy, it's about being able to do whatever the hell they want to do! And this is exactly what the Democratic base has been trying to tell these pragmatist Democrats in the White House who tiptoe all over cable except my show, BECAUSE I'LL STICK IT TO 'EM! GET YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR ASS! This is about winning! This is about motivating the base and taking it right back to these righties!
SCHULTZ (38:25): I'm going to be as arrogant as I have ever been on talk radio. I know 100 percent in my heart, in my soul, I know what I'm saying is 100 percent correct!
The big question: is he right? Yes, Republicans are divided, but the new movement largely exists to bypass the party establishment, making the latter irrelevant. Conservatives themselves have probably never been more united.
How the situation translates into a retention of Democratic seats in November isn't clear, unless the party's relentlessly negative campaign tactics succeed in scaring voters away from the GOP.
As for Schultz, he seems to be in some kind of contest to out-psycho his opponents. For what purpose, no one really can say.
Libtalk Commemorates 9-11 With Anti-Christian Attacks
THE REAL THREAT?
MSNBC Libtalker Uses 9-11 To Spread Anti-Christian Hate
On any day of the year, an assertion that Christians are the real threat to global security would be seen as inflammatory, but did MSNBC's Ed Schultz really need to choose the eve of September 11 to feature one of the kookiest takes on terrorism this side of al-Jazeera?
And while it's one thing for the usual "separation of church and state" suspects to attack Christians as zealots bent on world domination, more astounding is Schultz's apparent approval of this delusional rhetoric.
Do you really believe this crap, Ed? We didn't know you'd changed your name to Mike Malloy.
From Friday's syndicated radio program:
BARRY LYNN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AMERICANS UNITED FOR SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE (38:50): I worry about Islamic fundamentalism, there's fundamentalists in every religion, but I worry a lot more about the imminent return of Christian fundamentalism that will try to tell every single American how to live from the moment of conception until the moment of death.
And if Schultzdoesn't believe this kind of nonsense, does that mean he feels the need to agree in order to placate libtalk's audience? If so, they're even more extreme than previously understood.
Come to think of it, Al Sharpton and Terry Jones have a great deal in common: both are publicity-hogging, divisive preachers always on the lookout for the next big stunt.
Sharpton's not used to dealing with effective competition, however, which explains this envy-tinged monologue delivered during today's syndicated radio program. He knows Koran Man has hit the news-cycle JACKPOT with his bonfire plan and Al wants that megaphone back yesterday.
It's so UNFAIR!
Anybody remember Tawana's phone number? Wonder if she has any fresh ideas?
AL SHARPTON (13:36): A lot of people wonder why we in civil rights get attention. Now we can produce our following and our members, tens of thousands of people at marches, all kinds of stuff and we project an issue that helps people and they say we get too much media coverage.
This guy in Florida is doing nothing but hate mongering, has fifty members on a good Sunday and the whole world is standing still and y’all wonder why I say the media is imbalanced and unfair.
AL SHARPTON (32:07): The President held a press conference this morning, Smokey, and he of course talked about the economy, talked about many things. But as everyone knows he has had to deal with this question of the Islamic Center that is being proposed in lower Manhattan and the threat by this Minister in Florida who I think has gotten unparalleled media attention globally.
I mean now, I lead a national organization, have a national syndicated show, TV and radio and they ask why do I get press attention?
This man has fifty followers and only because he’s going to burn some Bibles, I mean some Korans, which is the Bible in Islam on hate, he gets world attention and the media doesn’t see a contradiction there.
Even his liberal friends are struggling with this kind of "reasoning", however, leaving Sharpton to ponder what Plan B might entail. Good luck, old friend.
Does attending high school with Charles Manson mean one can fairly be accused of supporting mass murder? Do Barack Obama's former classmates automatically march in unison behind his policies and positions?
If not, then why is Rush Limbaugh somehow on the hook for the fringe beliefs of cult leader Terry Jones, simply because both graduated from Cape Girardeau's Central High School in 1969?
A freakish coincidence, yes. But to make the connection in other than a truly humorous manner is ridiculous. Isn't that obvious? As Thomas Lifson writes at the American Thinker, "you can't choose your high school classmates."
Tell that to MSNBC sleazeball Keith Olbermann, however, who instantly tweeted his predictably sewer-level reaction for all to see. Olbermann was likely tipped off after yearbook photos were published at a local site covering Cape Girardeau.
In a small social media miracle, @KeithOlbermann heard @jemmo over the Twitter machine and retweeted her message to his 109,000 followers, who retweeted the message to their followers, and so on. Subsequently, most of the Tweeple Nation spent the night tossing and turning in their futon-beds while ruminating over the shocking Limbaugh-Jones nexus.
A less astral-planey response to The Nexus than @jemmo’s comes from the blogger behind Cape Girardeau History and Photos, who also graduated from Cape Girardeau Central High but did not become as “successful” as his slightly younger alma mateys. “Rush Limbaugh USED to be Cape Girardeau’s most prominent export,” the blogger writes, suggesting that Limbaugh is some sort of has-been (cruel). The blog includes pictures of Terry Jones with his baseball teammates (Go Tigers!) and quotes like this one from former classmate Van Riehl:
I think this guy may have been on my Babe Ruth team, The Mets. Interestingly enough so was Rush Limbaugh.
Perhaps Jones and Limbaugh once shared a bottle of Haterade, which made them the haters they are today, ha ha.
Meanwhile, the local CBS News station in Cape Girardeau interviewed other former classmates, who said that in 1969 Jones was just a ball-playing kid who shaved normal-style and did normal things — not at all the dimestore Burt Reynolds-looking famewhore/wizard of personal branding that he eventually became:
Classmates and fellow ball players say they don’t remember Jones as being any different than any other high school student in those days.
“He was always a nice guy. He never did anything wrong,” said Karen Kirtley Baugher.
“I remember he was always smiling. We were surprised to see him getting national attention,” said Mae Holland Cuellar.
But somewhere down the line, someone stole Jones’s smile and replaced it with a frownstache. Where did that “nice guy” go? Is Limbaugh to blame? THEORY: Jones watched his old classmate reach the pinnacle of success and professional integrity, and grew bitter and envious (and the ’stache). He turned to “psycho-terror” religion to step outside of Limbaugh’s shadow and become his own man.
And at Politics Daily, Matt Lewis found it "weirdly secretive" that Limbaugh discussed the Koran-burning story without mentioning a childhood connection. Apparently, a disclaimer is necessary?
Newspapers such as the St Louis Post-Dispatch and USA Today have since followed suit, probably knowing simply placing both names in the same sentence will damage Limbaugh through this dubious association.
The bottom line: there's not much difference these days between the likes of Olbermann and the so-called mainstream media, who are always looking for new ways to smear their political opponents. This one takes the cake for the most pathetic smear campaign ever.
*** UPDATE: From Schultz Website: "Ed Asks... Will You March With Me?" ***
After a widely-ridiculedclaim he could easily beat Glenn Beck's DC rally turnout, MSNBC libtalker Ed Schultz has now declared his intention to hold a similar event at the Capitol. With help from labor unions and other Democratic Party-affiliated groups, Schultz hopes to top the (smallest) estimate of Restoring Honor's crowd count: 300,000.
All of that is fine, of course, as Schultz should have the same right to rally the troops as anyone else. Rather than take Beck's cue and remain above the fray, however, Schultz has instead chosen the obnoxious route, claiming it was not created in response to the Fox News Channel host's successful march.
Really, Ed? Was this already in the worksbefore Beck challenged you to outdraw his crowd?
See how much of Big Eddie's obnoxious boasting you can stomach in this clip from yesterday's radio program:
ED SCHULTZ (01:57): The march is on, October 2. Will you march with me? And thousands upon thousands. Oh, we'll get three hundred grand. We'll get 300,000, absolutely. We'll show you conservatives out there when big Eddie starts cranking on something we don't back down until it gets done. It's happening on October 2, I appreciate all of you going to our website at wegoted.com, there's a consortium of groups that are coming together.
SCHULTZ (03:10): And I will be a featured speaker. There will be other speakers and there will be some groups that are going to be obviously helping out with all of this, just like FreedomWorks and the billionaires and the six months of promotion helped out the Beckster. And I want to get something very clear right now. If Beck had not done his rally, this would have happened, OK?
This is about the country. This is about making sure that information is where it has to be, with the American people. And now it's about passion, now it's about emotion. And by the way, there will be some old and there will be some white people at the October 2 rally on the mall in Washington DC! They just won't be angry. And they won't be motivated by hate and they won't be race-baited.
Let's be clear: this is a pissing contest. But Beck scored points by keeping his event focused on the positive. It's doubtful Schultz has any idea how to do the same.
Another key distinction: expect MSNBC to use network resources to push Ed's event to an exponentially-greater extent than was seen by Fox. The libtalk cable outlet has a lot to lose if Schultz fails to draw a crowd.
Dr Laura To Howard Stern: Speak For Yourself, Buddy
MIRROR MAN
Dr Laura Blasts Stern's Assertion She Isn't Retiring
*** EQ EXCLUSIVE ***
Dr Laura Schlessinger has come out swinging against Howard Stern's speculation that her upcoming radio retirement is not what it appears. Accusing the longtime advice talker of career posturing (rather like what Howard himself is doing as his satellite radio deal expires later this year), Stern calls her departure "bulls**t".
In an exclusive reaction obtained by the Radio Equalizer in response to a Hollywood Reporter piece published Friday, Schlessinger said Stern "is talking about his own reflection in the mirror. He measures others by his own standards of behavior."
The publication included one recent on-air example from Stern, which we've included below.
Blasting Stern's inference that she's simply attempting to negotiate a better radio deal, Dr Laura responded by saying "I was specific about syndication and local (sponsors / affiliates dependent) radio."
She added: "I own my show, [so] am I negotiating with myself?"
Stern may well be attempting to shift attention away from his own antics ahead of what is expected to be a contentious period of negotiations over a potential satellite radio contract renewal.
What will these people do when they no longer have Dr Laura to kick around?
Lefties Devise New Torture Fantasies For FOX Talker
To those working inside the left-wing media's smear factory, the toughest job these days must surely be cooking up fresh new ways to destroy one's political opponents.
With just about every other anti-Glenn Beck violence fantasy already spoken for, comedian Lizz Winstead was compelled yesterday to become especially creative. After all, there are only so many ways to torture a Fox News Channel host.
Does Winstead, formerly of the Daily Show and Air America Radio, earn points here, or have we heard this one before?
You be the judge:
LIZZ WINSTEAD (28:59): Ed, I've always wished that somebody would invent, maybe you and I could go into business and do this, if somebody would invent, you know the shock collars that you put on the dog (Schultz laughs) and when they bark they get jarred? If we could make one that actually fact checked and we just put it around Glenn Beck's neck and when he spoke (pause), or just fake tears, if it could detect when tears were actually crocodile tears, and then you just get electrocuted by the water and jarred, like, that would be awesome!
Force him to wear it.
Hey guys, if you truly do run out of ideas, why not advocate cannibalism? We haven't heard that one yet. Hurry, hungry tribes await Beck's arrival.
Our "progressive" lefty friends have now spent several days fighting the results of a Politico / George Washington University survey that delivered ominous news for cable talk outlet MSNBC. While 42% of respondents said Fox News Channel was their main source of midterm election news and CNN for 30%, the NBC outlet fared much worse at just 12%. That's downright embarrassing.
Where is the popular appeal of this programming? It's taking narrowcasting to an extreme and the results are clear: low ratings, lousy polling results.
Our "progressive" lefty friends have now spent several days fighting the results of a Politico / George Washington University survey that delivered ominous news for cable talk outlet MSNBC. While 42% of respondents said Fox News Channel was their main source of midterm election news and CNN for 30%, the NBC outlet fared much worse at just 12%. That's downright embarrassing.
Where is the popular appeal of this programming? It's taking narrowcasting to an extreme and the results are clear: low ratings, lousy polling results.
