You've been doing Rosie Radio since last fall. Do you miss having a bigger platform like The View or The Rosie O'Donnell Show?
The radio show is the perfect platform for me. I don't have to wear makeup, I don't have to wear a bra. It's two hours long and there's no boss. There's no executive producer trying to slant the presentation. Honestly, although I enjoyed the opportunity to do "The View," the practicality of trying to talk about really serious, deep subjects in seven or eight minutes, with four other women trying to get airtime, it just was not conducive to anything that felt substantial to me.
I was not looking for a sound bite. I am not looking to be on "Crossfire" and fight with a 30-year-old pregnant girl. I was glad at the time I did it, that there was a woman on TV with a voice of dissent. I found out that the format of network TV is too constricting for me at 47 years old.
Ouch! Thanks for sharing the wardrobe details, Rosie!
And while O'Donnell would have readers believe she's perfectly happy to have left The View, this clip from her radio program, which aired last week, seems to reveal lingering bitterness:
Though her show was meant to focus on lifestyle issues, it's clear she's delivering a highly political program. During the above five minute segment alone, there are rants against Fox News, Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly. And in recent weeks, there have been digs against the Bush Administration and others.
Now, of course, it's all different. "And that's why Obama won the Nobel Prize, much to the chagrin of every carnival barker on Fox," she says. "But the fact of the matter is, the world stood up in unison and gratitude and said, thank you, perhaps the beacon of light and hope that America has been for 200 years is once again lit. It was diminished criminally by the last administration."
Whoa. So is this the kind of talk to expect on her show? No, she says. "I'm not a politician or political pundit.My desire is not to go after or be one of those people in the Glenn Beck/Bill O'Reilly arena. I don't want to play in their sandbox."
She'll talk about issues, she says, but approach them from a "human level."
Are the "10, 12 blue-chip advertisers ready to go" who expected non-political radio sticking around? It's hard to say, though the program now seems to regularly feature long segments without commercial breaks of any kind.
More ominous: Rosie apparently doesn't work Fridays, as that day's broadcast features best-of clips from earlier in the week.
What does she wear that day? We'd rather not know.
Instead, the dirty work was left to Internet smear sites, but even they struggled to come up with more than petty, childish insults or absurd attempts at undermining his presence there.
When Limbaugh's appointment was announced in October, it had the makings of a fodder goldmine for the left: "sexist" Rush judging women in bikinis. From the far-left Think Progress:
But the MAO’s [Miss America Organization] choice is most shocking because of his fairly solid history of making sexist remarks. He has once said that women love Hillary Clinton because they’ve “had two or three abortions,” that women “live longer than men because their lives are easier,” and that all women want is to be hired as “eye candy.” Limbaugh also regularly rails against feminism, the “feminization of this culture,” “feminazis,” and the “chickification” of America. Unsurprisingly, women don’t like Rush Limbaugh. One wonders what MAO President Art McCaster is so “thrilled” about.
Oh, Miss America pageant, why must you force us to watch the human body being grotesquely twisted this way and that, like some electrified lump of meat? But, hey, that’s enough about judge Rush Limbaugh strutting his stuff to “Poker Face” earlier in the week. What about the TLC broadcast of last night’s Las Vegas-held contest?
Elsewhere, the race card was whipped out faster than Al Sharpton could turn on his megaphone:
22-year-old Caressa Cameron of Fredericksburg, Virginia has become the seventh Black woman in history to be named Miss America.
The Virginia Commonwealth University student took home the crown Saturday beating out Miss California, Miss Tennessee, Miss Louisiana and Miss Kentucky for the title and a $50,000 scholarship.
Her win came as a surprise to some considering that Rush Limbaugh was judging the competition.
Along with Rush, Vivica Fox, jazz musician Dave Koz, Miss America 2002 Katie Harman, gymnast Shawn Johnson and former 'American Idol' finalist Brooke White also judged.
CALLER: Hey, I want to know if you've experienced the strange phenomenon yet that when a black contestant is on the stage, you "forget" that she's black.
RUSH: (laughing) You are not helping.
CALLER: It does happen.
RUSH: You are not helping me out here. (laughing) I forgot... (laughing) Actually the black contestants are not on the stage for 70 minutes or at least an hour, and it took that long for Matthews to realize that he'd forgotten Obama was black. Which, again, caused a little bit of a stir. But, no. We're colorblind here at the Miss America Pageant.
CALLER: What would the media had done to you if you had said something so completely off-the-wall, stupid, ignorant like that?
RUSH: Oh, I know. I've had a bunch of people if I had said that, if I had said what Harry Reid said, "He's a light-skinned black, doesn't speak with a Negro dialect unless he wants to. This guy can win!" If I had said that, oh, you'd still be here, why, you're still hearing about my comments that were not even about Donovan McNabb and it's five or six years after the fact now. So you're exactly right, a brilliant observation on your part.
CALLER: Rush, the Drive-By Media has forgotten how to blush.
RUSH: Yeah, I don't think you can embarrass them. It's pure propaganda all the time.
The best angle, the one most of the media missed (with exceptions), is that it's been years since Miss America had much relevance in our lives. Limbaugh's presence put the pageant back on the map, mostly likely the reason he was selected to judge contestants in the first place.
Senator's Slurred Speech Catches Mark Levin's Attention
Levin: Was Vermont's Leahy Loaded On Senate Floor?
It's no secret that Democrats are in a tizzy over the US Supreme Court's decision to ease government control over political campaign funding. They see the Citizens United vs Federal Election Commission ruling as opening the door for contributions to conservative candidates by business interests.
During his widely-panned State of the Union address earlier this week, Obama even chastised the justices behind the decision in a thuggish breach of established decorum.
Ed Schultz Trashes Congressman Who Questioned Ballot-Stuffing Assertions
Libtalker Enraged By Congressman's Floor Denunciation
Talk about twist-Ed, our favorite MSNBC libtalker just doesn't know when to quit while he's way, way behind.
After making an ass out of himself ahead of the special US Senate election in Massachusetts, Ed Schultz has refused to apologize for assertions he'd happily stuff the ballot box for Democrats were he a Bay State voter.
Is voter fraud something to joke about? Probably not, but Schultz really didn't seem to be kidding.
Not finding any of this funny was Rep Tom McClintock (R-CA), who questioned Schultz's reckless rhetoric on the House floor. Rather than back down, Big Eddie has again utilized his syndicated radio show, this time to denounce McClintock for daring to suggest there might be a problem.
First, see McClintock's House speech, followed by our exclusive clip featuring Schultz's reaction:
SCHULTZ (33:48): I don't know if you saw this or not but this numskull congressman from California decided to talk about me on the floor the other day, about this vote in Massachusetts, claiming that I was influencing the voter, was advocating voter fraud because I said I'd vote so many times.
That's how, that's how out of bounds stuff can get! Take one word, one sentence, you can't even say anything in jest anymore. [clip continues with anti-corporate rant]
Yes, in his twist-Ed world, denouncing voter fraud is akin to corporations buying elections, or something like that. Nice try, buddy.
When Will Reagan Take Responsibility For His Own Failures?
While it's now clear most libtalkers won't be affected by Air America Radio's abrupt shutdown, that hasn't stopped one of its fired hosts from lashing out at the "corporate support" that somehow props up its conservative counterparts.
Desperate to shift blame anywhere he can, Seattle sourpuss Ron Reagan has bucked the "open for business as usual" approach his counterparts have taken, using Salonto fire at will.
Taking shots at Rush Limbaugh, Scott Brown and others unrelated to AAR's closure, Reagan manages to avoid one key question: his own share of the responsibility.
From the piece:
They pulled the plug Thursday afternoon, but the patient was a perennial intensive-care case. From its inception, the network faced an uphill fight. While right-wing talk radio enjoys enormous corporate support, lefty chat has always been a harder sell. Charlie Kirecker, the chairman of Air America Media, did his best to move mountains over the last few weeks, but it’s tough shoveling with a teaspoon. At times it looked as if investors might be found who could accept losses over the midterm in hopes that the company would eventually turn around and show a profit.
In the end, though, what Charlie somewhat euphemistically called “a very difficult economic climate” combined with the tenuous prospects of talk radio in general and AA’s admittedly checkered history gave even the most promising suitors pause.
So, just when the left could use it most, a platform for progressive thought and opinion disappears.
These are strange days for the nation, the Democratic Party and progressives in particular. Having elected a fresh, dynamic, forward-thinking young president with a mandate for real systemic change, we’re seeing way too much of the same old same old. Democrats control both houses of Congress, yet seem incapable of overcoming minority party intransigence.
Hey Ron, how about your ratings? Where were they? How about station affiliates- how many did you bring to the table?
Were you entertaining, or a bore, mostly reading from a script and spending much of the show coming across as angry and bitter toward your successful conservative rivals? Did you bring a broad, intelligent perspective to the debate, or was it merely a reflection of dimwitted Seattle white liberal parochialism?
And when conservative talk enjoys "corporate support", isn't that because there's an audience for advertisers to reach?
Finally, Ron, when and where have you ever succeeded at any media pursuit?
Beyond hate speech, there wasn't much to Ron's show. Perhaps his worst crime, however, was in boring the audience by reading pre-prepared monologues rather than utilizing the spontaneity normally found in the medium.
Until Reagan is willing to take his share of the blame for preventing the network from succeeding, his other complaints should be dismissed out-of-hand.
Talk about a bizarre week: a Republican is elected in Massachusetts, Air America runs out of $ugar daddies and Obama seeks to destroy the very banks he spent last year bailing out.
But this one may be the week's topper: Rep Dennis Kucinich (D-UFO) sounding more coherent and intuitive about the average American voter than perhaps anyone else in his party. Are we living in a parallel universe?
KUCINICH (39:25): I met with people who were, you know, unfairly ridiculed as being just a bunch of teabaggers and frankly they had basic economic concerns just like everyone else, they felt that government wasn't listening to them, and this is where the Democratic Party better wake up.
So while others in his party look to make excuses that deflect blame elsewhere, the Ohio representative's message is short and simple: wake up, stop trashing the electorate and figure out what makes them unhappy. Is it really that difficult?
It's also possible that some of its programs (Montel Williams, Ron Reagan, weekend shows with Arianna Huffington and RFK Jr) will be picked up by another network such as DialGlobal, which currently syndicates Ed Schultz, Stephanie Miller, Thom Hartmann and Bill Press.
Meanwhile, Mike Malloy continues in independent syndication, while Rhodes was hired last year by Premiere Radio Networks, which also oversees Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, among others.
Al Sharpton is heard via Syndication One on a number of African-American stations and satellite radio. Others, such as Lynn Samuels, have long been heard via the latter medium.
What remains of liberal talk radio survives for two reasons: it is carried via XM Sirius and / or the host is also regularly featured on cable television, especially via MSNBC. Sirius Left has no Air America Programming on its current schedule.
The Air America radio network is no more. They are closing the doors on Monday, and the great experiment featuring talk radio with a lefty tilt is over.
Read this from their website.
The truth is, this network was dead a long time ago. They're just burying it Monday at 6pm PT.
We started 960 the Quake in October of 2004, with a lot of promise, anticipation and excitement, with a virtually 24-7 Air America schedule. We were all in. You were there with us. It was so exciting.
Fast forward to now.
Management screw ups, overspending, talent management, it was a mess from almost the get go. There were truly some fine, dedicated radio people there that were part of the launch team, but they never had a chance.
They offered un-entertaining programming. They deserved this. We are in the ENTERTAINMENT business, I am going to say this for the ten billionth time. We are not in the POLITICAL business.
And now, sadly, I have been proven right. And I'm not one bit happy about it. I once dreamed of an Air America West, in the bay area. I was in,. I wanted to play. I offered them my heart, soul, and station once. They bit the hand that fed them in San Francisco and the Bay Area.
Don't cry for them. The marketplace has spoken.
GOOD NEWS: Green 960 Online and Radio is NOT GOING ANYWHERE! We do not carry any AA programming during the day, we will offer Norman Goldman temporarily at midnight weekdays, replacing the (very) talented Jack Rice and Rachel Maddow, who sadly, is not offering a radio product (for now)
Stay tuned, as they say. I will have much more to say in this space soon.
Now, your thoughts...
While Air America certainly was a mess from day one, thanks to corporate disorganization, sleazy funding scandals, high salaries and expenditures (staff writers for talk radio!), the other networks are run without the bloat and frills.
The remaining question is not why it failed, but what it kept it going for so long. Will we ever know who has sustained it over the past few years?
Mark Levin Responds To Glenn Beck's Crazed Tirade Against Scott Brown
CUTTING HIS BRAKE LINES
Beck's World Domination Bid Threatened By Man In Truck
*** UPDATED: GLENN BECK ALSO USES TV SHOW TO BASH SCOTT BROWN ***
In the deranged world of Glenn Beck, 2010 is meant to be the Year of Global Domination. He's even got a Plan designed to reach this totalitarian goal.
Sadly for Glenn, out of nowhere, a man with a pick-up truck in Wrentham, Massachusetts has become a national political superstar by taking a wrecking ball to the Democratic Party's political machine.
Has Scott Brown derailed Beck's dream of limitless power? Probably not, but the syndicated radio / cable television host clearly feels threatened nonetheless. What else explains Beck's assertion that the Senator-Elect from Massachusetts could see his career end "with a dead intern"?
It's Glenn's way of cutting that truck's brake lines just as Scott prepares to drive it to Capitol Hill.
While conservatives and independent voters celebrated Brown's victory over a sinister political machine that has ruled with an iron fist for half a century, a pouncing Beck projected scorn and derision during today's radio program:
Beck's unhinged performance isn't sitting well with fellow syndicated talker and best-selling author Mark Levin. Reached via email a short time ago, Levin had this reaction to Beck's crazed rant:
You know, the really ignorant thing about criticizing Brown is that in kidding around with his girls, it actually shows he is a good family man. Ask any guy who is a father of girls: doing something deliberately to provoke the "oh daddy!" squirm of embarrassment from the teenage daughters is something only a father with a good, comfortable relationship does (and he never misses a chance to do so).
If smearing Brown was a joke, I don't think it was very funny. It's very weird.
Oh, I know. It's just comedy. But it won't be in two years when liberals supporting Brown's opponent troll it up to initiate a discussion around Scott Brown's victory speech - without the context of the whole thing. Nah, they'll just be citing a former CPAC speaker to engage in smear tactics against Brown because Beck is being given political credibility by the Right.
Most won't appreciate that, now. But Beck's radio show which, truthfully, relatively few people listen to compared to the other national hosts, will provide the Left with a treasure trove of remarks taken out of context to hurt the Right at the polls. But, why should Beck care? He's getting paid for it, after all.
If Beck were really a movement conservative, he would recognize this. So what is his real agenda?
During Monday's program, he told radio listeners he'd double the fraud (just pay shipping and handling) and vote "20 times" instead of ten during today's special Senate election.
Why Schultz seems to believe funny business at the polls is a joke is hard to understand, but here's the clip and quotes nonetheless:
SCHULTZ (01:47): An apology right off the top here on the Ed Schultz show today, great to have you with us. I misspoke on Friday. I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I meant to say, if I could vote 20 times, that's what I'd do (guffaws) This has been a wonderful weekend for us. I've had more entertaining email from these right-wing nutjobs than ever before. It must be, it's gotta be a record for the Ed Schultz show, now in its seventh year.
SCHULTZ (03:41): They want me off the air, of course they do! This Radio Equalizer guy or whoever the hell he is, they dissect every word, they'll take a clip out and they'll say he said this. Let me be very clear - I'm not advocating voter fraud, I'm just telling you what I would do. That's how bad I want Scott Brown to lose!
Proving you're never too old to revisit the days of junior high school-level playground talk, libtalker Stephanie Miller used today's syndicated radio show to crudely attack State Senator Scott Brown (R-MA), the front-runner in the race to replace Ted Kennedy in Massachusetts.
Also in the race is Democrat Martha Coakley.
Again, who needs substantive issues when vulgar references will suffice?
MILLER (35:35): So let’s turn to another subject. We've got a big week a big race tomorrow. You of course point out that the Senate race is even close in MA is clear evidence of the incompetence of the DNC without Howard Dean running it. Boy howdy I second you on that one. And then you say if they screw up this race they screw up whatever health care reform might possibly get passed, which is what Barney Frank said as well.
LEE PAPA (GUEST): Yeah unless they go ahead and just pass the Senate Bill in the House, which I’m sure they’d take that medicine and do it. I just, who is this (Scott Brown) guy? Other then you know he was a State Senator in MA...
MILLER: He’s a naked guy!
PAPA: Yeah he the naked guy, you know like I said if you’re going to be a tea bagger you may as well show.... anyway.
Who needs democracy when it leads to outcomes one might not like? That's the apparent philosophy of MSNBC's Ed Schultz, who told radio listeners yesterday he'd vote "ten times" if he lived in Massachusetts.
Here's the caught-on-tape clip and transcript:
SCHULTZ (23:02): I tell you what, if I lived in Massachusetts I'd try to vote 10 times. I don't know if they'd let me or not, but I'd try to. Yeah, that's right. I'd cheat to keep these bastards out. I would. 'Cause that's exactly what they are.
On the eve of a crucial US Senate election in Massachusetts, one of Democratic Party Nominee Martha Coakley's victims has come forward with a moving account of the prosecutorial misconduct that led to seventeen undeserved years in prison.
To this day, Amirault is forced to wear an ankle bracelet and register as a Level III sex offender, thanks to Martha's selfish cruelty.
Now, Amirault is coming forward to talk about the extra suffering his family faced as a result of Coakley's political grandstanding and prosecutorial misconduct. During an interview today on the Boston based / regionally-syndicated Howie Carr Show, Amirault talked about what he endured and Martha's role in the injustice.
Here are the exclusive Radio Equalizer clips of this afternoon's interview with Tookie:
The Wall Street Journal's Dorothy Rabinowitz won an award for her crusading investigative journalism on the Amiraults and the Fells Acres case. In today's edition, she offered this update:
The accusations against the Amiraults might well rank as the most astounding ever to be credited in an American courtroom, but for the fact that roughly the same charges were brought by eager prosecutors chasing a similar headline—making cases all across the country in the 1980s. Those which the Amiraults' prosecutors brought had nevertheless, unforgettable features: so much testimony, so madly preposterous, and so solemnly put forth by the state. The testimony had been extracted from children, cajoled and led by tireless interrogators.
Gerald, it was alleged, had plunged a wide-blade butcher knife into the rectum of a 4-year-old boy, which he then had trouble removing. When a teacher in the school saw him in action with the knife, she asked him what he was doing, and then told him not to do it again, a child said. On this testimony, Gerald was convicted of a rape which had, miraculously, left no mark or other injury. Violet had tied a boy to a tree in front of the school one bright afternoon, in full view of everyone, and had assaulted him anally with a stick, and then with "a magic wand." She would be convicted of these charges. Cheryl had cut the leg off a squirrel.
Other than such testimony, the prosecutors had no shred of physical or other proof that could remotely pass as evidence of abuse. But they did have the power of their challenge to jurors: Convict the Amiraults to make sure the battle against child abuse went forward. Convict, so as not to reject the children who had bravely come forward with charges.
Gerald was sent to prison for 30 to 40 years, his mother and sister sentenced to eight to 20 years. The prosecutors celebrated what they called, at the time "a model, multidisciplinary prosecution." Gerald's wife, Patricia, and their three children—the family unfailingly devoted to him—went on with their lives. They spoke to him nightly and cherished such hope as they could find, that he would be restored to them.
Hope arrived in 1995, when Judge Robert Barton ordered a new trial for the women. Violet, now 72, and Cheryl had been imprisoned eight years. This toughest of judges, appalled as he came to know the facts of the case, ordered the women released at once. Judge Barton—known as Black Bart for the long sentences he gave criminals—did not thereafter trouble to conceal his contempt for the prosecutors. They would, he warned, do all in their power to hold on to Gerald, a prediction to prove altogether accurate.
No less outraged, Superior Court Judge Isaac Borenstein presided over a widely publicized hearings into the case resulting in findings that all the children's testimony was tainted. He said that "Every trick in the book had been used to get the children to say what the investigators wanted." The Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly—which had never in its 27 year history taken an editorial position on a case—published a scathing one directed at the prosecutors "who seemed unwilling to admit they might have sent innocent people to jail for crimes that had never occurred."
It was clear, when Martha Coakley took over as the new Middlesex County district attorney in 1999, that public opinion was running sharply against the prosecutors in the case. Violet Amirault was now gone. Ill and penniless after her release, she had been hounded to the end by prosecutors who succeeded in getting the Supreme Judicial Court to void the women's reversals of conviction. She lay waiting all the last days of her life, suitcase packed, for the expected court order to send her back to prison. Violet would die of cancer before any order came in September 1997.
That left Cheryl alone, facing rearrest. In the face of the increasing furor surrounding the case, Ms. Coakley agreed to revise and revoke her sentence to time served—but certain things had to be clear, she told the press. Cheryl's case, and that of Gerald, she explained, had nothing to do with one another—a startling proposition given the horrific abuse charges, identical in nature, of which all three of the Amiraults had been convicted.
No matter: When women were involved in such cases, the district attorney explained, it was usually because of the presence of "a primary male offender." According to Ms. Coakley's scenario, it was Gerald who had dragged his mother and sister along. Every statement she made now about Gerald reflected the same view, and the determination that he never go free. No one better exemplified the mindset and will of the prosecutors who originally had brought this case.
Before agreeing to revise Cheryl's sentence to time served, Ms. Coakley asked the Amiraults' attorney, James Sultan, to pledge—in exchange—that he would stop representing Gerald and undertake no further legal action on his behalf. She had evidently concluded that with Sultan gone—Sultan, whose mastery of the case was complete—any further effort by Gerald to win freedom would be doomed. Mr. Sultan, of course, refused.
In 2000, the Massachusetts Governor's Board of Pardons and Paroles met to consider a commutation of Gerald's sentence. After nine months of investigation, the board, reputed to be the toughest in the country, voted 5-0, with one abstention, to commute his sentence. Still more newsworthy was an added statement, signed by a majority of the board, which pointed to the lack of evidence against the Amiraults, and the "extraordinary if not bizarre allegations" on which they had been convicted.
Editorials in every major and minor paper in the state applauded the Board's findings. District Attorney Coakley was not idle either, and quickly set about organizing the parents and children in the case, bringing them to meetings with Acting Gov. Jane Swift, to persuade her to reject the board's ruling. Ms. Coakley also worked the press, setting up a special interview so that the now adult accusers could tell reporters, once more, of the tortures they had suffered at the hands of the Amiraults, and of their panic at the prospect of Gerald going free.
On Feb. 20, 2002, six months after the Board of Pardons issued its findings, the governor denied Gerald's commutation.
That Coakley may be rewarded for her past misdeeds only serves to revictimize an innocent family.
For Democrats, Tuesday's special election offers a lot to lose and almost nothing to gain: at best, they hang on to what is considered the ultimate safe seat. But if Republicans manage to come close or even squeak out a victory, it could be considered one of the greatest political upsets of all time.
While libtalkers remain oddly quiet on the race, even ignoring the topic altogether (near silence from Air America), with one exception to be discussed below, conservative hosts from coast to coast are devoting entire programs to the latest news.
Howie Carr: the regionally-syndicated host, Boston Heraldcolumnist and best-selling author has the advantage of a network of stations in Massachusetts and New England, from Cape Cod's WXTK-FM to Worcester's WCRN, Springfield's WHYN and flagship outlet WRKO/ Boston. Carr has pounded on the Democrat in recent weeks and months, doing what he can to counter the questionable antics of the partisan Coakley backers / faux journalists at the Boston Globe.
If Carr can get his troops to the polls on Tuesday, it may well provide the winning margin for Scott Brown.
Margery Eagan: a struggling morning libtalker at the ratings-challenged WTKK-FM and Boston Herald columnist. Adamantly supporting Coakley, she believes her candidate will win as a result of female support on January 19.
Michael Graham: a token conservative on the increasingly left-leaning WTKK, Graham is also a National Review Online blogger and Herald columnist. Hot on the trail of campaign scoops and polling data.
Rush Limbaugh: determined to stay out of the discussion for as long as possible, Limbaugh (widely carried on WRKO, WXTK and other top-rated Bay State outlets) switched gears this week, devoting much of his time to the race. Rush told listeners this week he didn't want to become a campaign issue, but Coakley placed Limbaugh in an anti-Brown hit piece anyway.
RUSH: The headline: "Reporter Takes Tumble, Chasing Massachusetts Candidate." That's not what happened! The reporter was pushed to the sidewalk. "A reporter trying to question Massachusetts Senate candidate Martha Coakley was involved in a scuffle with one of her aides. John McCormack of the Weekly Standard fell Tuesday night as he tried to speak with the Democrat while simultaneously videotaping her and trying to pass a metal grate on a Washington sidewalk. Photos and video of the incident show Coakley aide Michael Meehan trying to help McCormack up. A scuffle broke out as Meehan tried to block McCormack and determine if he was an operative of a rival campaign." He's not an operative. He's an accredited journalist. They know who he is. He's the guy, by the way, that Dede Scozzafava called the cops on in New York 23 were approaching her as she tried to get in her car. This is just amazingly outrageous and hilarious.
RUSH: Now, back to this Coakley story. This Boston Globe story, it is comical. It is to wrong as to almost be a parody. See, this is exactly what's wrong with print media. Everything that they write can be fact-checked by their readers. All one has to do is go to the Internet and look at the video and see that this reporter did not "fall down." He did not "stumble." He was pushed down by a guy named Michael Meehan (he's been identified, or it's pretty close) and then Meehan hurriedly, "Oh, ho-ho. Let me help you up, man. What happened here?" and the way this is reported is just comical. "A reporter trying to question Massachusetts Senate candidate Martha Coakley was involved in a scuffle with one of her aides." So far so good. "John McCormack of the Weekly Standard fell Tuesday night as he tried to speak with the Democrat while simultaneously videotaping her and trying to pass a metal grate..."
He was pushed into the metal gate and then ended up "on a Washington sidewalk. Photos and video of the incident show Coakley aide Michael Meehan trying to help McCormack up." Yeah. That's true. But the "photos and video of the incident" also show Meehan pushing and shoving Coakley into the metal grate and to the sidewalk. "Meehan tried to block McCormack and determine if he was an operative of a rival campaign," when everybody knows he's a journalist. He's been asking questions in this campaign throughout. It's a taught tactic. Now, something similar, ladies and gentlemen, has happened in the Gallup poll, the way something's been reported here. In the Gallup poll, Obama's ratings on the economy and health care have reached a new low in the Gallup poll. Do you know what their headline is? "Obama Approval on Terrorism Up to 49%. -- "Americans' views of Barack Obama's handling of terrorism remain closely divided, but mark a slight improvement from before the Christmas Day bombing attempt, with more Americans now approving than disapproving of how he is handling the issue. ... While Obama's approval rating on terrorism has inched up, his approval ratings for handling the economy and healthcare have declined slightly since they were last measured, in late November. His current 40% approval rating on the economy and 37% rating on healthcare are the lowest of his presidency to date." Just a slight decline, just a slight decline out there. Oh! But he's really, really up on terrorism. So two great examples here of how the bad news is, in the Gallup poll, buried. Well, it's not buried but it doesn't lead, the terrorism stuff does. And this Boston Globe story on this incident with Meehan and McCormack is just comical. And as I say, it is exactly why they're having big problem.
Syndicated talkers: in Boston, many are not carried as the medium remains focused on local issues. But Laura Ingraham and Michael Savage are popular on WRKO, while Sean Hannity delivers top ratings on the Cape's WXTK-FM, the number one radio station in that market.
The latter's impact is much greater on television, of course, where his Fox News Channel program has covered the race extensively. Hannity has also interviewed Brown for both of his programs.
Bloggers: conservative blogging in New England has only recently become well-established, where sites like Red Mass Group, Hub Politics and our own SaveWRKO have strongly fought for Brown. Traffic (and influence) is significantly higher than a few years ago. On the left, Blue Mass is perhaps the best-known site.
National blogs and political websites have been providing outstanding coverage during this race. Where would we begin?
The bottom line: media outlets are tripping over each other to get the hottest scoops on what has become the hottest political race in recent memory. Just a few months ago, this would have seemed unthinkable.
Though the latter two have never met, Massachusetts Democrat Martha Coakley sees no problem tying Republican Scott Brown to Rush Limbaugh. With just a week to go in a special US Senate race Coakley thought she'd won outright in the primary, a surging Brown has given the entrenched establishment politician the scare of a lifetime.
Particularly alarming for Coakley: polls showing high favorable ratings for her opponent in a state where that isn't normally possible. Worse, one overseen by a Democratic pollster shows him ahead by one point, usually unthinkable.
CAP: Cameras Expose Americans To GOP Talking Points!
*** FOR FREQUENTLY-UPDATED COVERAGE OF BREAKING NEWS IN THE MASSACHUSETTS US SENATE RACE, SEE OUR OTHER SITE ***
When historians look back upon 2010's Great Democratic Party Implosion, it's unlikely they'll miss the bizarre campaignagainst C-SPAN that is now actively underway. To the left, open, televised floor debate is nothing more than a right-wing tool used to disillusion the American people!
Welcome to the "progressive" movement's New Math, where C-SPAN = Fox News!
IGOR VOLSKY, CENTER FOR AMERICAN PROGRESS (44:53): I don't think that opening up the negotiations to C-SPAN cameras is a very good idea. Just because we saw what happened on the Senate floor. Nothing meaningful happened...all because they were grandstanding for the C-SPAN cameras...
The real improvements to the bill occurred through the Reid amendments that were introduced in the final hours. And you know, it seems to me that when you consider how this debate played out in 2009 in front of the C-SPAN cameras with all of the hearings and the floor debate in the House and the Senate that it has really become a sideshow theater production and the real work happens behind closed doors.
VOLSKY (47:38): I think the goal should be to get [health-care reform] done and to get it done quickly, and the longer we draw it out with these things being filmed and taped, the longer we have for these artificial speeches and this rhetoric that I think is really part of the reason why the American public doesn't support the health-care bills, because they've heard all of these talking points, this kind of stream of misinformation.
C-SPAN and this ample opportunity the Republicans have to reinforce their talking points day in and day out is responsible for at least part of this dissatisfaction you now see [regarding] the bills.
Who will be demonized next, Bugs Bunny? Aren't these people quickly running out of scapegoats?