The Radio Equalizer: Brian Maloney

28 October 2011

Politico Reporter Makes Bizarre Comment About Cain Ad


What Exactly Is Beltway Scribe Suggesting?

Yes, that now-infamous "Smoking Man" Herman Cain ad is strange, there's no doubt about it. What exactly were his advisers thinking?

To exploit the situation for cheap political points, however, leave it to our liberal media friends. But what happens when the results are far creepier than the campaign's misstep?

Here, watch as Beltway scribe Glenn Thrush of the liberal Politico makes a disturbing observation. What exactly is he suggesting?

From the Bill Press Show, October 27 2011:

GLENN THRUSH, POLITICO (1:26:05): Didn't that just strike you as sort of weirdly being post-coital? '

BILL PRESS: Because of the cigarette?

THRUSH: And the smile.

And here's the
ad in question (in case you've been living under a rock):

Since his aide is the one taking a puff, followed by Cain himself smiling, what exactly is Thrush insinuating? Why do liberals so often resort to childish gay-baiting to undermine their opponents?

As to the ad itself, it's peculiar, but could it in fact be highly effective?

Given its widespread attention, it's possible to make that case. Finding the open use of a lit cigarette bold and daring, Rush Limbaugh certainly thinks so. Of course, on cue, that's led to predictable liberal blowback.

The bottom line: we're all talking about Cain and his campaign, so you'd better believe it's paid for itself! When was the last time Herman's opponents generated this kind of buzz?

25 October 2011

Ron Reagan: Republicans Engaging In Voter-Suppression Schemes


...Or So It Seems

Did you know there's an active effort underway to prevent millions of Americans from voting in next year's elections? Neither did we, but sure enough, eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeevil Republicans are behind this sinister scheme.

Thankfully, we have our Democratic Party friends to sound the alarm on this coordinated trickery, which they say will deny five million their legal right to cast a ballot.

And happily spreading the word is remarkably well-adjusted, not at all unhinged Ron Reagan, who filled in for Arianna Huffington this week on Both Sides Now.

Of course, they've obscured the GOP's real concern: voter fraud. On their website, Dems don't provide any specifics, probably no accident.

For his part, Reagan claims there's no voter fraud in this country (weren't they screaming about this in 2000?) so why demand IDs at polling places?

It must be RACIST!!!!!

From the most recent edition of Both Sides Now with Arianna Huffington and Mary Matalin:

RON REAGAN (3:40): There simply isn't a big problem with voter fraud, so what's happening is that we're getting a big problem with voter suppression. The Republicans know that the fewer people who vote, the more it favors them, so they'd like fewer people to vote, and that is profoundly anti-democratic.

Exactly HOW are Republicans engaging in "voter suppression"? Beyond advocating for proof of identity (how many adults really don't have some form of it?) there's nothing to point to that backs up "progressive" allegations.

What's the REAL agenda here? Simple: over the next 12 months, condition Americans to believe the GOP can only win by cheating. That's the bottom line.

20 October 2011

Libtalkers Cheer Book-Burning, Slam Americans As Too Dumb To Appreciate Obama


Libtalkers: Burn Those Books, Baby!

Isn't it funny how "progressives" routinely claim conservatives are actually card-carrying fascists? So what exactly does it mean when lefties spend the day cheering the burning of books by American troops in Afghanistan?

Of course, it's OKAY to torch books when they're written by eeeeeeevil people with whom we disagree.

During today's Stephanie Miller Show, we caught the host and her entourage positively giddy over the Bill O'Reilly-authored bonfire. What happens, however, when theirs are next to go up in smoke?

Things became even more surreal a bit later as Miller and a guest lamented stupid Americans who fail to appreciate Obama's enviable military prowess.

Here are both clips:

STEPHANIE MILLER: Oh my goodness, I love this story. Troops in Afghanistan burned donated copies of Bill O’Reilly’s books.

JIM WARD: Ha ha ha!

CHRIS LAVOIE: Oh yeah, this is awesome.

MILLER: (laughing) According to Gawker what did soldiers in Afghanistan do with copies of Pinheads and Patriots their Dad’s sent in a care package? They set them on fire.

That’s great!

MILLER: A tumbler maintained by a soldier stationed in Afghanistan said some jerk sent us two boxes of this awful book.

WARD: Ha ha ha!

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

DAVID BENDER (STEPHANIE MILLER SHOW GUEST): I wish I thought that any of this (Gaddafi killed) mattered. I mean you (Miller) and I were together when Osama Bin Laden when the President made that announcement we both looked at each other and thought this was an extraordinary moment that the country might come together, they might appreciate this President. That was a bump that lasted what, a month?

Is it is it a good thing to show that this President that this Secretary of State this administration can deal with the rest of the world, yes. But, American’s are very myopic. They think Libya is probably a state. I mean if you asked Herman Cain he’d say it was Libya-stan.

Meanwhile, it's been a banner week for "progressive" hate speech (an embarrassment of riches!) and we've been busy making clips for your enjoyment. We'll catch up here as soon as possible.

15 October 2011

Ed Schultz: I'll Give Occupy Protesters Nightly Program Time


Schultz: 'Occupy' In Tune With Working People


As part of their relentless quest to produce the tiniest-possible ratings, MSNBC hosts have had to become especially clever to chase away remaining viewers.

In a fresh breakthrough, however, talker Ed Schultz says he'll give Occupy Wall Street protesters DAILY COVERAGE until the last trust fund baby leaves the park.

Congratulations, Big Ed, you've just uncovered the holy grail of bad television programming! Chris Matthews must be scrambling to meet this fresh challenge.

As Schultz's pledge coincides precisely with Obama 2012's campaign strategy, this is no accident. Team Four More Years Of Misery believes the Occupy movement is key to re-election.

That means Schultz can most likely turn his program into a stealth Obama 2012 infomercial without running afoul of the FCC or Federal Election Commission.

So feel free to knock yourself out, Ed!

From Friday's Ed Schultz radio show, here's the audio. We especially love his assertion that "working people" are spending their free time in solidarity with this extended gathering of the nation's spoiled brats:

ED SCHULTZ (11:11): And I got news for you - these folks, they ain't going away. They are not going away. 'Cause this is what the working folks are talking about. This is what the cabbies in New York are talking about, this is what the cabbies in Washington are talking about, this is what the truck drivers are listening to, this is what the construction workers are doing over a lunch break.

They're hearing this stuff and they're seeing it on TV. And I'm going to put it on TV every night. I'm going to put it on TV every night 'til the last protester goes home and, you know what, this is going to be a story until the next election. And these folks are *not* going to disengage. They will be there.

Bonus material! Listen as sheltered, Oregon-based "progressive" bubble libtalker Thom Hartmann attempts to give Obama credit for inspiring Arab Spring revolutions! It's truly yuk-worthy:

THOM HARTMANN (37:03): President Obama...went to the Middle East, went to Egypt and stood next to a dictator and said, 'You people shouldn't have to put up with dictators anymore,' and guess what, [the] first country to go down was Egypt.

He created the Arab Spring.

Hey Thom, what about Tunisia? Didn't that come first? Did Obama cause that, or was it the self-immolation of a young merchant fed up with government tyranny?

13 October 2011

Hideous Libtalkers: Let's Poison Bachman, Ridicule Christie's 'Thing'


Lefty Hate Machine Not Limited To Frontrunners

Don't our "progressive" friends have better things to do than pick on struggling campaigns and those not running at all? Apparently not: left-wing politics circa 2011-2012 are all about taking the cheapest and meanest shots possible.

And if it sells extra tickets for a "sexy liberal comedy" tour, all the better.

This week's libtalk Cruelty Capital is most certainly the Stephanie Miller Show, where Steph & Friends have made disgusting cracks about poisoning Michele Bachmann (!!) and ridiculed Chris Christie's private parts.

How it's sometimes done: have a producer make the nasty comment, then "disavow" it while giggling away into the next commercial break. Next time, it's the host's turn. By spreading the hate, no one person in the studio appears particularly horrible.

Here are two especially disgusting examples:

STEPHANIE MILLER: What were you just playing there Edie? What instrument did you choose there? What was that?

EDIE MCCLURG [ACTRESS]: The bean bead pod from Jazz fest.

MILLER: You have an amazing array of phallic-shaped percussive instruments.

WARD: Phallic? In some species, maybe.

Well yes, if someone sat on it. That’s how Chris Christie’s looks. Oh come on I don’t know that for sure. If you had a lot of weight on it, it would be flat.

LAVOIE: You can’t sit on your thing.

MILLER: He (Chris Christie) probably hasn’t seen his (penis) in years, how would he know

Here's the second, lister-ical outburst:

JIM WARD (STEPHANIE MILLER PRODUCER): Is it still a lie if you’re stupid?

He [Marcus Bachmann] could hire a lot more de-gayers at his de-gaying clinic.

I think someone should feed her (Michele Bachmann) some listeria-filled cantaloupe.



WARD: She [Michele Bachmann] doesn’t want food regulation or food safety of any kind!

MILLER: Jim Ward meant that in a theoretical sense and the Stephanie Miller show wishes to distance itself from Jim Ward in general. (Staff laughs)

WARD: Put your money where your mouth is!

MILLER and LAVOIE: Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

WARD: Put your money where your listeria-filled mouth is if you don't want food safety!

Is it really OK to
suggest the poisoning of one's political opponents? Perhaps in Russia or Venezuela, but America? Welcome to "progressive" politics in 2011.

09 October 2011

Sharpton, Professor Debate Cain's 'Blackness'


Libtalkers Caught Off-Guard By Herman's Rise

Somehow certain conservatives would never support a black presidential candidate, lefty commentators have been caught off-guard by business leader Herman Cain's sudden rise.

Still under the impression Rick Perry was the GOP's frontrunner, libtalkers hadn't even begun to concoct an anti-Cain smear campaign. With the emergence of strong polling data, however, that is quickly changing.

Below, find two examples of how Cain's increasingly effective effort has perplexed the left.

For his part, Al Sharpton's annoyed at the mere existence of a Cain candidacy within the Republican Party! How could Herman possibly be ideologically sincere given his upbringing and background?

Professor Karen Hunter, Sharpton's guest, believes the reverend is badly underestimating Cain's political potential.

Sharpton really slips when he admits openly that Obama's background isn't terribly American, that he could understand any "confusion" (read: non-liberal adherence) by the president (think Indonesia, etc), but not Cain, given his Southern childhood.

Hunter's sentiments are even more bizarre: she seems to like Cain (despite ideological incompatibility) but feels the repeated need to qualify her praise within the boundaries of campus-based lefty political correctness (he's not a sell-out, not Clarence Thomas, not married to a white woman, etc).

Hey Karen, ever thought of cutting that baggage loose? It's truly liberating.

Below, here's the clip from Sharpton's syndicated radio show, it may be the most revealing exchange we've ever featured on this site:

AL SHARPTON: If Herman Cain were to come on my show radio or TV, I would say to him how could anyone in their right mind that grew up in the South and saw what they saw, or stand up there and act like anybody and that is unemployed and that is not rich did it to themselves starting with your momma. (Referring to Guest Professor Karen Hunter of Hunter College) I could have understood someone with Barack Obama’s background having that kind of confusion. So, I would only assume that he is either socially ignorant or playing games to get votes. Cause he couldn’t possibly have grown up and come to that conclusion unless he was one or the other.

KAREN HUNTER: I pray that you get him on your show, but here what I’m going to say to you. He [Herman Cain] is not Clarence Thomas. He’s not Alan Keyes. He’s not the stereotypical or typical sell-out black person who’s pandering to white people. This man is married to a black woman, raising black kids and in his mind is authentically black, went to Morehouse [College]. This is not the typical and I’m gonna tell you Rev, there’s gonna be a lot of people, the more he gets out there and talks.

SHARPTON: That first of all first of all wait a minute, slow down. You ain’t got to be Clarence Thomas and Alan Keys to be wrong. To stand up and say the N word doesn’t bother me two day after he called it insensitive. To say it’s insensitive, go meet with Donald Trump and come out and say the exact opposite. To say that people are causing their own unemployment, therefore they ain’t rich is wrong. I don’t care if its Alan Keys wrong, or Clarence Thomas wrong, or Herman Cain wrong. It’s just wrong. To say that a flat 9 9 9 across the board which would give rich people an advantage over work, it’s just wrong. It’s wrong! And you can talk all you want about authentically he’s more black, you don’t see black people gravitating toward him. You see right wing whites.

HUNTER: I’m gonna tell you though and again, I’m not supporting him and we had eight years of wrong. All right we had four year of wrong and reelected four more years more wrong, so this country’s use to (Sharpton interrupts)

SHARPTON: Yeah but come on the black vote that George Bush was got was marginal and Herman Cain will get marginal black vote, so don’t act like he’s resonating in the black community, he’s not even going to the black community. Herman Cain’s not even going to the black community.

HUNTER: No he’s not and in his mind he doesn’t necessarily feel he has to. I’m not (Sharpton interrupts)

SHARPTON: Well, he’s called us brainwashed. He says 75% of us is brainwashed. So he sees us as a backboard to shoot against to try to get the net into the right. He’s not trying to get black votes.

HUNTER: All I’m saying is don’t sleep on him. All I’m saying is don’t overlook and dismiss him and think that just because he’s saying a lot of whacked out and crazy things that he’s not going to have some momentum. And I would personally love to see him go up against Barack Obama. But, I’m just saying Rev there’s a lot more to this then you (Sharpton interrupts)

SHARPTON: If I could wish anything for President Obama, I would wish that Herman Cain or Rick Perry be his opponent. Cause he could save all that money and invest it in jobs. That he’s got to raise for reelection. But, I don’t think that Herman Cain will win one primary because I think that at the end of the day that the people that are cheering him like what he’s saying , but they will not vote for him.

HUNTER: All right let’s put a little something on it and it’s no money cause we’re not gambling. But, I actually think he’s gonna win a primary and I think you’re going to be more surprised than anybody how much support this man actually has out there. And it’s weird and its growing and as baffling as it is there’s something to him when he get up in front of people one on one that they walk away with a sold out spirit. I’ve got a woman that I know [Sharpton interrupts]

SHARPTON [singing]: Oooollllld Man River! That’s what they walk away with. They walk away with a guy singing and saying what the right wing want to hear.

In the second example, an attempt by libtalker Stephanie Miller and guest Carlos Alazroqui (actor, Reno 911!) to slam Cain goes horribly awry, like a train derailment.

Here's the clip:

STEPHANIE MILLER: Carlos Alazroqui live in studio with us.

CARLOS ALAZROQUI [ACTOR, RIGHT IMAGE]: I’m live but I don’t have the facts to back it up, but it takes three licks to get to the center of a Tootsie Pop.

MILLER: Okay thank you for that.

ALAZROQUI: I don’t have the facts to back it up.

MILLER: I appreciate that. All right, we are riffing as they say in the comedy business, on Herman Cain starting his sentence about Occupying Wall Street.

HERMAN CAIN AUDIO: I don't have facts to back this up, but I happen to believe that these demonstrations are planned and orchestrated to distract from the failed policies of the Obama administration. Don't blame Wall Street, don't blame the big banks, if you don't have a job and you're not rich, blame yourself!

CARLOS ALAZRAQUI: I think that’s what Jesus said on the cross...

JIM WARD [PRODUCER]: [imitating Cain] Well, if you don’t have a job, blame the Jews. That’s what I do.

ALAZRAQUI: That’s what I do.

LAVOIE: Oh God! Oh Jim!

MILLER: I don’t have the facts to back this up, but I’m going to go back to the President’s press conference to distract from what Jim Ward just said.

These guys had better hope Cain's effort flounders from here, otherwise, destroying him will take real effort (unlike Chris Christie = fat childishness). Good luck!

05 October 2011

Sharpton Show: Bill O'Reilly Wants To 'Lynch Michelle Obama'


Sharpton Provides Free Pass For Known Falsehood

Though it isn't a host's responsibility to straighten out every falsehood or misstatement made by callers, some lies are so brazen and incendiary that a talker's silence can be disturbing, to the point of promoting slander or even violence.

Today's example comes from Al Sharpton's Keeping It Real radio program, where a listener made a blatantly untrue accusation against Bill O'Reilly based on a decidedly poor choice of words the latter uttered in 2008.

Since it grew into a major media flap at the time, Sharpton should KNOW Bill O'Reilly's use of "lynching party" was part of a lengthy defense of Michelle Obama (made more than clear when listening to the audio). Yes, he could have picked a better phrase, but it was obviously an unfortunate accident.

Yet here, Sharpton and guest are perfectly happy allowing a caller to claim the Fox News Channel host wants to "lynch" the first lady:

LAMAR IN LOS ANGELES: Now, you know something, if you go to YouTube and put in "Bill O’Reilly" and then put "lynch Michele Obama", you’ll get him [Bill O’Reilly] saying that he’s going to lead a lynching party against Michele Obama. So this is way back two years ago. They have a long history of this. Now let me say something about here in LA.

We have a you know as soon as things don’t go right with the Republicans in other words. They can’t figure out who’s their leading candidate. They become more racist and more vicious. Here in L.A. they have on our local radio station, which are all owned by the conservatives, we have ah Ken and John who are just unleashing hate against the local Hispanic community and guess what, they are the majority.

They are the majority and you hear this stuff in English in Los Angeles. These people are inciting white people against the majority of people here in California and no one tells them listen, there are rules here, you can’t insult whole groups of people, but they don’t care about that. They don’t since we deregulated the radio you can say anything you can incite riots and here you are inciting a riot with the majority of people here in this city and you think you’re going to get away with it. So, I’m just saying here in L.A. it’s nice and rainy so we don’t have any reaction. But one day people are going to respond to this from Ken and John, John and Ken on one these, one of the four talks show hosts pardon me talk shows which are nothing but conservative talk show hosts and channels.

DAVID A WILSON (GUEST): Well, you know it’s it’s it’s it’s sort of seems to be par for course ah when it comes to conservative talk.

SHARPTON: And and ah thank you for your call. And and it’s a it’s a national thing. It’s not just LA or New York. Everywhere it seems like they’re all have gone way beyond the bounds of where you should be going. Let’s go to Birmingham Alabama to Anita, Anita you’re keeping it real with Al Sharpton.

Funny enough, the discussion then turns to "irresponsible" conservative talk just after Sharpton radio's own reckless, irresponsible commentary. All in a day's work at libtalk's smear factory.

04 October 2011

Libtalker: 'How Many People Will Christie Crush To Death With His Giant Fat Ass?'


Fat Jokes Will No Longer Carry Lefty Monologues

If you think stuffy GOP establishment types are unhappy to see Chris Christie bail out of an expected presidential run, consider the plight of our always-civil libtalk friends. Without New Jersey's governor in the 2012 primary field, third grade-level fat jokes will no longer carry their monologues.

Thank goodness our "progressive" pals adhere to their own high rhetorical standards, the very rules they attempted to impose upon us after the Tucson incident. Otherwise, it might get nasty out there!

Yes, while hate-filled "righties" rant and rave, liberals hold a "conversation" where issues are discussed based on facts rather than emotion.

So it COULDN'T have been a syndicated libtalker responsible for this mean-spirited smearfest, right? Take a look:

STEPHANIE MILLER (03 October 2011): Can I just say that our audience in person on the phone emailing, the smartest funniest audience in the world. Mike writes, Steph, Chris Christie is just Rush Limbaugh in a fat suit. That’s funny. Ha ha ha.

All right, yes we discussed the morality of Chris Christie jokes or not on Saturday night because you know that is the big question, is he going to jump into the race and how many people will he immediately crush to death with his giant fat ass because you have to ask, what?

Listen, we are sexy Liberals; we are empathetic because I care. I’m concerned because we were saying that these Republican debates they’re so mean that I’m afraid he’s [Christie] going to be the fat kid in Lord of the Flies.

They’re [Republican candidates] are going to kill him with a rock if he gets in. You know what I’m saying? Don’t you think?

LAVOIE: Could be.

MILLER: He’s going to be Piggy on Lord of the Flies. I’m concerned for him. This does not end well if you’ve seen Lord of the Flies.

LAVOIE: Piggy. He’d be piggy in more than one way.

MILLER: They are a school of piranhas, these Republican candidates and granted to would take them a long time to eat Chris Christie, but I’m just saying.

Luckily, liberals are actively fighting shallow body image stereotyping whilst pushing for equality throughout society. Whatever would we do without their civility, wisdom and moral guidance?

01 October 2011

David Shuster Suggests Official Weight Limits For Candidates


'Progressive' Fantasy: Weight Restrictions For Candidates!

Using weasel-like trickery, a former MSNBC host has suggested barring obese politicians from seeking the presidency. Now of Al Gore's CurrentTV, libtalker David Shuster threw the question out yesterday while filling in for Bill Press.

It's a fresh reminder of "progressive" shallowness and an unending desire to exclude from society anyone who refuses to adhere to their rigid lifestyle ideology.

But instead of directly advocating the position, Shuster took the slimy way out, posing the question, then pretending not to favor it.

Look at that technique using this example: should we slaughter cute puppies and kittens by the thousands? I really oppose this idea, but just thought I'd get your reaction.

The net effect: a dangerous concept is recklessly introduced while the host remains off the hook for suggesting it.

So David, what exactly is the weight limit for presidential candidates? How about height? Eye color? Style of clothing?

From the Bill Press Show:

DAVID SHUSTER (BILL PRESS SHOW 30 SEPT 2011): Should Chris Christie be essentially ineligible for president because he, the role model and because he’s overweight?

Your thoughts, um and here’s my take on it all. My take is I don’t think he’s too fat to be a great president. I don’t think I don’t think fat or overweight is necessarily an issue in terms of incapacitating him or making him an embarrassment on the world stage because he represents America. No, I don’t believe that at all. I do think however that he can’t get elected because I think there are enough Americans who are concerned about his weight.

So in other words I agree that for his own sake both heath and personal but also for his own political sake he should follow the Mike Huckabee diet and exercise plan and try to shed some weight and that would be a terrific role model and I think would help him incredibly politically. If he so happens to run at his current weight and he gets elected, fine by me. As long as he does the job, fine! But I just don’t think he can get elected.

Consider this another reminder of the dangerous nature of our "progressive" friends.

Page Rank Checker

Powered by Blogger