The Radio Equalizer: Brian Maloney

30 October 2010

EXCLUSIVE: Hannity, Levin Blast Lisa Murkowski's Talk Radio Censorship


Hannity, Levin Blast Senator Murkowski Over Host's Removal


A thuggish effort by Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) to boot a dissenting talk show host from the airwaves has now been denounced by two broadcasting heavyweights: Sean Hannity and Mark Levin.

Hannity, of the Fox News Channel and Levin, a best-selling author, are standing behind fellow radio talk host Dan Fagan of KFQD 750 AM / Anchorage after he was abruptly yanked from the airwaves following a legal threat from Murkowski.

Levin sees Murkowski as "worthless and pathetic", while Hannity calls her a "sore loser".

Facing a difficult write-in candidacy after failing to win her party's nomination, Murkowski was apparently incensed after Fagan implored listeners to follow her lead and register as write-ins before the legal deadline.

Fagan's likely goal: create a lengthy, confusing list of write-in candidates that undermines Murkowski's effort. Some on the left were also advocating this technique, though its potential impact may be negligible.

Earlier Saturday, Sarah Palin skewered Murkowski over the move, despite Fagan's longstanding opposition to the former governor.

Hannity agrees, telling the Radio Equalizer this late Saturday:

Sore loser liberal Republican Murkowski only wants HER right to be a write-in candidate. Everybody else need not apply.

These intimidation tactics are a disgrace. Clearly, Murkowski needs to read the Constitution, radio hosts and all Americans still have the right to freedom of speech.

Hopefully after Tuesday, Senator-elect Joe Miller can give her a copy of the Constitution, she should have plenty of reading time available.

She represents everything that is wrong with Washington today, she is a person who will do ANYTHING to cling on to power.

Levin had this reaction to Murkowski's move:

Lisa Murkowski is exactly the kind of politician the American people are fed up with. Her father first appointed her to his former Senate seat. For eight years she's been scheming and cutting deals in Washington, using taxpayer dollars to buy favors and, she thought, political support.

She was challenged this year in the Republican primary and lost, fair and square, to Joe Miller. But having promised to support the primary winner, she went back on her word -- first seeking the Libertarian Party's endorsement, which she failed to secure and now running as a write-in candidate.

For the last several weeks, Murkowski has called in favors from big unions and federally-created corporations, which have dumped hundreds of thousands of dollars into her campaign. Murkowski has used that money to, among other things, hire private detectives to dig up whatever they could find on Miller -- which wasn't much, but which she has used to try and smear him.

She has hired high-priced lawyers to manipulate long-standing Alaska campaign rules and, having failed at the trial court level, won a decision by the Alaska Supreme Court allowing her precinct workers to hand out a list of write-in candidates (most notably, of course, Murkowski) at voting locations.

And now she threatened a radio station with legal action, claiming violations of FEC electioneering rules, because one of its hosts apparently encouraged listeners to file as write-in candidates (after all, if it's good enough for Murkowski, then any citizen should be free to do the same).

Of course, the threat had no legal basis, but it worked, as the host was apparently pulled off the air. Meanwhile, Murkowski is assisted by a typically liberal media in Alaska, despite her sleazy thug tactics.

Murkowski said in a recent debate that Miller, a veteran of the Iraq War and Bronze Star recipient, was not fit to be a senator. In an interview with Rachel Maddow on MSNBC, she accused Miller of being an extremist because he believed in the Constitution. And she's so low that she has even used video of the late Senator Ted Stevens, who died a few months back in a tragic airplane accident, in commercials suggesting that the deceased senator would have backed her had he been alive today.

Murkowski is truly worthless and pathetic. Alaska and the nation deserve much, much better.

With a significant backlash brewing, KFQD radio management probably have no choice but to reconsider the move to boot Fagan. As for Senator Murkowski, will this incident prove to be the final nail in her political coffin?

29 October 2010

Not All Lefties On Board With Stewart/Colbert Rallies


Second Libtalker Denounces Stewart/Colbert Rallies


As it turns out, not everyone on the left is on board with Saturday's Jon Stewart / Stephen Colbert rallies planned for Washington.

First, liberal talk show host Bill Press denounced the seemingly-frivolous events masquerading as bona-fide political activism, referring to them as "a big masturbation festival on the National Mall." Now, a second libtalker has joined in, MSNBC's Ed Schultz, ripping the rallies during his syndicated radio program.

Schultz chastised organizers for "spoofs" and "jokes" in the face of high unemployment and other serious issues. Later in the show, to preserve his "progressive" credentials, Big Eddie randomly attacked a conservative, choosing Glenn Beck after spinning a wheel in his studio:

ED SCHULTZ (01:52): Are we supposed to go to this Stewart-Colbert rally in Washington coming up? I mean, is this for the serious people that want to change America? And I don't think it's even change America anymore, I think it's protect America.

You know, we're living in some pretty serious times. I don't think that anybody has really clarified to my liking anyway whether this is a spoof, a joke, a promotion on their part to get attention, to get more viewers or what's happening here.

To my knowledge, I guess I've never seen or heard of Stewart or Colbert doing any real serious commentary about 15 million people who are unemployed in this country.


ED SCHULTZ (13:41): [referring to Glenn Beck] You fraudulent pig! You drunk! You're still drunk. I have no respect for Glenn Beck, none. He's a phony.

Are there others on the left who'd like to come forward, or is this limited to Press and Schultz? We'd like to know.

Trailing In Polls, Alan Grayson Ups Crazy Rhetoric


Embattled Florida Rep May Be Writing Off Tuesday

Down in the polls by seven points, one might think embattled Florida Rep Alan Grayson would find a constructive approach to winning re-election. Instead, the infamously-unhinged Democrat is at it again, doubling-down on crazy rhetoric.

Grayson's inflammatory language has even inspired a website,

Yesterday, Grayson told libtalker Ed Schultz that conservatives were intentionally trying to create a destructive "national nervous breakdown" ahead of Tuesday's elections:

ALAN GRAYSON (32:57): I think the right wing is trying to institute, consciously trying to institute, a national nervous breakdown. They have gotten their supporters so stoked up on hatred and fear that their supporters can't contain themselves anymore. And they're doing it cynically for an advantage in the election.

Is Grayson revealing that he's already given up on another term? This sounds like someone trying out for a liberal talk host position, not attempting to win over moderate voters.

Though he has spent significant sums on TV ads in recent weeks, it seems almost certain this guy is gearing up for the next phase of his career. Could MSNBC be part of those plans? He'd fit right in, that's for sure.

27 October 2010

Sharpton Callers Still Attacking Democrats, Obama


Reverend Sticks Toe In Water, Quickly Retreats

Poor Al Sharpton: it would be so much easier to take issues-related calls during his syndicated talk show, but every time he sticks his toe in the water, along comes a shark to bite it right off.

While the reverend would prefer to stick to upbeat messages about Obama and the Democrats, his listening audience would much rather vent their rage. They've made it clear they've supported the president in the past.

Over time, he's seemingly pulled back on topical call-ins as a result (other segments dedicated to prophetic readings and non-political chatter remain).

We've been tracking this fascinating trend for over a year, with each example revealing his increasing frustration with the futility of trying to keep a happy face on the Obama years.

From Tuesday's show, here's one self-described Sharpton fan furious with Chicago's Democratic machine, which he describes as "abusive". Listen as Al struggles to get back on message:

SEAN IN CHICAGO (33:59): Reverend Al, I’ve been following you since the eighties ever since Tawana Brawley, brother you’ve had a place in my heart that is special.

But, I’m from Chicago and the Democrats here can’t stand on their record Reverend Al. That’s why the people are not coming out to vote because they’ve been abused and misused. And I would just like to end with this that the Democratic Party has controlled the state government for at least ten or fifteen years.

The Democratic Party has controlled Chicago for at least 50 years and the blacks in Chicago and the blacks in the State of Illinois are worse off here Reverend Al, you should come to Chicago so that you can see how bad they treat the people and now you gonna ask the people that you’ve been beaten down smacked up for ten or fifteen years to vote for me?

I’m not that ignorant Reverend Al. I’m not going to keep expecting different results doing the same thing. Love you brother, out of here.

AL SHARPTON: Let me ask you a question, now that the mayor’s seat is open, the mayor announced he’s not running, what is the community going to do about that? That’s not up to the party, that’s up to the people. What are you all going to do about that? Hello?

Well, I guess I don’t get an answer to that one, Sean. See, I think that a lot of what we say is correct, but the challenge is that when you get an opportunity, do we organize? And I know better than most about the legitimate rights of blacks in Chicago. I want to know what they’re going to do that this mayor’s seat’s available. That ain’t on the party. That’s whether we can get past the egos and the fratricide in the leadership in our own community.

Really, Al? If it's up to the people to overcome the party, why are you so busy propping it up?

23 October 2010

Al Sharpton, Bill Press, Lynn Samuels React Differently To Firing Of Juan Williams


Libtalkers React To NPR's Sacking Of Juan Williams

Not especially long ago, there was a time when broadcasters would put ideological differences aside to come to the defense of an embattled colleague. After all, radio is a nasty, nasty business and anyone who has been in it for very long has endured the pain of its all-powerful dark side.

With NPR's ridiculous termination of Juan Williams over a single comment made on television, it has become apparent those days are long over.

As Williams remains very much a liberal, it should have been relatively easy for "progressive" talkers to back him up, especially on freedom of speech grounds.

But the hatred for Fox has intensified to the point that anyone associating with the network is now considered a traitor to the "progressive" cause. This the overriding deal-breaker for lefties: Fox is off-limits.

As a result, Williams isn't finding many friends in the libtalk world this week.

Listen as only satellite libtalker Lynn Samuels provides the concern that one might expect from a professional broadcaster, while jerky Bill Press gloats and Al Sharpton provides a mealy-mouthed "defense" instead of firing up the Outrage Machine (!!!!):

BILL PRESS (10:18): Whoa, whoa. Juan, what are you doing? A little too much Fox has rubbed off on you, it seems to me.

LYNN SAMUELS (9:40): What kind of f---ing bulls--t is with NPR firing Juan Williams? I don't even like Juan Williams. I think he's just, 'Oh, he's liberal.' Well, you know, in that mushy-headed, unthinking, stupid-ass way he's liberal. He's certainly not liberal to me. At all.

SAMUELS (10:53): NPR, maybe you should pay him more money. He wouldn't have to go on Fox.

SAMUELS (13:10): So, you tell me. All you liberals that listen to me. All you people that complain that I'm not liberal enough. If you're in an airport, and there are people -- I don't even have to see them in Muslim garb -- people that are obviously from the Mid East, particularly if they're getting on the same flight as you, doesn't that make you nervous? It makes me nervous! And nobody likes Muslims as much as I do.

Well, maybe other Muslims. But, it makes me nervous. It does. All Juan Williams was doing was expressing a feeling that I would bet 99% of people who fly have in an airport. I would rather not see anybody who even vaguely looks like they're from the Middle East on an airplane that I'm flying on. I'm sorry. I think it's a natural human reaction.

AL SHARPTON (3:23): I’ve heard what he said and I am wondering whether or not we are going way too far with political correctness. I mean we went through how people chop up tapes in statements with Shirley Sherrod. Now we are seeing no tapes, but people are reading different things. Are we in a too politically correct atmosphere now? Is everything in check?


Conservatives will take it and say that we’re saying so and so on my show and use that against us in some of the work that we try and do. What is your view? Should Juan Williams have been fired? Or, are we too politically correct?

Or should we be so sensitive about what we say that we don’t leave a gray area? In this particular case and Juan Williams and I certainly don’t agree on a lot, I don’t know that he is not a victim of the culture of political correctness and our taking things to the extreme that may not have even been said. And I think that sometimes you can be mature enough to say that somebody is right even if you think politically they are wrong.

Come on, Al, you can do better than that. Where's the bullhorn? The shakedown of NPR? Marches in the streets?

Obviously, Juan Williams now knows who his real friends truly are and they most certainly aren't liberal talk hosts.

21 October 2010

Libtalker Absolutely Loses It Over Ginni's Phone Call To Anita Hill


Norman Lear Certainly Has It Backwards

In today's Huffington Post, liberal Hollywood activist Norman Lear expresses "concern" for Rush Limbaugh, feeling (certainly not THINKING) that the talk titan is close to bursting open at the seams over Obama and the election:

Folks, I'm worried about Rush Limbaugh. Has anyone ever exploded, you know, burst apart, like if we humans had seams and they just burst open and guts and s--t shot out in every direction?


So I put the windows up and when I got to a computer, I checked to see if Mr. Limbaugh was still in one piece or scattered in bits and pieces across the landscape, a chunk of bladder here, a piece of pituitary there and maybe his mouth around the wide end of a megaphone somewhere.

I'm happy to say I worried for nothing. Mr. Limbaugh was still in one piece. But one piece of -- what?

Hey Norm, how about taking a look at your own side of the aisle? There, you'll find a rogue's gallery of deranged liberal talk hosts that make Rush sound absolutely tame by comparison.

Need a recent example? From nationally-syndicated libtalker Mike Malloy, here's an epic meltdown over the Ginni Thomas / Anita Hill story which was heard during Tuesday's program:

MIKE MALLOY (15:03): IF THE BITCH WILL JUST APOLOGIZE! Oops - excuse me; lost - lost it there for a minute.

I'm the wife of a Supreme Court associate justice, I'm not supposed to say words like bitch, but SHE'S A BITCH! SHE TRIED TO GET IN MY HUSBAND'S DRAWERS! WHAT WAS CLARENCE SUPPOSED TO DO? HOLY GOD!!!! [gasps]

I'm sorry, I did it again, I just think it's time that we get past all this craziness. Do you know what it's like to be married to a Supreme Court justice who's as weird as my husband? Do you know what he asked me to do? I mean - I realize I'm his wife, but do I have to dress up in those robes every night? And - and play old tapes of Long Dong Silver!

That seems to be the one he likes the most! but that Anita Hill - that ANITA HILL - I CAN JUST WRING THAT BITCH'S NECK! [makes fake neck-wringing sounds]. I did it again. Oh quick, wait! Let me get a phone call in to Dick Armey. Dick Armey could - could come.

No, I'll call Sean - Sean Hannity will help me. I hope this never gets out. Is there any way I could call up and have that message erased off Anita's - off Anita's phone thingie?

Oh God! Oh, I shouldn't have done this, I shouldn't have done know, I began my group with a lot of money from undisclosed contributers, and - and I don't want to call any attention to myself.



MALLOY (18:47): Hey baby, let me show you those videotapes about Long Dong Silver. What are you wearing today? Oh Lord!

MALLOY (20:38): You see, her husband is an UGLY; he is an UGLY man! Clarence is UGLY! He is so ugly - how ugly is he - he has to sneak up on a glass of water to get a drink!

MALLOY (26:59): Obviously, Ginny Thomas is a drunk!


Need more examples? We've got plenty more where that came from, Mr Lear.

19 October 2010

Arianna Ponders Whether Political Opponents Are Entitled To Their Own Opinions


Does Empress Arianna Determine Who May Have Opinions?

For fresh insight into the astoundingly arrogant nature of "progressive" elitism, one need look no further than Arianna Huffington, who has conveniently determined the extent to which others may form their own opinions.

In this case, it's Ginni Thomas, wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, who has supposedly crossed the line. While the Huff 'n' Snuff proprietress grudgingly accepts Ginni's right to oppose Obama, the latter is somehow out of bounds in calling him a "tyrant".

Ginni Thomas, of course, is making headlines today for a different reason, after apparently asking Anita Hill for an apology, reopening debate about the latter's allegations (which nearly derailed Clarence's nomination) made in 1991.

From the most recent edition of Both Sides Now, Arianna's syndicated radio talk show, listen as she struggles to accept the idea that the wife of a Supreme Court justice should be allowed to think for herself:

ARIANNA HUFFINGTON (30:20): It's really strange, it's beyond strange, that you have the wife of a Supreme Court justice, not being against Obama, I can understand that, that's her legitimate right.

But saying utterly irrational things about Obama. I mean, calling the president a tyrant is truly beyond the realm of what is real and that's really what we need to be addressing, not disagreements, not opposition, but just irrationality.

MARK GREEN (MODERATOR): But she has the right to do it?

HUFFINGTON: Well, nobody should put her in jail if that’s what your question is… [laughing]

Luckily for the world, Arianna herself never has an irrational moment, or if she does, no one can understand her accent well enough to notice.

16 October 2010

Sharpton Show Features Questionable Race-Based Language


Hey Reverend, Racist Language Cuts Both Ways

A seemingly mundane effort to end Florida's notoriously-gerrymandered congressional districts has managed to bring out the worst from a few unhinged opponents. Amendments Five and Six would in theory restore natural boundaries and end the practice of manipulating lines to suit political parties.

Opposition comes from both Republicans (whose own plan was shot down in court) and African-Americans (yet the NAACP SUPPORTS it), with establishment Democrats and Hispanics in favor. The battle lines aren't terribly clear, it's more of a muddled mess as competing factions make grabs for power.

Leading the fight against Five and Six are Representatives Corrine Brown (D-FL), a black congresswoman from Jacksonville and Mario Diaz-Balart, a Hispanic Republican from South Florida.

Yes, that's a confusing political mix, but there's nothing ambiguous about the language Brown used during a radio interview with Al Sharpton earlier this week. Watch as Sharpton offers no objection to her assertion the initiatives would "bleach" her congressional district:

REP CORRINE BROWN (12:23): I want you know to that your Mayor (Michael Bloomberg) is coming to Miami this week Friday at eleven o' clock to speak about doing away with minority districts. So is that something that they’re starting in Florida and California and gonna bring on to New York?

AL SHARPTON: And that’s why we have you on cause that’s why I’m gonna be there cause we ran 'em out of NY and we’ve got to run 'em out of Florida and everywhere else. Explain what the vote is about.

REP CORRINE BROWN: Okay they’ve got initiative on the ballot and they call it "fair districts" and really, it’s the bleaching of the districts. Before I got elected to Congress in 1992 Florida didn’t have an African American in 129 years and it was because of the 1965 voters' rights act. That’s the why this is the only area that trickle-down does really work.

Because when you draw the congressional than you draw the House, the Senate, School Boards and all of the other districts. But they’ve got the United States Supreme Court this month that it is in the state constitution then the voters rights act don’t apply. This was a recent ruling.

The Strickland ruling, therefore they’re trying to put it in the Constitution that you can’t draw minority districts. And the confusion in Florida is that we’ve got people running around like from the NAACP saying that this is a good thing. I mean it’s ludicrous. Why would we take a step back?

SHARPTON: All right now, what they will vote on and it’s on the ballot is to eliminate districts that assure us (black community) representation.

REP CORRINE BROWN: No no, you don’t have no assurances.

Now, for just a moment, imagine the response from Sharpton, Jesse Jackson et al, were a conservative talker to use the term "darkening" or "blackening" of a political district. How long would that host remain on the air?

Remember, it was Sharpton that infamously denied Rush Limbaugh a chance at part-ownership of a NFL team over alleged "racism" that was made up out of thin air. And yet, here's a concrete example from his own camp of counter-productive language. Will they enjoy the media's standard free pass?

15 October 2010

Rosie O'Donnell Slams Barbara Walters Over Bill O'Reilly Booking


Rosie: It Was Wrong To Allow Bill O'Reilly On
The View

Though she's no longer part of The View, Rosie O'Donnell isn't exactly avoiding their battles. During Thursday's Rosie Radio, the loud-mouthed actress/alleged comedian ripped the decision to invite Bill O'Reilly for a discussion of his new book.

The resulting fireworks culminated in an abrupt stage exit from co-hosts Whoopi Goldberg and Joy Behar.

O'Donnell isn't just upset with Barbara Walters over the O'Reilly booking, she's particularly displeased with Wa Wa's scolding of Goldberg and Behar, who are apparently much too distinguished to be criticized in public:

ROSIE O'DONNELL (1:56:20): Bill O'Reilly, what does he do besides incite hatred? What does he do besides that?

JANETTE BARBER (executive producer): To stand there and say, 'Muslims killed us. I hope you didn't take that wrong. I didn't mean anything bad about them'. I hate it when they lie within the same sentence. At least take a break before you lie.

O'DONNELL: That's what Bill O'Reilly does. Why would you book him?


BRENDAN MCDONALD (co-executive producer):
He's not there to have discourse. He's there to have a fight. Why is that then Joy and Whoopi's fault for saying, 'You know what? We don't want to engage with this'?

Hey Rosie, any chance you happen to miss being a part of this show?

And how is it wrong to book guests with which one disagrees?

12 October 2010

Rosie O'Donnell And Friends Resort To Disgusting Language In Paladino Attacks


Rosie's Self-Awareness Gene Is Apparently Turned OFF

Thanks to this year's Tea Party candidates, politics are much more fun as over-prepared talking points give way to candid oratory seldom seen in the past. Odd times create unusual contenders, don't they?

Because the left has no idea how to counter candidates who don't fit expectations, nasty insults have become the default attack tactic.

But is Rosie O'Donnell, of all people, really in a good position to slam others in such a personal way?

From Tuesday's Rosie Radio, you be the judge:

JANETTE BARBER (executive producer) (1:09:22): That a--hole, Paladino, standing by his a--holian [sic] comments.

O'DONNELL: That guy doesn't even seem like he's a real candidate. It's almost like, I don't know, they're digging these people up from central casting, and he does look like he's been dug up, literally. The man looks like a corpse. His skin color is gray, like alien gray.

BARBER (1:12:05): I'll tell you, these Tea Party candidates, because Paladino is a Tea Party candidate, that is scaring me.

Speaking of Rosie and Friends, here's another gem from a program airing late last week:

07 October 2010

Al Sharpton Berates Listeners, Calls Them Lazy, Unwilling To Help Obama


Sharpton Turns Against Audience Over Lack Of Obama Help

Long-simmering tensions between the Reverend Al Sharpton and his syndicated radio listenership appear to have come to a head this week as the longtime political activist directly denounced them.

Essentially calling them lazy and ungrateful, Sharpton has violated the first rule of talk hosting: never turn against the audience. Never, never, never.

While the monologue began as a garden-variety sermon about the need to become politically involved, it quickly degenerated into a nasty tirade.

Since Obama took office, Sharpton has found himself in the unfortunate position of defending him while the primarily African-American audience phones in to complain about the president's performance. Over time, Sharpton has responded by gradually reducing call-in segments for political topics.

Now, Sharpton finds his political base ungrateful for what he sees as Obama's support for their needs and too lazy or disinterested to help him as a key election approaches.

From Tuesday's program, listen as his unhinged anger is gradually but steadily released over the course of two minutes:

AL SHARPTON (2:42): You know it is amazing as we are now down to four weeks away from the midterm elections. A lot of people and we talked a lot about that yesterday. A lot of people having different takes on what’s going on, but you know when I look at what’s at stake, I just don’t get the argument that some people are making about why they are less than enthusiastic.

Maybe if all was well and you could sit down and know that your livelihood was taken care of and your children were taken care of and you had all of your health care need covered, I could see it. But, when we are in very serious conditions some, some of us desperate conditions. Some of most of us somewhere in-between serious and desperate. How can you sit down and act like you have the luxury of deciding whether you want to be involved in anything and everything that can help you?

I mean that just doesn’t make sense to me and I’ve heard the arguments and I’ve heard the debate and the discussion and I understand that we didn’t get everything that we wanted yet. But, I just don’t understand that I mean if you hungry and somebody starts feeding you after others wouldn’t give you anything and in fact was taking away your possibility to get something.

Do you take a position unless I get a full seven course meal, I’m not eating anything, or do you start eating because finally because the hunger barrier has been reversed and now we have to build up to a nutritious meal. I mean I just don’t get it. Or maybe I do.

Maybe some people just don’t want to do nothing, no matter what. Just sit down and complain let everybody else do the hard lifting for them. Maybe I do get it. Maybe a lot of you just won’t face that you're part of that.

The loudest sound heard after that moment was of radios clicking off simultaneously. Nice way to flush a following down the toilet, reverend.

06 October 2010

Libtalker Questions Importance Of Crowd Estimates


Libtalker Not Backing MSNBC Host's Rally Claims

This may be a first, but we believe libtalker Randi Rhodes may have a valid point. Why the obsession with crowd estimates at political rallies held in Washington?

At first, heavy participation was seen as evidence of a strong political movement, but now, the whole rally concept has degenerated into a silly pissing contest between dueling cable hosts. Holding such an event has become a virtual job requirement for these guys and turnout is equated with ratings success.

That need for survival explains at least in part the desperate assertions of MSNBC's Ed Schultz, who's on a crusade to sell the idea that last weekend's One Nation event was more successful than Glenn Beck's.

But he's running into unexpected opposition from fellow libtalker Randi Rhodes, who is far from convinced. During her show, Rhodes blasted "size queens" who are fixated on these estimates.

First, from Schultz's syndicated radio program, then from Randi's:

ED SCHULTZ (01:59): What a day on Saturday! We beat Beck's numbers! You idiot righties out there, send all the emails you want, make all the nasty phone calls you want. (laughs) I love it!

SCHULTZ (02:20): I want to thank all of you who were there and know exactly what went down on Saturday. It is amazing how the right-wing media is trying to spin the numbers. But I predicted this. You knew this was going to happen. It's like animals in a living room walking around, urinating on furniture, marking territory. That's where the righties are in this country.

SCHULTZ (02:52): First of all, the One Nation rally was all about America, and not about a personality. The One Nation rally was, what, was it five and a half hours long? I know what I saw when I stood up on the Lincoln Memorial. It was packed all the way down to the monument. Well, let's just go back and do some numbers here for you idiot right wingers. You know, it's getting to the point now where I don't even talk to conservatives. I don't want to talk to 'em! They're idiots! I can broad-brush them, they're the ones that have screwed this country up.

SCHULTZ (04:37): So somewhere in between there, that's a pretty good crowd! But it's no big shakes, after how many months of promotion? Since January? (laughs) Now let's go to the tens of thousands attend (sic) the progressive One Nation Working Together rally in Washington. More than 400 groups endorsed the One Nation Working Together. That was advertised beforehand, how many groups were involved.

There was one politician that spoke and that was Congressman (Luis) Gutierrez (D-IL). No major figure, you know, somebody like, that's in the news every day like Sarah Palin, none of that. What about FreedomWorks and Dick Armey, did he have anything to do with Beck's rally at all? Probably nothing. What about the Koch brothers and how they paid for buses for people to come in? No wonder you got a free ride.

More than 400 groups endorsed the One Nation Working Together rally which organizers say drew a crowd of 175,000 people, about what they expected. So somewhere between CBS's news report of 87,000 and 300,000 by NBC News, two news organizations, somewhere in between there, we were kind of equal at 175,000.

You think I'm spinning this? Oh no I'm not spinning this. I will show you the pictures tonight of the full house and we'll compare them to the Beckster's crowd. It's about the same! And besides that, what difference does it make? This is why conservatives are in reverse. They think that if they can outdo somebody at a rally by another 10,000 nutjobs, that they're going to turn the country around. This is why you're fundamentally flawed. You don't have your eye on the ball. You're idiots!

RANDI RHODES (19:10): Now, I'm not even going to argue about whether or not Glenn Beck's rally was bigger, Glenn Beck's rally was bigger, there's no question Glenn Beck's rally - well I don't even know why are these people in the news - why are they size queens? All of them!

It's all about the size, want to know about the size! Want to know- apparently, the Koch brothers are better about organizing buses than ordinary people from 400 different groups!

RHODES (20:47): The press ignored the rally, to the mainstream media, it's obviously not a gathering unless you have powdered wigs, backwards swastikas, and a lot of really misspelled signs with you know, the president and a witch doctor with a bone through his nose!

While Rhodes quickly reverted to form, but the key point remains: the idea of dueling rallies is an absurd waste of time with key elections less than a month away. Neither side should have the luxury of expending considerable resources necessary for this silliness.

02 October 2010

Exclusive Interview: Rush Limbaugh Answers Critics Over Family Guy Starring Role


Rush On Why He Agreed To
Family Guy Starring Role


While Rush Limbaugh is more than accustomed to incoming flak from the left, criticism from the right is a bit less common. A starring role in an episode of Family Guy, however, has turned the usual order of things upside down.

Due to air Sunday October 3, the plot centers around Limbaugh's "conversion" of far-left Brian, which subsequently goes awry:

When Brian learns that Rush Limbaugh (guest-voicing as himself) is going to be at the Quahog Mall for a book-signing, he decides to go down there and give him a piece of his left-wing mind. But when Rush unexpectedly comes to Brian’s rescue, Brian has a political change of heart in the all-new “Excellence in Broadcasting” episode of FAMILY GUY airing Sunday, Oct. 3 (9:00-9:30 PM ET/PT) on FOX

While this does have the potential to reach a large new audience not normally part of Rush's demographic, some conservatives are less than happy about his association with the Hollywood left. From Daniel Foster at National Review Online:

It is to Mr. Limbaugh’s credit that he can make fun of himself. But Seth MacFarlane, the whiskey-soaked Dada creator of Family Guy, is responsible for more sophomoric cartooning than the combined patrons of America’s truck stop and dive bar bathrooms. His shows are full of misanthropic, misogynist, racist, and anti-Semitic jokes admixed with just enough ironic distance and liberal cheerleading to stave off the blanket condemnation of the PC Left.

So, as someone who has in the past suggested that if MacFarlane really cared about liberal causes, he’d stop associating himself with them, I can only look at the Limbaugh-MacFarlane mash-up with a wary eye.

With that in mind, your Radio Equalizer asked Limbaugh for insight into his decision to appear on a notorious lefty program:

RADIO EQUALIZER: Rush, I'm getting emails asking why you're appearing "on that disgusting program."

My answer to one: He's reaching out to millions of young people who've only heard horrible things about him. He needs to lure them to the talk radio medium or we will eventually be winding it all down for good. These kids live in a world where that kind of content is all around them. The only way to reach out is to enter their environment long enough to invite them to our side.

RUSH LIMBAUGH: Exactly right. (It's the) same reason I did the Playboy interview in 1993. Same reason I took the Rush to Excellence Tour to a Vegas hotel. It's called crossover.

And this episode is not disgusting. It's hilarious. It's a CARTOON.

RADIO EQUALIZER: Did you get a lot of flak at the time for the Playboy interview? Similar to this? A question I've received: "why's he helping lefty Hollywood types who hate us?"

RUSH LIMBAUGH: Yes, I did. And on other occasions I can't recall. This is my third Family Guy but first as the star. Seth MacFarlane doesn't hate me. Or Andrew Breitbart, who he met on Maher's show and really liked.

Besides, it was a new career challenge, a new experience. It was a LOT of work. I sing, and I'm deaf! Getting the melody down was next to impossible. It was challenging on many levels. And it is an unpredictable thing to do. It will stymie critics. I'm a performer. This was fun. Seth wants to do even more.

Seth was among the FIRST to reach out to me in Hawaii when I had that heart scare. I am not helping the Hollywood Left. His show is going to be on the air regardless what I do.

BUT, the better way to look at this is that they bent for me. I did not bend to them. It's not as though I endorse or support libs on this show. The other way around. A huge lib character becomes a conservative.

RADIO EQUALIZER: Thanks, Rush, we'll be watching.

Page Rank Checker

Powered by Blogger