Saturday, July 29, 2006
Coming up on tomorrow’s (7/30/06) show:
Is it just me, or is our society obsessed with polls? Polls about the president’s approval rating, which is still higher than the democrats. Polls about support for Hezbollah in Lebanon. Polls about support for amnesty for illegal immigrants and increasing the minimum, which say that most Americans are FOR both. Tomorrow we’ll discuss all of these issues and ask some important questions, such as:
Given the President’s low approval ratings, why are the democrats in such disarray? Could it be their incessant focus on non-issues like raising the minimum wage, and other matters that they can demagogue to death to their idiot voters?
What the heck is “Democracy Summer,” and how can we stop it from destroying the integrity of the midterm elections?
How does a “Minuteman vigilante” who abhors amnesty for illegals turn into a teary-eyed simp whining about loving people “all politics aside?” We’ll hear the shocking transformation, courtesy of Morgan Spurlock aka Michael Moore, Jr.
Has Israel Blown it by making 3 critical mistakes?
Talking Directly to Bashar-shouldn’t that only happen when we’re telling him that unless he stops enabling the Hezbos (Rush’s term, which I love), he should be prepared to see Damascus turned into another Beirut?
What would Reverend Meeks Say If Someone Called Him by His “Term of Endearment?” What’s his game anyway? And why does he wear a baseball jersey emblazoned with “Superman” when he’s giving a sermon? I know that standards have fallen to ridiculous levels today, but isn’t that a bit much?
We’ll also enjoy hearing Mo’nique’s describe her definition of marital cheating, which suffice it to say Peter Cook (Christie Brinkley’s husband) wishes his wife shared. Must celebrities contribute to the destruction of the institution of marriage? Isn’t it enough to pollute the culture in all the other ways for which they are so well-known?
So many questions. I can’t wait to talk to you about them all tomorrow!
Is it just me, or is our society obsessed with polls? Polls about the president’s approval rating, which is still higher than the democrats. Polls about support for Hezbollah in Lebanon. Polls about support for amnesty for illegal immigrants and increasing the minimum, which say that most Americans are FOR both. Tomorrow we’ll discuss all of these issues and ask some important questions, such as:
Given the President’s low approval ratings, why are the democrats in such disarray? Could it be their incessant focus on non-issues like raising the minimum wage, and other matters that they can demagogue to death to their idiot voters?
What the heck is “Democracy Summer,” and how can we stop it from destroying the integrity of the midterm elections?
How does a “Minuteman vigilante” who abhors amnesty for illegals turn into a teary-eyed simp whining about loving people “all politics aside?” We’ll hear the shocking transformation, courtesy of Morgan Spurlock aka Michael Moore, Jr.
Has Israel Blown it by making 3 critical mistakes?
Talking Directly to Bashar-shouldn’t that only happen when we’re telling him that unless he stops enabling the Hezbos (Rush’s term, which I love), he should be prepared to see Damascus turned into another Beirut?
What would Reverend Meeks Say If Someone Called Him by His “Term of Endearment?” What’s his game anyway? And why does he wear a baseball jersey emblazoned with “Superman” when he’s giving a sermon? I know that standards have fallen to ridiculous levels today, but isn’t that a bit much?
We’ll also enjoy hearing Mo’nique’s describe her definition of marital cheating, which suffice it to say Peter Cook (Christie Brinkley’s husband) wishes his wife shared. Must celebrities contribute to the destruction of the institution of marriage? Isn’t it enough to pollute the culture in all the other ways for which they are so well-known?
So many questions. I can’t wait to talk to you about them all tomorrow!
Thursday, July 27, 2006
Why no press release on his vote against parental notification?
Nearly every day I get a press release from Barack Obama’s office, touting his latest act of genius or sharing his brilliant insights on a recent vote. Just a few minutes ago, I got the joy of reading his comments on the reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act, filled with verbiage about bully clubs and firehoses, and solemnly stating “Since that day, this law has been a critical tool in ensuring that all Americans not only have the right to vote, but the right to have their vote counted.” How nauseating this phony poseur is becoming! This sanctimonious claptrap is coming from the same senator who opposes any reasonable proposal to prevent vote fraud, such as the requirement of showing a photo ID at the polls, something that even the King of the Useful Idiots, Jimmy Carter, favors.
One press release was glaringly absent, the one explaining his vote on July 25, 2006 against making it a federal crime for anyone to accompany a minor across state lines for an abortion. Of course I realize we don’t need to see the explanation, which would doubtlessly include references to fathers who impregnate their daughters—something that happens constantly, at least if you listen to the pro-aborts--and grandmothers who want to help their granddaughters exercise their right to “choice”—and you thought your grandma loved you because she baked cookies with you--but I was struck by Sen. Obama’s silence on this one issue. Perhaps it’s not a coincidence that he doesn’t want to talk about it now. Liberal democrats never want to talk about it. Even the pro-abort group NARAL took the word out of its name. Interestingly, when you go to Sen. Obama’s website to comment on his policy positions, you are asked to select the issue you are interested in discussing from a pulldown menu. The selections are listed alphabetically. Thinking that perhaps, just for laughs, I would ask him to explain why he believes that it should not be a crime to transport a 13 year-old, who can’t get a tattoo in Illinois without parental consent, to our fair state for an abortion by the adult who impregnated her, I clicked on the pulldown menu, looking for “abortion.” To my surprise (not really), the first entry is “agriculture,” followed by “Amtrak,” and “Animal Welfare.” If you want to ask him about this vote, you need to scroll down to the sanitized, euphemistic “Reproductive Issues.”
Could it be that Sen. Obama isn’t proud of this vote? Perhaps if the Sun-Times Lynn Sweet can stop swooning over him for 5 minutes, she could ask him. I know …I know, but I can dream.
Nearly every day I get a press release from Barack Obama’s office, touting his latest act of genius or sharing his brilliant insights on a recent vote. Just a few minutes ago, I got the joy of reading his comments on the reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act, filled with verbiage about bully clubs and firehoses, and solemnly stating “Since that day, this law has been a critical tool in ensuring that all Americans not only have the right to vote, but the right to have their vote counted.” How nauseating this phony poseur is becoming! This sanctimonious claptrap is coming from the same senator who opposes any reasonable proposal to prevent vote fraud, such as the requirement of showing a photo ID at the polls, something that even the King of the Useful Idiots, Jimmy Carter, favors.
One press release was glaringly absent, the one explaining his vote on July 25, 2006 against making it a federal crime for anyone to accompany a minor across state lines for an abortion. Of course I realize we don’t need to see the explanation, which would doubtlessly include references to fathers who impregnate their daughters—something that happens constantly, at least if you listen to the pro-aborts--and grandmothers who want to help their granddaughters exercise their right to “choice”—and you thought your grandma loved you because she baked cookies with you--but I was struck by Sen. Obama’s silence on this one issue. Perhaps it’s not a coincidence that he doesn’t want to talk about it now. Liberal democrats never want to talk about it. Even the pro-abort group NARAL took the word out of its name. Interestingly, when you go to Sen. Obama’s website to comment on his policy positions, you are asked to select the issue you are interested in discussing from a pulldown menu. The selections are listed alphabetically. Thinking that perhaps, just for laughs, I would ask him to explain why he believes that it should not be a crime to transport a 13 year-old, who can’t get a tattoo in Illinois without parental consent, to our fair state for an abortion by the adult who impregnated her, I clicked on the pulldown menu, looking for “abortion.” To my surprise (not really), the first entry is “agriculture,” followed by “Amtrak,” and “Animal Welfare.” If you want to ask him about this vote, you need to scroll down to the sanitized, euphemistic “Reproductive Issues.”
Could it be that Sen. Obama isn’t proud of this vote? Perhaps if the Sun-Times Lynn Sweet can stop swooning over him for 5 minutes, she could ask him. I know …I know, but I can dream.
Sunday, July 16, 2006
On Today’s (7/16/06) Show:
Whining Media Whore Alert-Mr. and Mrs. Wilson, PULEEZE GO AWAY!
No Time to Go Wobbly-Hamas, Hezbollah, al Qaeda are all the same
Tom Brokaw Jumps on Gore’s Global Warming Crusade
Gay Games—why?
And as always, the latest news, including juicy nuggets from the Sunday shows, and best of all your calls at 591.8900!
Can’t wait to hash all this out with you 12 noon-3 pm! Be there or be square!
Whining Media Whore Alert-Mr. and Mrs. Wilson, PULEEZE GO AWAY!
No Time to Go Wobbly-Hamas, Hezbollah, al Qaeda are all the same
Tom Brokaw Jumps on Gore’s Global Warming Crusade
Gay Games—why?
And as always, the latest news, including juicy nuggets from the Sunday shows, and best of all your calls at 591.8900!
Can’t wait to hash all this out with you 12 noon-3 pm! Be there or be square!
Friday, July 14, 2006
Making a federal case out of nothing
As you no doubt heard, Valerie Plame and her pompous, preening pantload of a husband, Joe Wilson filed a lawsuit against Vice President Cheney, Karl Rove and Scooter Libby (and 10 “John Does” to be named later) for “conspiring to violate their constitutional rights by disclosing her identity to reporters. The lawsuit alleges that the administration's misconduct had put the lives of themselves and their children in danger.” This argument could be a tough sell, given that after the Bob Novak column in which Ms. Plame was supposedly “outed,” she was posing for glossy photo layouts in fashion magazines. Would you really be doing that if publicity put your life in danger? Come to think of it, would your no account husband draw attention to the fact that there was no discernable reason for the Bush administration to send a known opponent to investigate pre-war intelligence?
Here’s what should happen in this case. The judge should take their attorneys back in chambers and whack them with rulers like the Husband tells me that the nuns used to do him, then return to the courtroom and tell these two buffoons that the judicial system is not a playroom for a couple of arrested development cases who want to sell books, audition for gigs in democrat administrations and try to get on Keith Olbermann’s show (AGAIN). Finally, he should impose some fines on these lawyers for abusing the legal process and tell them if they do it again, he’ll suggest that the disciplinary commission consider revoking their licenses.
Consider this bit of legal brilliance from this mess of a complaint:
“On information and belief, in July 2003, shortly after Novak’s column appeared, Defendant Rove called Chris Matthews, host of the MS-NBC network program “Hardball” and told him that Mr. Wilson’s wife was “fair game.” “Fair game” is a term used to describe prey (an animal that is killed and eaten) and colloquially to describe a person who may legitimately be attacked.”
The complaint doesn’t mention whether Joe Wilson was booked as a guest on the Screamer’s show that night.
These two and their endless pursuit of attention gets more embarrassing to watch with every passing day, and this lawsuit is just another example. If the Wilsons are lucky, they’ll get in front of some Carter-appointed judge who won’t throw this thing out faster than you can say “sixteen words.” Otherwise, watch for Joe and Val to turn up on “So you think you can dance.”
As you no doubt heard, Valerie Plame and her pompous, preening pantload of a husband, Joe Wilson filed a lawsuit against Vice President Cheney, Karl Rove and Scooter Libby (and 10 “John Does” to be named later) for “conspiring to violate their constitutional rights by disclosing her identity to reporters. The lawsuit alleges that the administration's misconduct had put the lives of themselves and their children in danger.” This argument could be a tough sell, given that after the Bob Novak column in which Ms. Plame was supposedly “outed,” she was posing for glossy photo layouts in fashion magazines. Would you really be doing that if publicity put your life in danger? Come to think of it, would your no account husband draw attention to the fact that there was no discernable reason for the Bush administration to send a known opponent to investigate pre-war intelligence?
Here’s what should happen in this case. The judge should take their attorneys back in chambers and whack them with rulers like the Husband tells me that the nuns used to do him, then return to the courtroom and tell these two buffoons that the judicial system is not a playroom for a couple of arrested development cases who want to sell books, audition for gigs in democrat administrations and try to get on Keith Olbermann’s show (AGAIN). Finally, he should impose some fines on these lawyers for abusing the legal process and tell them if they do it again, he’ll suggest that the disciplinary commission consider revoking their licenses.
Consider this bit of legal brilliance from this mess of a complaint:
“On information and belief, in July 2003, shortly after Novak’s column appeared, Defendant Rove called Chris Matthews, host of the MS-NBC network program “Hardball” and told him that Mr. Wilson’s wife was “fair game.” “Fair game” is a term used to describe prey (an animal that is killed and eaten) and colloquially to describe a person who may legitimately be attacked.”
The complaint doesn’t mention whether Joe Wilson was booked as a guest on the Screamer’s show that night.
These two and their endless pursuit of attention gets more embarrassing to watch with every passing day, and this lawsuit is just another example. If the Wilsons are lucky, they’ll get in front of some Carter-appointed judge who won’t throw this thing out faster than you can say “sixteen words.” Otherwise, watch for Joe and Val to turn up on “So you think you can dance.”
Wednesday, July 12, 2006
Welcome aboard, Clarence Page!
Here is how Clarence Page begins his column in today’s (7/12/06) Chicago Tribune: “Sen. Barack Obama's call for Democrats to close the religion gap with Republicans shows a keen grasp of the obvious.” Yes, Clarence, like pretty much everything else the man that we call on our show “He Who Walks on Water” says. Why do you think his other nickname is “Mr. Profound Grasp of the Obvious?”
Once again, never doubt me.
Here is how Clarence Page begins his column in today’s (7/12/06) Chicago Tribune: “Sen. Barack Obama's call for Democrats to close the religion gap with Republicans shows a keen grasp of the obvious.” Yes, Clarence, like pretty much everything else the man that we call on our show “He Who Walks on Water” says. Why do you think his other nickname is “Mr. Profound Grasp of the Obvious?”
Once again, never doubt me.
Monday, July 10, 2006
Cowboy Diplomacy
Sure, our friends in the MSM are annoying, especially when they tell our enemies what the government is doing to try to stop them from killing as many Americans as possible, and otherwise bending over backwards to encourage these head loppers to not give up hope and to keep fighting us. Or when they deliberately lie in order to make political point or to win one of those idiotic prizes they like to give each other, in truly cringe-inducing episodes of self-congratulation.
Having said that, they are amusing. There’s a reason that Ted Baxter was one of the funniest characters in television history: pompous, self-important, narcissistic and incapable of seeing how ridiculous he sounded condescendingly telling people what any 6 year old knows. The current media shares these traits in spades, and they don’t realize that we grownups in the middle of the country look at them and see them as the buffoons that they are. In short, they are hilarious to watch. When they create their own Bizarro World of the week, and then try to convince the rest of us that it’s reality, they are especially risible.
Case in point: the latest pronoucement by TIME magazine in its latest edition in a story by Mike Allen and Romesh Ratnesar, “The End of Cowboy Diplomacy.” Now, apparently because in his news conference here in Chicago on Friday, the president mentioned patience and diplomacy in handling North Korea, they’ve decided “pre-emption is over,” and that the formerly brash, swaggering cowboy who “invaded” (I know—liberated, but I’m speaking for the 5th column here) Iraq has been humbled by the enormous failure that his decision has proven to be to the point where he understands that John Kerry was right all along. He’s done a 180, and he’s not only ready, he’s eager to pass that global test now.
As usual, they couldn’t possibly be more wrong. It’s complete baloney! First, as for their seizing on the president’s concession that “in certain parts of the world, it [the phrase “dead or alive”] was misinterpreted” as evidence that he is chastened and has come around to their way of thinking, that’s hardly prostrating himself on the altar of globalism, is it? He said in Chicago, just this last Friday, that the reason he regretted saying “dead or alive” was because his wife got on him for it, but that explanation seems to have been forgotten or more likely, ignored. It doesn’t fit the “Bush-knows-he-was-wrong-to-act-like-such-a-bullying-cowboy” template. Second, this whole theory that Bush has gone from a shoot-first, ask-questions later, a bull in the china shop who charged into Iraq without thinking twice or telling anyone is more revisionist history. Don’t the 17 U.N. resolutions demanding that Saddam Hussein prove that he has disarmed count? What about the 14-month “rush to war?” Have they forgotten all that time that we spent trying to use diplomacy to get the Butcher of Baghdad to comply? Have these pinheads forgotten that President Bush made a powerful speech to the U.N. in September, 2002, pleading with them to live up to their supposed reason for existing? It was George W. Bush who wanted to keep the U.N. in the game, and forced them to hang on the pretense of being a relevant force in international affairs.
So, the MSM’s latest version of reality is anything but. George W. Bush and his approach to foreign policy hasn’t changed, notwithstanding any superficial linguistic changes. The good news is that next week brings a new edition of the magazine, and the drive-by media, in Rush’s memorable phrase, will be on to a new version of reality by then.
Sure, our friends in the MSM are annoying, especially when they tell our enemies what the government is doing to try to stop them from killing as many Americans as possible, and otherwise bending over backwards to encourage these head loppers to not give up hope and to keep fighting us. Or when they deliberately lie in order to make political point or to win one of those idiotic prizes they like to give each other, in truly cringe-inducing episodes of self-congratulation.
Having said that, they are amusing. There’s a reason that Ted Baxter was one of the funniest characters in television history: pompous, self-important, narcissistic and incapable of seeing how ridiculous he sounded condescendingly telling people what any 6 year old knows. The current media shares these traits in spades, and they don’t realize that we grownups in the middle of the country look at them and see them as the buffoons that they are. In short, they are hilarious to watch. When they create their own Bizarro World of the week, and then try to convince the rest of us that it’s reality, they are especially risible.
Case in point: the latest pronoucement by TIME magazine in its latest edition in a story by Mike Allen and Romesh Ratnesar, “The End of Cowboy Diplomacy.” Now, apparently because in his news conference here in Chicago on Friday, the president mentioned patience and diplomacy in handling North Korea, they’ve decided “pre-emption is over,” and that the formerly brash, swaggering cowboy who “invaded” (I know—liberated, but I’m speaking for the 5th column here) Iraq has been humbled by the enormous failure that his decision has proven to be to the point where he understands that John Kerry was right all along. He’s done a 180, and he’s not only ready, he’s eager to pass that global test now.
As usual, they couldn’t possibly be more wrong. It’s complete baloney! First, as for their seizing on the president’s concession that “in certain parts of the world, it [the phrase “dead or alive”] was misinterpreted” as evidence that he is chastened and has come around to their way of thinking, that’s hardly prostrating himself on the altar of globalism, is it? He said in Chicago, just this last Friday, that the reason he regretted saying “dead or alive” was because his wife got on him for it, but that explanation seems to have been forgotten or more likely, ignored. It doesn’t fit the “Bush-knows-he-was-wrong-to-act-like-such-a-bullying-cowboy” template. Second, this whole theory that Bush has gone from a shoot-first, ask-questions later, a bull in the china shop who charged into Iraq without thinking twice or telling anyone is more revisionist history. Don’t the 17 U.N. resolutions demanding that Saddam Hussein prove that he has disarmed count? What about the 14-month “rush to war?” Have they forgotten all that time that we spent trying to use diplomacy to get the Butcher of Baghdad to comply? Have these pinheads forgotten that President Bush made a powerful speech to the U.N. in September, 2002, pleading with them to live up to their supposed reason for existing? It was George W. Bush who wanted to keep the U.N. in the game, and forced them to hang on the pretense of being a relevant force in international affairs.
So, the MSM’s latest version of reality is anything but. George W. Bush and his approach to foreign policy hasn’t changed, notwithstanding any superficial linguistic changes. The good news is that next week brings a new edition of the magazine, and the drive-by media, in Rush’s memorable phrase, will be on to a new version of reality by then.
Saturday, July 08, 2006
I received a very interesting and thought-provoking e-mail from SL (Smart Listener) DH about the Liberal Death Star and its snotty editor Bill Kellar, which I want to share with you. Enjoy!
***********
DH writes:
With the recent backdrop of Bill Kellar preaching to us that what’s good for the New York Times is good for the country, I had an eye-opening experience watching an old movie classic “All the President’s Men”. (As you would say, I watched it so you didn’t have to.) My guess is you’ve seen this 70’s flick some time in your past, but let me refresh your memory. This seminal, supposedly most triumphant moment in journalism history (by their own admission) was achieved by rifling through library records (Howard Hunt’s), sifting though mountains of phone records (Maurice Stans’), and digging (under false pretenses I might add) in to private financial records (Bernard Barker’s). If you haven’t been on Mars, you know these three—library, phone and financial records-- have been shaped by a hysterical media as the Bush trifecta in his attempt to convert us to an SS-style police state.
But the movie gets even better. They (Bob and Carl) got their hands on credit card transactions—loads of them. They spread them on the floor of an apartment to follow the private footsteps of one of the officials of CRP (Committee to Re-elect the President). Perhaps my favorite moment was when they appeal to a fellow female reporter (with a wink) to get the dirt on a guy she was engaged to, who was an official at CRP. The audience is encouraged to see all this as clever, aggressive and of course driven only by noble, heroic, and public spirited motives.
So there are many questions to ask your audience around this. Should the Washington Post, on the forefront of the current privacy-is-the-ultimate-of-all-constitutional-values hysteria, now apologize for years of this pattern of privacy invasion? Do we really have more to fear from the government than the press when it comes to invasion of privacy? The former is bound by law while the latter, much more frightening to me, considers itself above it. The former we elect under a public charter of protecting us while the latter is unelected and arrogates to itself this special public protection role.
Keep in mind that this is the same press that often rummages through peoples’ garbage for personal dirt, and the same press that tried to get the video rental records of Robert Bork? But why is at that all this big brother talk is always about the government or business or direct marketing companies, but never about the press? The simple answer is that the press plays a major role in conditioning the public about what it should and should not be sensitive to. And (surprise!) you notice they are never the problem.
My question to Kellar, if I had only one, is this: if their decisions are truly driven by public interest, then why do they demand so much secrecy themselves? Is it not in the public interest to know who a leaker (i.e., lawbreaker) is? If the NYT sees itself as whistleblower when some one in government breaks the law, why the selectivity of exposing some criminals (e.g., Nixon’s staff) but protecting others (i.e., leakers of classified information)? Even if a leak does not involve lawbreaking, wouldn’t the public be better served to know who the leaker is, so as to judge for themselves whether the person was driven by ulterior motive? (Remember when the “unimpeachable” source for Dan Rather’s Bush National Guard story was exposed?)
Anyway, just some thoughts. I think there is some good stuff for some challenging questions here.
***********
DH writes:
With the recent backdrop of Bill Kellar preaching to us that what’s good for the New York Times is good for the country, I had an eye-opening experience watching an old movie classic “All the President’s Men”. (As you would say, I watched it so you didn’t have to.) My guess is you’ve seen this 70’s flick some time in your past, but let me refresh your memory. This seminal, supposedly most triumphant moment in journalism history (by their own admission) was achieved by rifling through library records (Howard Hunt’s), sifting though mountains of phone records (Maurice Stans’), and digging (under false pretenses I might add) in to private financial records (Bernard Barker’s). If you haven’t been on Mars, you know these three—library, phone and financial records-- have been shaped by a hysterical media as the Bush trifecta in his attempt to convert us to an SS-style police state.
But the movie gets even better. They (Bob and Carl) got their hands on credit card transactions—loads of them. They spread them on the floor of an apartment to follow the private footsteps of one of the officials of CRP (Committee to Re-elect the President). Perhaps my favorite moment was when they appeal to a fellow female reporter (with a wink) to get the dirt on a guy she was engaged to, who was an official at CRP. The audience is encouraged to see all this as clever, aggressive and of course driven only by noble, heroic, and public spirited motives.
So there are many questions to ask your audience around this. Should the Washington Post, on the forefront of the current privacy-is-the-ultimate-of-all-constitutional-values hysteria, now apologize for years of this pattern of privacy invasion? Do we really have more to fear from the government than the press when it comes to invasion of privacy? The former is bound by law while the latter, much more frightening to me, considers itself above it. The former we elect under a public charter of protecting us while the latter is unelected and arrogates to itself this special public protection role.
Keep in mind that this is the same press that often rummages through peoples’ garbage for personal dirt, and the same press that tried to get the video rental records of Robert Bork? But why is at that all this big brother talk is always about the government or business or direct marketing companies, but never about the press? The simple answer is that the press plays a major role in conditioning the public about what it should and should not be sensitive to. And (surprise!) you notice they are never the problem.
My question to Kellar, if I had only one, is this: if their decisions are truly driven by public interest, then why do they demand so much secrecy themselves? Is it not in the public interest to know who a leaker (i.e., lawbreaker) is? If the NYT sees itself as whistleblower when some one in government breaks the law, why the selectivity of exposing some criminals (e.g., Nixon’s staff) but protecting others (i.e., leakers of classified information)? Even if a leak does not involve lawbreaking, wouldn’t the public be better served to know who the leaker is, so as to judge for themselves whether the person was driven by ulterior motive? (Remember when the “unimpeachable” source for Dan Rather’s Bush National Guard story was exposed?)
Anyway, just some thoughts. I think there is some good stuff for some challenging questions here.