Al Franken's Former Talk Radio Colleagues Vocalize Disapproval
FRANKEN-LY UNHAPPY
Schultz Tirade Against New Senator Provides Reality Check
Likely knowing full well that Al Franken has yet to prove his worth as a US Senator, the alleged funnyman's mainstream media pals are working overtime to remake his dodgy image.
Peel away that thin layer of overt partisan spin, however, and it becomes clear that unease related to Franken'slegendary personal baggage remains as strong as ever. Worse, his recent words and actions have generated new anger, this time from the left.
Leading the charge on that front is MSNBC / syndicated radio libtalker Ed Schultz, who has been outspoken this week in airing grievances against a politician whose candidacy he strongly supported. Schultz believes Franken has already sold out his beliefs in exchange for Beltway-style good 'ol boys acceptance.
From Tuesday's radio program, here's the exclusive audio and transcript:
SCHULTZ (03:51): Franken, I don't care if it's his first day in the Senate, I don't like what I'm hearing! How do you stand in front of crowds and listen to what people want for several years and then go to Washington and say, I'm proud to be number two from Minnesota! That's my vote, buddy! I did everything I could to help you defeat Norm Coleman!
I don't want you to go say that you're the number two senator from Minnesota. I don't want the bar lowered to the point where, well, we're really not sure if we can get this done or not. Where's all that tough talk in these books you sold about what a big fatass Limbaugh is! Why don't you go call the Republicans a bunch of fatasses and we're going to kick your ass and IT'S TIME NOW TO GET IT DONE! -
SCHULTZ (05:57): The irony of this is unbelievable! For of all people, to be number 60, a guy who has been torn apart by the righties! Beaten up by O'Reilly! Trashed by Hannity! Ripped apart by Limbaugh! Made fun of (makes mocking voice), Air America this, Air America that, dut da dut da dut, and what does Al do? (with heavy sarcasm) He's ready to reach across the aisle (sigh)...
In addition, newly-discovered audio of a January edition of the Randi Rhodes Show reveals why she doesn't think Franken will make an "honest" senator:
RHODES - 07 JANUARY 2009 - (8:12): Minnesota? Who the hell knows what’s going on there. First, it’s really kind of creepy. I gotta tell you you. Here’s your choices in Minnesota, worse or worst. Pick one.
You think I care, you’ve got worse and worst. That’s what you’ve got to choose from there. At one point for a really long time worse is 200 votes ahead. Then worst get 200 votes ahead.
Now you know they go we counted some much we get anymore we get like I can’t count anymore, certify something. Oh well we will certify, eeny meeny miney Franken. You should certify Tom Davis, he was the funny one. Seriously. You know I. So they certify Franken, I’m like holy crap, I can’t believe that. I cannot believe it.
RHODES (34:52): The reasons that I have for thinking he (Franken) will make a terrible Senator are really valid. I’ve kept them to myself. I’ve not put them on the air. I let the man run without the burden of what I know, which is all documentable and researchable and you can find it on the Internet. Never said a word. Left it to the voters in Minnesota to find out. Left it to Norm Coleman to expose it if he did some background operational research he could have found a lot of stuff. Didn’t bother to do it.
It’s Norm Coleman’s fault. I tell you that I think Norm Coleman is a horrible Senator. I think he’s a horn dog. I think he’s a womanizer. I think he’s a liar and I think he’s a terrible senator.
On the other hand, I’ve got plenty of reasons to believe that Al Franken is not going to be the type of honest senator, the kind of transparent operator that were were voting for. The kind of transparency and accountability that we voted for, he doesn’t fit that mold. I know some stuff. I choose not to put it on the air.
Why is it that so many who've worked closely with Al Franken in the past have since become his most outspoken critics?
While that kind of kooky theory might sound preposterously funny to the mentally well-adjusted among us, a caller to Al Sharpton's radio show yesterday appeared absolutely serious in suggesting a Palin-led plot to get Michael Jackson.
Hey, there are always nutty callers out there, right? And occasionally, they sneak past call-screeners and reach the airwaves.
What's different here, however, is Sharpton's willingness to entertain the possibility, rather than dismiss it outright.
Sure, why not? No theory is too bizarre for the king of conspiracies.
Here's the transcript and clip:
FEMALE CALLER (31:50): He (Michael Jackson) is truly the soundtrack of my life. I also have a theory about Sarah Palin as well and I’m going to put it out there on radio, hopefully someone can investigate.
But, I think maybe she did something to Michael Jackson. Maybe there’s a scandal there. Maybe she’s stepping down because something’s about to come out. I don’t know, but I’m gonna just put it out there on your show so we’ll see.
SHARPTON: All right, thank you for your call, Ashley. That’s interesting. I’ll put it out, we’ll see. I don’t know.
Is it reallyinteresting, Al, or certifiably nutty? Sharpton has cooked up so many conspiracies over the years that it's no wonder his listeners feel comfortable sharing them on his program.
EXCLUSIVE: Rush Limbaugh Breaks Silence Over Palin Resignation
'IT'S ALL SPECULATION'
RUSH: Establishment 'Still Scared To Death Of (Palin)'
*** EXCLUSIVE TO THE RADIO EQUALIZER ***
How does Rush Limbaugh see Sarah Palin's resignation announcement?
Though an assortment of pundits both left and right have been quick to offer their views on Palin's move to step down as governor of Alaska, the talk titan has been one of the most significant figures to remain absent from the debate.
With her press conference taking place after the end of his Friday program and El Rushbo's summer golfing holiday beginning immediately thereafter, there has been no opportunity to comment on a development that has shaken the political world.
Through persistence and a bit of luck, however, your Radio Equalizer was able to track down Limbaugh, who offered a three minute taped answer to our key question: does Sarah Palin have a political future?
In the response, Limbaugh denounced Beltway and state-run media speculation over Palin's next move, as well as dismissals of her future viability, comparing it to unfounded rumors regarding Michael Jackson's actual cause of death. He was careful to note that both establishment Democrats and Republicans were writing her political obituary, but that it was more than premature.
Limbaugh's analysis bears some resemblance to fellow talker Mark Levin's, which we featured in our previous post. Also included there is an exclusive interview with Dr Laura Schlessinger on how family issues may have played a role in Palin's decision.
Meanwhile, Ann Coulter has also added her two cents to the debate with a commentary featured at WowOWow, a site for women:
It’s a weird Washington insider perspective to be perplexed by what she’s doing. Contrary to Mark Sanford’s e-mails to his mistress, no one was really impressed with him; 99.99999999999999999% of Americans didn’t know who he was.
Who is more influential: Rush Limbaugh, Matt Drudge and Bill O’Reilly, or Tim Pawlenty, Bobby Jindal and Mark Sanford (before the fall)? As Palin said, God bless people who run for political office, but – and she didn’t say this part – she’s too big to be a lame-duck governor stuck dealing with fishing licenses in Anchorage right now.
She’ll be much bigger now and can play on the national stage without constantly setting off state ethics investigations by loons, parasites and liberals. None of this applied to McCain or Kerry – both of whom went back to the Senate – because their national campaigns diminished them. Palin’s national campaign made her a major star. As she said, she’s not retreating, she’s advancing in another direction.
Dr Laura, Levin, Others React To Palin's Bombshell
*** UPDATED WITH MARK LEVIN'S REACTION *** *** WITH EXCLUSIVE QUOTES ***
Though caught as off-guard as anyone else, the nation's talk radio hosts reacted swiftly to news ofSarah Palin'sresignation as governor of Alaska late today. Most had already wrapped up their broadcast week, but a few were blindsided by the unexpected development while their shows were still underway.
That included best-selling author / syndicated host Mark Levin, whose supportive on-air response pieced together her likely political game plan, as well as New England-based regional talker Howie Carr, who strongly felt Palin had made a huge political mistake. More on that from our sister site, here.
So far, conservatives are divided on what it means for both Palin's political future and the GOP, with some calling it the end of her career, while others consider it a shrewd move. MSNBC weasel "Morning Joe" Scarborough was quick to write her obituary, yet commentator Bill Kristol was impressed by her apparent strategy.
Not yet weighing in is talk titan and key Palin advocate Rush Limbaugh, who will be away next week.
Because some have suggested family issues played a role in her decision, with constant state-run media attacks against her children becoming a key concern, your Radio Equalizer turned to top radio advice talker Dr Laura Schlessinger for insight.
RADIO EQUALIZER: Dr Laura, I know you were critical of Palin last year, especially as her candidacy potentially conflicted with family issues. Do you have any reaction to her resignation as Alaska's governor? Do you believe these issues played a key role?
DR LAURA SCHLESSINGER: I just watched her whole speech and:
1. She did not need/use a teleprompter and was powerfully articulate and compelling.
2. The "reason" for her resignation was valid: the liberal media and politicos with an obvious agenda are causing her state harm with a distraction from state business and overwhelming public and private financial costs to defend against specious attacks on her ethics.
The agenda behind these attacks appears to be fear of her running in next presidential election.
3. Palin also lamented the nasty attacks on her special-needs child. But family issues did not seem to play a key role, according to her speech.
If this is sincere, and not a political tactic to stop the attacks in order to prepare for the next presidential election, then I am impressed.
I believe her parental responsibilities trump political aspirations - or should.
Among the oldest tricks contained in just about any dusty, dog-eared political playbook is to ask one's opponent when he stopped beating his wife. As the burden shifts to the accused to prove otherwise, there's no need to back up the charge with evidence.
It's also one of the cheapest tactics, however, reserved only for the truly desperate. That most likely explains why Air America libtalker Ron Reagan (seen in right image praying to the Sun God for ratings) has resorted to it: his career depends on generating some much-needed attention.
Rather than ignore his cry for help, your Radio Equalizer would like to call attention to his words, especially given Reagan's supposed reputation for thoughtful analysis rather than sewer-level attacks.
Hey Ron, have you got any evidence to back this up?
Here's our exclusive YouTube clip and partial transcript from Monday's Ron Reagan Show:
REAGAN (8:52): I’m guessing that the White House advisor on domestic violence will never say that beating your wife is OK, which may be a disappointment to Limbaugh.
And you wonder why this guy can’t stay married...
To fuel his smear effort, Reagan selectively excerpted a Limbaugh monologue from a week ago that expressed concerns over Obama's overuse of White House-appointed "czars" to oversee nearly every aspect of life in America today.
As these directors are accountable to no one but the president, it represents a rapid, unchecked expansion of the executive branch that has many concerned about potential abuses of power in the years to come.
While there's a case to be made for ignoring the rantings of Ron Reagan and others in the bizarre world of liberal radio, it provides further evidence that the "hate talk" so despised by "progressives" often actually originates from the left. It also reveals a chronic inability to make substantive arguments that would build a case for liberal idealism.
Seating Al Franken Could Ultimately Backfire For Dems
KNOCK YOURSELVES OUT!
Now, The Post-"Victory" Hangover Begins For Democrats
*** UPDATES BELOW ***
Are Democrats truly ready for a Senator Al Franken?
As the party finishes celebrating itsstolen election "victory", it must now contend with the sobering reality that a bona fide loose cannon has joined its ranks. The hangover will be unpleasant indeed.
Consider first that Democrats don't actually need Franken, as they've already got a healthy majority. And with Senators Byrd and Kennedy generally unavailable, that magical, filibuster-stopping number 60 isn't as meaningful as it could have been. In addition, other Dems up for re-election next year are already showing signs of keeping distance from Harry Reid & Co.
Soon, Democrats will realize that while the idea of Franken's victory in Minnesota seemed appealing last year, his belated seating now creates unnecessary headaches for the party. Here's why:
Far from being a team player, Franken has always placed his own interests ahead of others. Just ask his former co-workers at Air America Radio, Saturday Night Live and elsewhere.
While ordinary mortals in the Senate chamber are expected to use discretion in their public statements, this is a foreign concept to Franken. His "election" inserts a second Joe Biden into the mix, but with an added nasty edge not normally seen in the hapless vice-president. No matter what he promises, Al will NEVER change. He can't.
As Franken's actions are now in full public view, the free ride is over. Though the media will continue to defend him, opponents will have better access to the details of his antics. It will become more difficult to escape scrutiny.
Though the Republican Party remains largely inept at this time, even its currently-lackluster leadership must recognize the potential goldmine Franken's seating has unlocked. Especially as he inevitably screws up, Stuart will provide a symbolic face of the Democratic Party that will likely result in additional contributions and votes for Republicans from coast to coast.
The result: Franken is a net-negative for the Dems.
The lesson: be careful what you wish for, sometimes it comes true!
Rush Limbaugh Becomes Scapegoat For Michigan City's Decline
FLINT'S FIT
Can Talk Radio Take The Blame For Michigan's Problems?
Can a city shift the blame for its long term decline to a radio talk show host? In Flint, Michigan, that appears to be the goal of an entrenched political and media establishment.
While turning outsiders into scapegoats for civic decline wasn't invented in Flint, its leaders deserve credit for both their creativity in exaggeration and sheer determination to make the charges stick.
With their campaign to blame Rush Limbaugh for the economically-depressed city's negative press coverage underway for two full weeks, there's still no end in sight. In a region with few remaining Republican leaders to blame for its downfall, El Rushbo provides a suitable substitute for desperate Democratic Party rulers.
RUSH: They're gonna bulldoze 40% of Flint, Michigan. The era of Obama has settled in. Forty percent of Flint, Michigan, is boarded-up homes. They're now using gravel to make roads in Michigan rather than concrete and asphalt. They don't have any money. Forty percent! They're going to have to bulldoze 40% of Flint, Michigan, to reduce the size because it no longer works the way it is. This is unthinkable in the United States of America. Unthinkable.
It's the era of Obama. I'm seeing things happen in this country that I thought I would never, ever see. These are the kind of things that happen in totalitarian regimes.
CALLER: Well, I don't think they're going to move back. I think there are nice suburbs of Flint where people are much happier and they can be there with their families. Probably some of the schools are better than what's in the city of Flint.
RUSH: Look, if you're going to bulldoze 40% of Flint and bulldozing 40% of Flint will not cause people to return and have it grow, why bulldoze it all? If everybody prefers to live in cities close to it?
CALLER: Well, there's people that probably enjoy living in the city. They've been there for years and I'm sure they would want to see the city improve. They probably wouldn't be against this plan. I mean, no one wants to see a bunch of people be forced out of their homes because of this, you know. But if it can eventually improve things to where people want to move there then by all means. You know?
RUSH: Now, wait. This is a new twist because the story I read said that 40% of the town needs to be bulldozed because 40% of the homes and other structures are unoccupied. Now you're talking about bulldozing homes that are occupied as well.
CALLER: Well, the areas that you're speaking of... Okay, now, I mentioned the northern part of the city, okay? There's areas where I grew up in when I was a child that now are much worse. Like I took my children into an area where I grew up when I was a baby just a couple months ago, and I want to tell you what, Rush. I was scared. I drove down that street...
RUSH: Okay, fine. Now, we can say, "Okay, it needs to be bulldozed," but nobody is going to go back there precisely because no changes will be made that led to the fact that 40% of the town is a ghost town or what have you. What bothers me about this is that this is a country that has always prided itself on growth, economic growth and economic opportunity. Now, I understand. We hear of hurricanes wiping out towns. There was a Kansas town wiped out by a tornado, and they rebuilt it. It's amazing to listen to Democrats say, "We don't have any interest in rebuilding Flint. We want to bulldoze it," and then the guy come up with the idea. Obama says, "Hey, apply your theory to 50 of our cities."
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: All right, folks, I have thought about it, I've given this considerable thought. I've given this more thought in the last ten minutes than most people think about anything in their life. And I am ready to change my mind on bulldozing Flint. I say go for it. Let's just bulldoze it. Well, what made me think of this was my answer to the guy's question on bankruptcy. By the way, the first purpose of the TARP bailout was to buy up all the toxic assets, and then it was to get credit going. We haven't done either with the money. But now I'm sort of looking at bulldozing these cities as bankruptcy. They should have been let go long ago. They were down the tubes long ago. We tried propping them up with urban renewal and it didn't work. We were hoodwinked into being called names if we just let these cities go. So we kept pumping money in there, we kept pumping welfare, food stamps, all these things 'cause we loved 'em and we cared for them, but the proof that a government can't revive anything is Flint, Michigan.
What really sent Flint south was when GM shut down there and moved or left. Well, I better check. I better check if there's still GM operations in Flint. If there are, they've really been downsized. But whatever, if GM's not involved in it, whatever is the problem in Flint, Michigan, what have we done to try to save it? Every government program under the sun, and what's happened? We got boarded-up houses that now the leaders of the town say need to be bulldozed, forty percent of the town. Now, this is probably what needs to happen to a lot of California, folks, and other places where we're going in debt propping up failure. It is what it is. We can't keep pumping all this federal and state money in because we have proven that pumping federal and state money doesn't spur growth in cities or anything else. GM, I mean, if $50 billion in bailout or 20 can't save 'em, let it go. And then if Flint rises out of its own ashes, fine and dandy. There's another added benefit. Every damn one of these cities is a blue city, I'll guaran-damn-tee you, meaning mostly Democrats, so you bulldoze it and you disburse a bunch of Obama voters, it has great political future ramifications for the Republicans. Hee-hee-hee-hee-hee.
From that point, politicians and media outlets seized upon Rush's position change, immediately rewriting history to make it appear Limbaugh had proposed razing Flint, rather than the Obama-supporting Democrats who've proposed it.
Limbaugh, discussing the potential for shrinking Flint to better concentrate city services, said Tuesday he would rather wipe out parts of the city than force taxpayers to continue maintaining it.
"All right, folks, I have thought about it, I've given this considerable thought. I've given this more thought in the last ten minutes than most people think about anything in their life. And I am ready to change my mind on bulldozing Flint. I say go for it. Let's just bulldoze it," Limbaugh said in a transcript on his Web site.
Limbaugh also said cities like Flint were "down the tubes long ago."
"We tried propping them up with urban renewal and it didn't work. We were hoodwinked into being called names if we just let these cities go," he said. "So we kept pumping money in there, we kept pumping welfare, food stamps, all these things 'cause we loved 'em and we cared for them, but the proof that a government can't revive anything is Flint, Michigan."
Genesee County Treasurer Daniel Kildee said today that Limbaugh relied on bad information in making his comments about the idea of shrinking the city.
"I shouldn't be surprised but I'm disappointed with the cavalier treatment he is giving it," Kildee said. "To me, that shows he doesn't take any issue seriously."
In Flint, temporary Mayor Michael Brown, Genesee County Treasurer and County Land Bank Chief Dan Kildee and others believe that "shrinking" the city may be a solution.
"Bulldoze" the city is how Limbaugh put it. He blasted Kildee for talking with the Barack Obama administration about how the concept might play in other distressed American cities.
As we understand it, the bulldozers might move in, but they'd target derelict structures.
Here's how the city would "shrink" under the plan:
Flint has some of the nation's most vacant neighborhoods. It's largely the result of people moving out of the city, even out of the area, after more than 70,000 General Motors jobs evaporated over the years.
Some of the property was abandoned, reverted to the local or state governments for nonpayment of property taxes and ended up in the hands of the Land Bank.
With some blocks of town almost devoid of inhabitants, it might be cheaper to offer the few people left some Land Bank property in a more populated part of the city. Then, the city would be free to declare the cleared area a green zone of sorts, cut sewer service and stop maintaining the streets.
That's the "shrinking:" The city's populated footprint, the area that street crews, utility crews and police officers and firefighters must service, would shrink. Flint would save money, and the land would be open and ready for whatever development the future would bring.
Bulldozers? Yes, in a few places.
Bulldoze the city and walk away from Flint as a lost cause?
While the paper's editorial board does admit it wasn't Limbaugh's idea, attempting to justify the crusade against him because he used words like "bulldoze" is weak at best. Facing overwhelmingly difficult choices ahead, Flint should focus on upgrading local leadership rather than attacking talk show hosts who dare to comment on its problems.
Leftists Complain About Jackson Coverage, But See Smear Potential
FINAL EXPLOITATION
Lefties Angry, Opportunistic Over Michael Jackson's Death
It's not generally in dispute that Michael Jackson was exploited as a child for his immense talent. Later, it was Jackson himself who was accused of predatory behavior. Now, his death provides potential opportunities to score cheap political points through false associations and unfounded smears.
Over the past several hours, many have focused on how the world has changed since Jackson's career peak in 1983-1984. One key difference today is the way nearly every key news event, especially the celebrity obit, quickly becomes politicized.
The King Of Pop's unexpected passing is clearly no different: from Al Sharpton to TMZ to left wing smear sites, many are making irrelevant "connections" that elevate liberals and slander conservatives.
And within the next 24 hours, it is a certainty that conservative talk hosts and political figures will somehow fall prey to the "gotcha" game that now surrounds these news events. The only variable will be the nature of the faux "controversy" over their reaction.
Initially, comments left at several liberal blog sites expressed anger that Jackson's death would almost certainly bump the Sanford affair off of the front pages. Here's one from TVNewser:
pinkpinkbear - 10 minutes ago
Enough of Michael Jackson.
Let's see what Gov. Sanford is up to. Nothing like getting the news off himself.
Thu Jun-25-09 07:12 PM 195. Great news for Mark Sanford
But as the evening went on, it became clear there were more appealing opportunities to both smear conservatives and use Jackson's death to reinforce the idea of Barack Obama as The Gloved One's rightful heir. As a result, Sanford was no longer the primary talking point.
In the moments following Michael Jackson's death -- so many people rushed to the Internet, that it practically stopped the entire WWW in its tracks.
Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, AIM -- just a few of the scores of major web sites bombed by a tidal wave of traffic. Most of the sites still worked, but the epically high traffic numbers caused them all to move at a snail's pace.
The last time the 'net had this kind of traffic -- Obama's inauguration.
It's hard to believe there's any comparison, however: while slowdowns were generally not seen on that January day, many sites (including our own) have been inaccessible since the Jackson news first hit.
But the mission has been accomplished nonetheless: tying Michael's legacy to that of Obama.
And while some lefty sites have been carefully moderating comments that could lead to a potential backlash, others have been sloppy. Your Radio Equalizer found these smears at HuffPo, the Washington Post and the blog site of Alan Colmes:
Oh please - far be it for me to speak ill of the dead, but he was only 'king of pop' because he insisted MTV call him so to get his videos. Anyone calling him a great dancer has never seen a good broadway musical. The 'moonwalk' is just basic pantomime walking that any high school drama student can do. There is nothing in his music that was as good as the Clash, Patty Smith, the B52s or many other groups in the late 70s and early 80s. Like Rush Limbaugh, Jackson was the king of self promotion, and once he was wealthy we squandered his millions on plastic surgery and a little boy seduction park. Sadly he won't live long enough to redeem himself, but please, in the world of music jackson was a minor talent who's music will be long forgotten.
True – never liked the guy. I guess this leaves Rush Limbaugh as America’s highest profile child molester.
Posted by FISHLEGBOOTS
June 25th, 2009 at 6:26 pm
As the left was caught off-guard by Jackson's sudden death, this is only the beginning. Expect the smear machine to be operating at full capacity today and through the weekend.
In particular, watch for further attempts to use Michael's passing to smear conservative talk hosts, it's as certain as fireworks on the Fourth of July.
Where talk radio and politics collide: influencing the debate since 2004. From longtime host / analyst / rabble-rouser Brian Maloney, seen on FOX (including a number of O'Reilly Factor appearances), CNN, Court TV and elsewhere.
Suddenly, Stuart Smalley is revealing his "solemn" side, studying the issues and making a real effort to work with others. Heck, he's even a great roommate!
Suddenly, Stuart Smalley is revealing his "solemn" side, studying the issues and making a real effort to work with others. Heck, he's even a great roommate!
