Boortz: Media Matters' "Dave Brock is the illegitimate bastard child of Hillary Clinton and George Soros"
On the July 12 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, host Neal Boortz said he does not want to go on vacation "without having stirred the pudding with Media Myrmidons at least one more time." He went on to suggest that Media Matters for America President and CEO "David Brock is the illegitimate son of [Clinton deputy White House counsel] Vince Foster and [Sen.] Hillary Clinton [D-NY]" and later said, "Dave Brock is the illegitimate bastard child of Hillary Clinton and [philanthropist] George Soros." In the same segment, Boortz said he used to refer to Hearst Newspapers columnist Helen Thomas as "the hag" but would no longer be able to use the term because at a "White House Christmas party one year, she took [his wife] Donna and me under our [sic] wing like a craggy old aunt and started showing us around the White House. ... I mean, she was just the perfect aunt or grandma." Boortz continued: "[S]o I can't call her 'the hag' anymore. ... 'Left-wing bitch,' maybe." Boortz followed by saying, "I'm sorry. No, but she was just so sweet."
He also suggested getting "rid of these scooters, these electric scooters that fat people ride in. Make 'em walk. It'll thin out the herd, in more ways than one." Boortz further commented that removing "those little blinking red lights and stop signs on school buses" would be an acceptable form of population control because "when those kids get off the school buses, the fittest will get home." Boortz prefaced his comments by saying that people are "not going to know whether I am serious or not because I could be just yanking Media Myrmidons' chains or I could be serious about this because I am a self-admitted social Darwinist."
The Georgia Association of Broadcasters awarded Boortz and his radio show the honors of "Best Radio On-Air Personality" and "Best Radio Program, Any Type" in 2007. Boortz is a nominee for the Georgia Radio Hall of Fame 2007 Career Achievement Award. Boortz's flagship station is WSB in Atlanta.
From the July 12 broadcast of Cox Radio Syndication's The Neal Boortz Show:
BOORTZ: Welcome back. It's more of The Neal Boortz Show. Presidential press conference today. Royal [Marshall, engineer and "sidekick"] monitored it. Royal, pretty much dull? Just same old, same old?
MARSHALL: Yeah, no fireworks today.
BOORTZ: Same old, same old.
MARSHALL: Yeah.
BOORTZ: What do you think, what do you --
MARSHALL: Talk about [former vice presidential chief of staff I. Lewis] Scooter [Libby] now.
BOORTZ: Oh, Scooter. Yeah. Oh.
BELINDA SKELTON (producer): But I saw Helen Thomas ask a question. I thought she retired.
BOORTZ: No, she retired from AP or UPI or something like that, but she's still out there. You know, I used to call her "the hag." But when I went to the White House Christmas party one year, she took Donna and me under our [sic] wing like a craggy old aunt and started showing us around the White House. And she'd say, "Now this is the -- this is the Green Room," and she'd tell us all the things that ever -- "This is the Red Room, this is the state dining -- " And she was, I mean, she was just the perfect aunt or grandma that was -- and so I can't call her "the hag" anymore.
SKELTON: Good, because I love her.
BOORTZ: "Left-wing bitch," maybe. I'm sorry. No, but she was just so sweet. So. By the way, I'm going on vacation next week. And I do not want to go -- I -- tomorrow we'll be on the last -- I get five weeks a year. I don't take five weeks a year of vacation.
SKELTON: That's dumb.
BOORTZ: Well, I turn them into working vacations. Like a month ago, when I was in Tucson [Arizona], we turned -- I -- you know, I'm on vacation. We turned it into a working vacation. And then two weeks after that, I go to San Francisco for a week. I take you, Belinda. We turn that into a working vacation. I'm so dedicated to my craft, I try to stay on the air. Next week, however, I'll be out of touch. And I am very concerned, Belinda, that I am going to leave town without having done, you know -- without having stirred the pudding with Media Myrmidons at least one more time.
SKELTON: Oh, you've got plenty of time to do that.
BOORTZ: Today and tomorrow. I have an hour today. Do you know, do you know -- when was it, Royal? Was it earlier this week that I made the off-hand comment about George Soros sleeping with David Brock?
MARSHALL: I don't recall that.
BOORTZ: Well, it went by really quick, and I followed it with "just kidding." But I thought for sure the Media Myrmidons would have their tape recorders running. I just knew by the middle of the afternoon, you know, "Boortz alleges blah blah blah blah blah blah blah," and they'd print a picture of me. And, "Here's his -- here's the email address, rah rah rah rah rah rah. And here's the email address of his boss rah rah. Demand that this stop, rah rah rah rah rah." It didn't work.
And then, today, I'm going to repeat what I had to say today, OK? And that is, maybe this will do it, ladies and gentleman, because you're not going to know whether I'm serious or not. I could be just yanking Media Myrmidons' chains or I could be serious about this because I am a self-admitted social Darwinist. I believe in survival of the fittest. I believe we have too many unfit running around. I think we ought to get rid of these scooters, these electric scooters that fat people ride in. Make 'em walk. It'll thin out the herd, in more ways than one.
Anyway. The Optimum Population Trust, a United Kingdom-based think tank, has released a report saying growth in Britain's birth rate is having an adverse impact on, ad-- excuse me, an adverse impact on the environment. [gasps] The report's author, Professor John Guillebaud, says the government should formulate regulations to force people to stop at two children or have one less child. Like, you know, kind of like China. Two children, that's all.
You know, maybe he has a point. Maybe less British people would be -- Anyway, I have an idea for Great Britain. I have suggested this idea for this country, but I can't get any takers. Get rid of those little blinking red lights and stop signs on school buses. OK? You know with, with most other animals in the animal kingdom, you know, little baby lions, little baby tigers, little baby bears, after awhile the mother starts nudging them out of the nest. They -- the nest. They got to get out there. They got to fight. They got to roll around. They got to climb over the rocks. They got to get hurt. And the ones, the ones with the survival instincts make it, the ones without the survival instincts don't, and if it wasn't that way we would be up to our ass in black bears. So get those stop lights off the school buses, rescind those laws, and when those kids get off the school buses, the fittest will get home. And we'll start weeding them out that way.
What are we teaching these kids? We're not teaching them any survival skills by putting those signs on school buses. What do they learn? "I step out in the street, everybody's supposed to stop. I know." And then one day, they're not on a school bus, they're on a municipal bus. They step off, they step in front of traffic -- blammo, greasy spot, front bumper. Because they thought the traffic was going to stop for them. Uh-uh, it doesn't. Only when you're in that stupid loser cruiser. Take off the red lights. Let's get Darwin back in the equation here, folks. That'll take care of some of this overpopulation. We won't die -- we won't harm the environment as much.
What do you think, Royal? You think that'll do it? You don't. You think that's weak. That's not going to get the Media Myrmidons going?
MARSHALL: No, nah.
BOORTZ: [sighs] It's not, huh? How about David Brock is the illegitimate son of Vince Foster and Hillary Clinton?
MARSHALL: Now you're on the right track.
BOORTZ: I'm on -- OK. Dave Brock is the illegitimate bastard child of Hillary Clinton and George Soros. How's that?
MARSHALL: Look, don't try to impress me.
BOORTZ: I did enough of that yesterday.
Boortz is my soap dropping b-i-a-t-c-h!
Herr Boortz,...
...your dry cleaner just called.
Your uniforms (both the brown ones and the black ones) are ready, but they weren't sure on which side the arm bands should go.
Also, Neil, the laundry called. Your sheets are ready.....
but they weren't sure on which side the arm bands should go.
Call mmfa, they will know!
Wow, Autopsychic. Once again, your rapier-like wit has cut is to the bone.
NOT!!!!
I've seen more mature replies from second-graders....
Yeah, like yours about the sheets? I guess we're in the same 2nd grade class.
Why do you people get so agitated over what these guys say (Boortz, Savage, any radio personality really)? Anyone with a grain of common sense knows better than to take them too seriously. It is simply entertainment for the incredibly bored.
Don't you realize this is their job, to be as outrageous as possible, that they plan on getting somebody's attention and another's panties in a bunch? You know, you have the freedom to not listen to them, but you do anyway -- why? Are you some sort of masochist cult?
You think you are doing some sort of service for the world but in reality you are just giving these jerks free advertising. Good job.
Good luck on that one. Try to get many here to just ignore these ratings-grabbing talk show screamers and concentrate on those that have real influence over public policy is a tall order......it's far easier to highlight this kind of nonsensical red meat and act as though it's impact is relevant to anything, than to debate serious conservative misinformation that does have some importance.
Yeah because ignoring the lies and blatant nonsense spouted by Limbaugh for a decade or so worked out so well for us.
Why do you suggest that we can't pay attention to both these minor players in the marketplace as well as the big fish too? It's not too overwhelming for our capabilities. It doesn't stop us from paying attention to the heavyweights either.
As Solon so wisely said, ignoring them didn't serve us well in the past.
We can point out the minor players as well as the big timers. When we address both of them, we also point out the pervasiveness of the misinformation coming from all parts of the conservatives in the media. It does serve us well to point out this stuff.
One has to wonder why you try to steer us away from it.
Oh, well. Boortz can pretend he's just rattling the cage, trying to get a rise out of the libs, but he's nervous. All the conservo-hosts are nervous. Media Matters makes them nervous, lib radio makes them nervous, Michael Moore makes them nervous. It's the same with all bullies, they lash out in anger at everything that will, by contrast, expose their weakness.
If the smart kid starts to get attention for intelligence, the bully has to take that kid down a notch. Same here, the smart kids are "poking a stick at the soft, white under-belly of the right-wing scheme machine." Only difference is these smart kids are sticking together and won't stop poking.
Post script for, Neal.
Darwin's theory was the Theory of Natural Selection. This has often been misinterpreted to mean survival of the fittest. That is a fallacy.
Species that are best adapted to live in an ecosystem will thrive; the ecosystem selects the survivors. This has little to do with competition and everything to do with dumb luck.
Tangentially, economies are like ecosystems, except that economies are man made. There is no invisible hand, no natural selection. Economies are most just when they enable and nurture the survival of all species.
Well, not quite.
"Natural selection" has less to do with individual survival and more to do with reproductive success. That is, populations with traits more conductive to preserving their genes in the generation are those which are selected.
And there is competition. All populations compete for scarce resources in an ecosystem, as well as compete to escape predation and reproduce.
There are other mechanisms at work. Random genetic drift obviously plays a role, as does horizontal gene transfer and endo-symbiotic invasion/capture processes. But the ubiquity of competition isn't under dispute.
The real problem with those who invoke evolution to justify hyper-individualist economic policies is twofold. 1.) They ignore the fact that in group cooperation is prevalent (think social insects, pack-hunters, and social primates like Banobos and, yes, us) because it is often an effective evolutionary strategy for maximizing reproductive success. And 2.) it's a blatant invokation of the natural fallacy, i.e., turning a description into a prescription. Something being "natural" isn't an argument for it's inherent justice or goodness. Nature is replete with rape, cannibalism and a whole host of things no sane person would argue belong in a human society.
"The real problem with those who invoke evolution" You mean besides it being cruel, anti - christian, nonemphatic and stupid?
I stand utterly corrected, and all the better for it! Thank-you kindly for your concise, friendly lesson.
"lib radio makes them nervous"
Why would liberal radio make them nervous? Liberal radio has been an abysmal failure. It's basically non-existant.
"Why would liberal radio make them nervous?"
Right you are, RINO. It's rational thought that makes them nervous.
It's on the rise, and that scares the hell out of them. Keep an eye on those ratings, it'll take a while longer, but each month the gap is closing.
I hope so. It makes things more interesting when there's more competition. The abysmal state of liberal talk radio so far has been embarrasing. Maybe Ed Schultz can save liberal talk radio.
That would be funny, wouldn't it? Right after the left get's the 'fairness doctrine' passed the left-leaning media outlets become super-popular and are forced to air right-wing opinions to off-set the left-wing insults and lies. It would turn out that the only reason people listen to left-wing radio would be to hear what the right has to say. It's more than obvious that no one cares what the left has to say....or they would already have higher ratings.
AUTOPSYCHIC:
So RIghtwing Radio is SO POPULAR, that people will do most anything to get that "rightwing perspective". I see.
ARMED with that rightwing perspective from a thousand rightwing commentators, what is that audience going to DO? Seems Bush is in the toilet, as is all the GOP. Bush in the 20's support, and the GOP just lost majority in both houses, facing a worse drubbing in 2008.
It's a real puzzler for you rightwingers, ain't it? The more people HEAR from the Rightwing, the more the rightwingers and their policies are REJECTED by the American People.
On the one hand, I as a Liberal am upset about the lack of balance in today's media (documented daily here at MMFA), and as a Liberal I can't find but a handful of Media outlets/personalities I would consider "left-leaning".
On the other hand, if your opponent is busy cutting his own throat, the best idea is to sit back and LET him.
This tsunami of rightwing voices you seem so proud of, and which you ballyhoo as being so damn POPULAR with the people ... really, what is the GOAL of all this? If it's to torpedo the GOP's chances of ever winning another election, it's working great.
If it's to do as Karl Rove has stated, to create a "permanent conservative lock on government" ... it's failing miserably. The more you put forward Rightwing faces and voices, the more dismal the GOP's prospects become. Gotta say, I'm delighted, but you rightwingers must be truly puzzled with your "success" ... it doesn't feel as good as you'd hoped.
TEX,I believe that you and many who watch the polls have misinterpreted what they mean. It is true that the GOP was defeated in the recent elections, but I don't believe that it is due to the conservative agenda. Just the opposite is true. Present Bush is not suffering because he is too conservative; it is because he is not conservative enough. The rejection of the GOP is due to turning its back on the conservative ideals that brought it to power in the first place. The “comprehensive immigration” bill, the medi-caid drug plan, the out of control budgets; these are the things that have the American people stirred up against the GOP.Look at the candidates from the democrat party that won in the primaries and general election; these were by-in-large conservative dems not libs.The American people don’t want to pull out of Iraq. They want to expel the media and then fight the war the way war is supposed to be fought, to WIN!!! We don’t want to raise taxes on the rich or anyone else. We want less tax, less spending, less corporate subsidy, less GOVERNMENT.Sincerly,Donald
Donald,
I agree with everything in your post, except the American people not wanting to pull out of the Iraq War.....the way this question is asked determines the varying answers people give. In any event, many are definitely suffering from war fatigue, and the daily bad news and killings is wearing people's patience thin, despite Bush's telling us all to hold on. September will tilt the scales most likely, so we have no choice but to wait until then.
As for Tex, his generalization and demonization of anything conservative or Republican is legendary, and should be taken in that vein, unfortunately.
The conservative Dems as you say we elected, also ran on a platform of getting us out of Iraq. The American people are upset with Democrats in Congress largely because they haven't been able to do just that. It's funny too how soft the voices are against the big government, high spending, fiscal irresponsible the Republican Congress was and how dim the chance of getting a Republican Presidental candidate that reflects those values is.
You mean that the Democratic politicians who ran successfully last November on getting us out of the Iraq war LIED to us? They have either failed miserably in that withdrawal effort they promised, as you say, or they said whatever it took to get elected.
No wonder the left base is furious with them, they have every right to be.
Tommy, I'm sorry that was supposed to be a response to Donalds assertion that Americans don't want out of Iraq.
Well, Tommy. The House of Representatives have taken positive steps toward achieving the goal they were elected to meet. The House passed a bill to begin redeployment of U.S. troops in Iraq within 120 days and to be completed by April 1, 2008. The Bill directs the President to provide an unclassified report to Congress by January 1, 2008 detailing a comprehensive Iraq strategy, including a justification for maintaining "minimum force levels" after April 1 "to protect United States national security interests."
It's particularly satisfying to see Bush called to account for his lack of transparency and stupid, ambiguous repetition of 'victory.'
And while we're at it, way to go speaker Pelosi, "This week, every Member of the House will have an opportunity to vote to set a new direction in Iraq. The American people want Congress to bring our troops home, refocus our efforts to fighting terrorism, and hold the Bush Administration accountable."
You guys just make up delusional fantasies to believe and hold on to them despite all reality dont you. So by and large it was conservative democrats who won? Yet NO DEMOCRATIC encumbent lost, NOT ONE. That includes liberal icons like Barney Frank. In the Senate the new democratic Senators include hard core liberal like Sherrod Brown in not that blue Ohio and in Vermont the elected not a Democrat but a SOCIALIST. I assume he is a conservative socialist. But hey dont let reality get in the way of a ludicrous talking point just keep repeating it, I am sure it will magically become true eventually.
In many places where Republicans had previously held sway, Democrats were elected. Those Democrats, overeall, were not the most liberal Democrats that we elected.
It only makes sense that in districts that had previously been held by Republicans that it would be more moderate Democrats that were elected. That fact does not mean what the previous poster tried to claim it meant.
By the way, Donald, it's "by and large", not "by-in-large".
http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/by-and-large.html
It means "On the whole; generally speaking; all things considered." It comes from nautical terms.
DON NORMAN:
You say, “I believe that you and many who watch the polls have misinterpreted what they mean.”
RESPONSE: Always possible. Specifics, please?
You say, “It is true that the GOP was defeated in the recent elections …”
RESPONSE: This discussion will go well if such “REALITY” can be agreed to.
You say, “… but I don't believe that it is due to the conservative agenda. Just the opposite is true. Present Bush is not suffering because he is too conservative; it is because he is not conservative enough.”
RESPONSE: Lots going on here. There is whether BUSH was the deciding factor in the GOP losing majority, there is whether BUSH is “conservative”, and there is the question of whether Bush’s policies could be CONSIDERED “conservative”. The Rightwing and Republicans have seized on the MILITARY as being a strong “conservative” value, along with the exclusive ability to defend America and conduct war.
Historically, traditional “conservatives” have been less apt to interfere in the affairs of other nations, and are almost isolationist … but this type of “conservative” does not really exist in American politics any more. Bush CLAIMS to be “conservative”, as do his supporters, so we are left with the embracing or rejection of BUSH to determine the fate of conservativism in America. It may not be fair, or accurate in a way you desire, but that is the baseline reality.
You say, “The rejection of the GOP is due to turning its back on the conservative ideals that brought it to power in the first place.”
RESPONSE: A fair point. The GOP came in 1994 with the “Contract with America” with calls for a balanced budget, the end to deficit spending, a smaller government, “loser pays” tort reform, Health Care ‘solved’ by Individual Savings Accounts, “fixing” Social Security thru privatization, a line item veto, and a few other arguably “conservative” goals. They failed miserably on enacting this agenda. But you think it took ‘til 2006 for the GOP to be rejected on these failures? More likely, it was their support for Bush’s failure in Iraq (and the war lines have been drawn as Conservatives = FOR the war, Liberals = AGAINST the war..
You continue, “The “comprehensive immigration” bill, the medi-caid drug plan, the out of control budgets; these are the things that have the American people stirred up against the GOP.”
RESPONSE: The majority is certainly stirred up against the GOP’s many failures, but to say their losses in 2006 were a RESULT of “conservatives” abandoning them would speak to a surging popularity of candidates like Ron Paul, instead of Rudy Guilianni. The facts don’t seem to support your theory.
You say, “Look at the candidates from the democrat (sic) party that won in the primaries and general election; these were by-in-large conservative dems not libs.”
RESPONSE: The more conservative GOPers were rejected. Dems took their places. To argue that this indicates a desire for MORE “conservative” candidates defies logic.
You say, “The American people don’t want to pull out of Iraq.”
RESPONSE: Every single poll says they DO. Where do you get your information? Your GUT?
You say, “They want to expel the media and then fight the war the way war is supposed to be fought, to WIN!!!”
RESPONSE: No, this may be what Cheney, Bush, and other NeoCon warmongers want, but it’s a macho delusion, and is NOT shared by a large and growing majority. Iraq is not a war that is the United States’ to WIN … there are no terms by which we CAN “win”.
You say, “We (I suppose by this, you mean Libertarian Conservatives) don’t want to raise taxes on the rich or anyone else. We want less tax, less spending, less corporate subsidy, less GOVERNMENT.”
RESPONSE: Sounds like Ron Paul is your guy. His “popularity” shows how strong your ideological standpoint is faring. The rest of us will deal with the reality on the ground.
I wonder what it is about the "abysmal state" of liberal radio that's embarrassing to a right winger.
The ratings? that should be good for Repubs.
The content? Much more factual and thoughtful than GOP radio, better talent, I guess that could be embarrassing.
I think I understand.
I disgree. I don't think that "liberal" talk radio will grow much bigger than it currently is, simply because progressives just don't think the way right-wingers do. Conservatives/republicans have a craving for a constant stroking and reassurance, a perpetual nodding and dittoing in unison. Progressives only information and accurate news reporting so that they can form their own opinions. Journalists that are not lazy and incompetent is all that is required (I realize that's asking a lot, these days).
Those that accuse NPR as being "liberal" are correct in a sense. The mission to report the news thoroughly and with equanimity is truly a progressive construct. That stands in opposition to the conservative idiom, which is to manipulate the news for political gain. Right-wing radio is singularly un-American and, in that it resembles the early days of the Nazi propaganda system, MUST be monitored and vigorously protested, as MMFA is doing quite well.
Actually, Air America is still on the air and non AAR shows like Ed Schulz are even bigger.
Ed Schultz is on roughly 90 stations. Rush Limbaugh is on over 600. Hannity is close to that. If Ed Schultz is the standard bearer for the popularity of lib radio, you guys are in trouble.
Schultz is very good and that's coming from my conservative perspective. He is WAY more talented than most of the lefty talkers out there. His show is worth listening to.
Wouldn't know. I've never listened to him. But if he's as talented as you say he is, then there's a real disconnect between his level of talent and his level of popularity. Either others don't share your opinion of him or he's just a really well kept secret..really well kept...
Well, you have to remember I was comparing him to other LEFTY talkers, but he would be middle of the pack in right-wing radioland.
Bruce, your post begs the questions: Just what, in your opinion, makes right-wing talk radio host so darn "good"? Is it the persistent use of lies and propaganda, the hate-filled rhetoric disguised as "humor", the adolescent view on society and politics, the fact-free rants? Please do tell, maybe we "libs" can find an ignorant, hate-filled, drug-addled gasbag to spout nonsense too and become "popular"?
"Good" right wing radio is not about spewing hate. It's about poking a stick into the soft underbelly of liberalism (to steal a phrase from Rachel Maddow). I think Prager and Bennett are two of the best and I honestly don't hear them spewing hate. Savage can certainly be interpreted as spewing hate but I put him at the bottom of the list. Boortz just comes off as a relative idiot IMO, I doubt he could spell "cat" if you spotted him the "c" and the "a".
"Good" liberal radio would do well to take itself a little less seriously, have a good time and realize that they are on the air to entertain and inform, in that order. I think that's Schultz' strongsuit.
Thank you Bruce, and let me say first, that I agree with your point about taking themsleves too seriously. I think that is a mistake made on BOTH sides of the aisle, but perhaps moreso now on the left wing because like conservatives in the early 90's they feel like a downtrodden minority fighting the powers that be. And, unfortunately, if you look at the facts, we are. As Ed Shultz points out, it is ownership that is the problem. If liberal radio was forced out at the level of right wing radio, it would be just as "popular" from lack of choices.
If Dial was the only soap on the shelf, would it be the most "popular" because everyone bought it. Most people want to listen to something on the way to work, if liberal talk was there as much as conservative, you may indeed see the playing field level out, regardless of the relative level of the subjective "good"ness of the host.
The lefty shows haven't done enough to be entertaining. Limbaugh and his ilk may be obnoxious but they generate controversy and ratings. A very humor based format a la Monty Python or early SNL would be huge.
Again, I don't think liberal radio is ever going to have the mass audiences that GOP radio does, any more than the amazing Thai place around the corner from me is going to have more franchises than McDonalds.
But across this country, there are millions of people who have their favorite little place to eat in their neighborhood, or like to cook at home, and there's the other half of the country that goes to McDonalds 4 nights a week.
Right wing radio is marketed and designed for mass, lowest- commom -denominator appeal.
It's carefully crafted to comfort the lazy and frightened, with very few minor differences between the hundreds of conservative shows,while the liberal shows run a pretty wide range, and probably each have specific groups of listeners.
That probably does sound like "trouble" to those who agree with everything that every right wing host says, and who feel safe belonging to a like-minded group, but one has to consider an area of solidarity in the "cat-herding" left;
They all know that the ditto head half of the country, as they've proven , can not be trusted with choosing who runs the government.
Thanks, HBL. My point exactly. Just because American Idol is the most popular program on TV does not mean that it is "right" or "better", it only means that it enertains. Left-wing radio asks that we hav e knowledge to understand the issues and have the ability to reason. This is something almost non-existent on right-wing radio.
And, at the risk of invoking Godwin's Law here, Hitler was "popular" in Germany because he appealed to the same racist, ignorant hatred that Rush, Hannity and company appeal to.
I may not know the exact reasons why conservative talk radio flourishes in this country, but I am fairly certain why many liberals just don't get it.
The incessant, arrogant and elitist way they pooh pooh the rightwing listeners, insulting them and acting as if none of them know any better other than being given their daily bamboozling of pablem, or as many of you call it, lies and propoganda.
Perhaps when some of you come off your sour grape-grown pedestal and compete with a flurry of competent hosts yourselves, you may have a chance. But to continue to dismiss the millions of listeners as nothing more than trained seals is only to your detriment.
Good luck.
But, Tommy, this is what Rush does EVERY SINGLE DAY! He makes fun of, debases and demonizes half the people in the country for their liberal views. He does exactly what you claim we lefties do?
Do you not see your own hypocisy when you write stuff like that?
I am not talking about the hosts, they do what gets them ratings. I am talking about the automatic disrespect and elitism shown their listeners by many on the left.
This ridiculous notion that liberals are way too good to wallow in the mud with these rightwing hosts, and only want substantive debate on issues and cannot be bothered with shtick or satire, is a crock of baloney.
Have you heard liberal radio? I listen often and it is just as vitriolic and satirical as right wing radio is. If liberal hosts figure out the formula for success, they will be just as nasty as Rush or Savage or any of them.
My point is, that in order to "get" liberal humor, you have to have a level of understanding of the issues. The humor on Stephanie Miller's show, for example, is laugh out loud funny, but only if you follow politics more than what NBC or CNN throws at you. Rush's "humor" is based on racial hated and phony starwmen that he throws up. It does not demand any understanding ahead of time; just prejudice based on ignorance.
That is your opinion of what Rush and Stephanie Miller put on their respective programs, and you're entitled to it. Others disagree. So be it.
But for you or anyone to dismiss millions of people as racist or clueless minions is nothing more than elitist condescending accusations.
Far from it, Tommy, I do not dismiss them. I would implore them to come here, like you, and give reality a chance. I do not think that most people are ignorant of these things because they are not as "good" as me. I simply believe that the ownership of the medium of radio by right wing people who produce an echo chamber of right wing propaganda on 600 radio stations crowds out the ability of most people to get a balanced view of an issue. Popularity, as has been discussed here repeatedly, does not equally correct.
Side note: Why are liberals "elitist"? Is it the tendancy of liberal views that they are reasoned and intelligent? And, if so, does lead one to the conclusion that righties are knuckle-dragging ignoramuses?
I was wondering when the rightwing ownership angle was going to be introduced again.
If any of you can put up credible evidence of some pattern (other than the decades old Phil Donahue scenario at MSNBC) of these corporate media owners putting their rightwing ideology above their stockholder's insistence on maximizing profits, I would be interesed in seeing it - as would the stockholders of these companies that are being shortchanged at the expense of the owner's political views.
How are they being short changed by pushing the conservative tax friendly policies of the Republicans? Come on! It makes perfect sense to ignore a quick short term buck (the huge ratings gain by pushing liberal radio) to look at the long term gains by electing corporate friendly Republicans. Please. You insult me and others here with your argument.
Oh please, then pony up and find me stockholders that would allow their profits to be played with as some political tool for some possible political advantage down the road that is far from being guaranteed by anyone, considering the way legislation works in Washington - not to mention thinking that keeping Rush on the air guarantees some Republican election victories.
Your theory is blown to bits at the most recent elections where the Democrats trounced the Republicans. If I was a stockholder, the CEO would have a whopping explanation due me for that one. How ridiculous.
Do you expect anyone to believe that lunacy?
Just because the plan did not work in the last elections, does not prove that it isn't what is happening. Now we all know that the large stockholders don't always make the right bets, sometimes they lose. I don't think it is lunacy to suggest that the wealthy stockholders of these mega-media empires care if they lose a little money here and there and as far as the elections of 06 goes, the saying about fooling people all the time, etc, etc comes to mind.
I can't see how you can deny that it is in politically active, wealthy, self-interested media owners best interests to push their ideas of lower taxes and less Governmental regulation on the masses in order to help them where it really counts.
These "angry" stockholders you talk about may indeed exist but they are the small minority stockholders that are the target of their propaganda anyway. It would be easy for them to blame the Democrats or Big Governement for their problems rather than the fact that they are ignoring a potentially huge market.
You seem to be quite the expert on the stockholders of these companies and what they do and don't expect? With no backup, I might add.
My supposition is common sense that when people invest their dollars in stocks of companies they expect a return on their investment. You assume they don't care as long as some political agenda is pushed forward instead, that makes no sense - and it isn't just the wealthy that invest.....many do so for their retirement or a vast array of other reasons. Just more demonization of "corporate stockholders" as tools of some political party, sorry -ain't buying it, no facts to back it up.
Good natured Tommy, your “modus vivendi” is most asinine without being covert. You abjectly convolute, in an inelegantly–deceptive manner, any statement made “modus ponens” into a “modus tollens” as if nobody would be the wiser. Then, when this deception is unmasked...your “mood that denies” & you are nowhere to be found! Unfortunately Tommy, you are no Scarlet Pimpernel.
TOMMY SAYS: "Oh please, then pony up and find me stockholders that would allow their profits to be played with as some political tool for some possible political advantage down the road that is far from being guaranteed by anyone, considering the way legislation works in Washington - not to mention thinking that keeping Rush on the air guarantees some Republican election victories."
RESPONSE: Uh, Tommy, you just described LOBBIESTS on K-Street to a "T". They are indeed funded by cash that WOULD be "shareholder profits", who consider it money well spent as a "political tool" to "gain political advantage down the road". BILLIONS are spent on these lobbiests, who are trying directly to persuade lawmakers. The other arm of this costly (but "worth it" to shareholders) effort to promote rightwing policy is the MEDIA ownership, which hopes to rile enough of the electorate to put pressure on legislators to take the deals being offered by the LOBBIES.
If you hope to persuade us that shareholders GLADLY forfeit profits to fund thousands of lobbiests with billions of dollars, but shareholders would draw the line on funding a propagandized media with the exact same goal of influencing law to having RIGHTWING ADVANTATE ... well, you'd have to explain why one is OK while the other is out of the question. THE ARE THE SAME.
If those million tie their wagons to Rush, chosing his format and hate speech with their free market dollars then I think it's a completely apt description of his listeners.
"I am not talking about the hosts, they do what gets them ratings. I am talking about the automatic disrespect and elitism shown their listeners by many on the left."
And of course the same is true of the right. I just took a look at Michelle Malkin's comment section and the "automatic disrespect" for the left manifests itself in endlessly repeated "jokes" about killing liberals. And of course that's not an isolated example. So, yes, many on the left consider the Rush/Malkin/O'Reilly/Hannity/et al listeners to be misinformed reactionary morons. Just as many on the right consider the Franken/Moore/Maher viewers to be elitist French traitors who deserve to be murdered.
Tommy, I don't get right wing radio because I don't like being manipulated with lies and propaganda. Now that’s just me. You say we're elitist but any reasonable person with only a nominal education has to wonder why if these political pundits believe in the merits of their argument that they use the techniques they do to discredit the PERSON espousing a different point of view and/or completely misrepresenting that point of view. Common freaking sense demands that be questioned. If they think tax cuts are wonderful just give the reasons why they think so, they don't have to attack a person with ugly insults because they don't agree with them. I find that kind of behavior distasteful, and I'm not an elitist, but I’m no dope either. I'm just a middle class black lady from a middle class world with an opinion, and I don’t like being caste as the evil Liberal out to destroy the fabric of my own home America. BTW You're characterization of Liberals as elitist is typical of what right wing radio does. For instance Scarborough spent almost his entire show the other day talking about Michael Moore's weight and not about the problems of the health care system in the US. He had no counter argument so attack Michael Moore. Whether Moore’ weighs 300lbs or 3000lbs it doesn’t change the fact that 49 million people don’t have insurance, or that the practices of some insurance companies is unethical. Since this seems to be the crux of right wing radio I assume that it's because they cannot bring fourth any strong arguments for whatever it is the proposing or supporting. Edwards talks about poverty and instead of talking about poverty they want talk about his hair cuts and call him childish names. Al Gore talks about global warming they talk about Al Gore's weight or his utility bills. Hillary Clinton talks about something the only rebuttal from right wing radio is how shrill her voice is. Obama says anything they turn the conversation to Madrassas. The 911 widows lobby for an investigation into the events of 911 and Ann Coulter calls them harpies. Moreover their listeners sometime show up on this very board using the same tactics. I once said that we US citizens have to be more reflective of how our actions are perceived in the world and was called an America hating liberal. These people are damaging public discourse. You ignore them if you want I won’t. Every time they say something vile, stupid, and untruthful I’m going to post what vile untruthful stupid people I think they are.
Lynn,
Right off the bat you claim rightwing radio is lies and propoganda, therefore it can be easily dismissed or ignored?
Other than the insulting rhetoric spewed out at public figures, would it be so hard to admit that much of the substance is their opinion vs your opinion and it is not automatically lies and propoganda - that is a possibility, there are two sides to nearly every issue, it isn't a matter of one that is right and the other is just telling lies. That is elitist and naive.
The real question is whether you know the difference between an opinion and propaganda. Your default position on nearly everything is to say that it's just someone's opinion. But there's an obvious point where fact trumps opinion.
Tommy, If someone says something and I follow up on it as in do a little research and the facts don't support what they said and they do this repeatedly then it's safe to assume that this person is either intentionally attempting to mislead or they are irresponsibly spreading gossip on their shows. Additionally, If I'm listening to a show and I hear myself and all the people I know being characterized as something we aren't and even if it's the opinion of Rush Limbaugh that Blacks live off of the government or that Liberals love abortion it doesn't make it true. Oh yeah and I wouldn't call others elitist when I love to tell people what they should and shouldn't consider offensive. BTW, not that you had to but it says a lot that you didn’t address this proclivity for right wing talk show hosts to change the subjects put forth by Liberals and instead launch personal attacks again them.
Lynn,
You are the one who started your post with the reason you don't get rightwing radio is because you don't like being manipulated with lies and propoganda.......so don't blame me for coming to the conclusion that you are generalizing and categorizing rightwing radio unfairly. That was my point. Are there lies? Of course there are. Are there honest differences of opinion on important issues? Absolutely.
For you or anyone to dismiss rightwing radio as nothing but lies is unfairly attacking without merit. So many here can't stand an opposing opinion and call it a lie, automatically. That is a fact.
Generalizing and marginalizing such a wide array of rightwing radio hosts as liars and propogandists is just not based in reality.
We disagree.
..It is my OPINION that they use dishonest tactics to defend their opinions. You and I debate all the time as we are usually not in agreement, but you have never attacked me personally nor I you even when the debate have gotten a tad heated. Tommy I've listened to conservative talk radio in the past. I can't anymore because it is my opinion that at least the most highly rated ones use dishonest methods to bolster their opinions, and they don't want a fair debate. I assume that they don't want their listeners to hear another side. Like I said if you support tax cuts. Talk about how well you think they work and give examples. It's no need to go off into a tangent about how Liberals hate rich people and want to take all their money. If you want to talk about abortion talk about it, it is no need to preface any statement with the lie that Liberals worship at the alter of abortion. YOU KNOW THEY DO THIS and you have actually you've condemed them for this in the past. BTW you do know I draw a distinction between conservatives and right wingers there is a huge difference in their debate methods if you will.
Lynn,
I would never deny that the tactics you describe are, sadly, alive and well in rightwing radio....of course they are. People manipulate facts and take them out of context all the time when desperate to make a point, politically. And I suppose we could debate how prevalent it is, but we really don't know for sure.
I also don't deny that many tune into these people not for substantive and real debate, but because they get what they want to hear and want their opinions reinforced. But the same can be said for liberal radio, politics stirs emotions in many people - it's not a timid sport.
These talk show hosts often offend but they are also talking to a microphone and they offend people in the public eye who know this goes with the territory. You and I are not public people and we don't have the forum, so hopefully we treat each other with more respect. I hope so.
The commentators and pundits on the right are not the same as those on the left. The right are much more vitriolic and mean-spirited and into name-calling than any on the left. This holds true for posters here as well.
This is another example of the "well, they do it too" lie from a guy on the right. THEY don't do it too, not to the extent that those on the right manipulate the truth.
Any shred of credibility you had evaporated when you said the rightwing posters here are nastier than the left.........what a ridiculous statement.
And your authoratative comment about rightwing radio vs. leftwing is also steeped in your severly partisan imagination, sadly. You have no facts to back that up, but you won't be asked for any so don't worry. You're off the hook.
It's not a ridiculous statement at all. It's the truth.
Many rightie posters here say stupid stuff that's not backed up by the facts. When their errors get pointed out to them, that's not the same as when the righties here serially distort what those on the left have done.
It's not the same. The fact that you try to claim that the behavior of the left wing pundits and posters is equivalent, or worse, than those on the right, you lose any credibility that you might have had.
I notice that you don't fairly reply to people who prove you wrong, Tommy. I expect that from people like you.
I meant to add some more, but accidentally hit post.
You're the one who can't come up with examples of people on the left who are as offensive as people on the right. There's no one on the left who compares to Ann Coulter. There's no one who manipulates reality on the left like Rush Limbaugh does on the right. There's no one like Glenn Beck or Michael Savage on the left. There are no posters here who are as undeniably idiotic and misinformed as some of the most infamous on the right. AutoPsychic, Leatherhelmet, TweakTheTroll are three that come to mind immediately. Disregarding the truth and ignoring reality is not something that most posters here on the left do with such joyful abandon as those three posters do.
As MM points out the righty pundits misinform and use cheap shots. Plus they call their listeners Hannitized Dittoheads.
I disagree, HBL, if given an equal chance to compete, liberal radio would be as popular as conservative radio. To assume otherwise is to ignore half the country that leans left and listens to radio also. Plus, if the liberal view was pushed as hard as the conservative view, many in the middle would not fall prey to right-wing tactics and lies, thus costing the Republicans votes, hence, why right wing owners don't want to push liberal radio. It just makes good business sense and sound personal tax strategy to elect Republicans.
Huh, news to me, I listen to Amy on Democracy Now several times a week. Now if that aint liberal please tell me so I can take her off my list of donations.
Can we put him in front of a live audience? So he can hear the crickets when he tries to be funny?
That's what happened the last time Rush Limbaugh was on David Letterman's show. The audience reaction to what El Rushbo said about Hillary Clinton (that she looked like a hood ornament from an old Pontiac) was so sever that he hasn't been invited back yet.
This leads me to ask that if Rush was forced back to 60 stations, like Ed Shultz, would he be so popular? I mean, if Rush is being force-fed to the country, then his popularity is suspect, no?
It's like saying that if only one type of, say, soap, is on the shelf at the store and thus everyone buys it, does it make it "popular"?
Translation of Boortz'a blibber blabber:
Boortz: It's me can you see me? I attended the Class of Stockbreeding. You remember don't you? I lost my virginity with the pigs.
FX: the sound of a loud gun shot.
The End
I'll leave it up to you why Boortz shot himself to death. I think it's pretty obvious.
Actually, Brock is the bastard child of Ken Starr and Richard Mellon Scaife, but we adopted him and now everything is OK.
Not all life on the planet is intelligent. Boortz makes a stong case for being "Exhibit A."
The Georgia Association of Broadcasters- Exhibit B.
Listeners of his doo doo- Exhibit C.
An attempt at Swiftian humor? Needs more energy, seems off the cuff, half assed. Where's the beef? Danger, where's the fire?
desperate
Neil I want you to know that plastic surgery is a viable option now.There is no reason why you should continue to lead such an obviously embittered life simply because you are so pathetically ugly.The Elephant Man was able to enjoy a few years of relative dignity,so its possible there's even hope for a tragically deformed gargoyle like you.
My word...
You guys are pretty petty aren't you? I mean, "soap dropping b-i-a-t-c-h"? Comparing Boortz to a Nazi? Making fun of how he looks? And of course the ever present "hick" comments. The way I see it, these idiotic comments can have on of two meanings:
1. You all are just generally morons that respond to anything that upsets you with anger.
2. You simply cannot respond rationally and logically and thus resort to name calling like children.
Please note that these two things are not mutually exclusiv.
As for the... *counts* one, maybe two worthwhile comments preceding my post, I'll respond to those as best I can. And look, they're by the same person. Doesn't say too much for the rest of you.
Roundhouse: Do you really believe that they should be scared? Only way I can see them being scared is if the idiotic Fairness Doctrine is put back into place, or the already almost-all-liberal media moves on to that last conquest, talk radio. Michael Moore only maes them nervous because his propaganda movie is unfortunately having an effect on the populace.
As for your second post, do they have to be mutually exclusive? Yes, the environment will pick the general species that survives, but it's those with the best traits (i.e. the fittest) that survive, or more likely get the best mates and pass those traits down.
Why would we be obligated to respond logically to a person who just finished making an immature slam on us?
Boortz did that. Why would that require that we be reasonable back to him?
Because the first time this site put out a quote from him and gave out any and all contact information, he received a lot of hate mail from people who had probably never heard his show. And it probably continues here. I don'tquite see the need in researching for this next comment, but I bet at least one of the people that make such derogatory comments towards him have never actually heard the show.
Now, since I'm new here I'll go ahead and say who I am and what I stand for in a sense. I am a fan of Boortz, and that's just about it. There's no real liberal radio around me, so I can't speak for it, but I can't imagine liking any of their ideas anyway. On the conservative side, there's really no one. Sean Hannity seems like a nice enough guy, but his stance on certain civil liberties just turns me away from him and most of the conservative radio hosts, which Boortz is not a part of. Sure, he's conservative when compared to liberal ideas, but the conservatives don't want him either because hes pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, and doesn't want the church combined with the state at all.
We don't have to have heard his whole show to find one part of it, accurately transcribed here, to be offensive.
You failed to answer my question.
Why would we be obligated to reply politely to a guy who said this about this site?
The fact that people attacked him, probably justifiably, in the past, doesn't give him the right to be petty and nasty here now.
Remember, just because others haven't heard his whole show, and might have only learned about his disreputable comments from MMfA doesn't mean that they weren't then justified in sending him emails telling him how disreputable he was/is. If his behavior was reprehensible, then he can't be justified in striking back at this site.
I'll take my lumps for my second post. It was uninformed by a few shades, but the nice person who responded to it, he /she fairly well set the record straight.
This MMFA article mentions nothing of the Fairness Doctrine (FD). In this thread the first mention of the FD come pre-emptively from the right. This, to me, exposes a wee bit of nervousness by the right to acknowledge, in the absence of the FD, the slow progress of lib radio. Most liberal/progressives I interact with on the Internet and on the street have tepid reactions to the FD. Although, we do favor media deconsolidation. In other words, the FD is a straw man.
Surely building an audience will not be done overnight, it is not the expectation, nor is it feasible to judge the mass appeal of lefty talkers after just three years of broadcasting. At the same time, however, lib radio is growing. It will continue to grow so long as the left leave behind the anaerobic environments of issues silos and unite in the plain air of the common progressive cause of effective government, broad prosperity and mutual responsibility. That's what lib radio is about, sowing the seeds of commonality among the people and the progressive worldview.
Republican talkers are experiencing loss aversion. They are letting the fear of losing what they have overshadow the potential for gain. That gain would be the opening-up of the debate that they so boldly proclaim to desire. You know, competition in the marketplace of ideas? The assumption is we have already lost, but we're just getting up to bat so bring the heat.
Boortz and friends see that they must get out in front of any such progress by lib radio, and more importantly, lefty ideas, so they try to stay on the offensive. But really there's no longer any fangs left in their bite.
You are stupid. Incredibly ignorant. Since you are dumber that than my flashlight it doesnt suprise me that you didnt see any logic. You wouldnt KNOW logic from a digital watch. Grow up, beg borrow or steal a couple of brain cells then get back to us.
Never heard Boortz but I kind of like that one. It worked too. He got free advertising on Media Myrmidons.
Not only that. Boortz has more material for his lame show to fill some time. This thread is pretty stupid and gratuitous just like Boortz, himself.
Shouldnt it be the other way around?
I mean who cares if Media Matters talks about him because nobody reads this website, right? MMFA is just a radical far left irrelevant smear site run by the gay mafia that nobody pays any attention to, or so proclaimed by some.
But with right-wing talk radio being so popular, free market and all that, millions of people who had never heard of Media Matters before are being lectured on them every day.
Seems to me that Media Matters is the ones getting the best of this free publicity line.
I was listening to boortz a couple weeks ago and he said this exact same thing. Whenever he needs "free publicity" all he has to do is say something stupid and mmfa will surely post his comments.
I see it worked again. Too bad the ratings increase won't be very significant. From what I see, there are probably 30-40 different left-wing posters on this site and maybe 10-15 right-wing posters. Figure in another 20-30 employees, that adds up to ALMOST a hundred people reading mmfa articles on a regular basis. I think boortz and beck and savage give mmfa more free publicity than the other way around. When you factor in the couple thousand that go to mmfa whenever a right-wing commentator mentions them, mmfa gets 465% MORE free publicity than any right-wing host does.
You are a moron. Do you tink everyone who visits this site takes the time to post a comment? I frequent many websites and blogs, but this is the only one where I post comments, because I usually like the level of discourse here, although not always. Sometimes there are idiotic comments made and it becomes insufferable.
So, which numbers are you contesting? The 'posters' number, the employee number or the number of visiters caused by right-wing radio? Can you provide more accurate statistics?
"Can you provide more accurate statistics?"--autopsych
Why? So you can argue about which one of your rear-ends are more trustworthy?
So you actually think that everyone who reads MMFA posts here as well? You can't possibly be that dumb.
I am afraid his posting history argues that he can indeed be that dumb.
You assume that every reader posts. You have no way of knowing that is so. I would guess, ALSO without knowing that at least ten people read for every poster.
As opposed to ignorant rightwing propaganda parrots like you that show for free that you NEVER know what you are talking about. If I were a conservative I would be begging you to stop posting. You make conservatives look like morons.
I don't understand what the problem is?
It is called satire.
Boortz is hilarious.
For Boortz to qualify as a satirist--a notion already rich in satire--he would be required to at least occasionally acknowledge the truth.Of course this is a virtual impossibility--given the ample evidence offered at this site-- that he is an inveterate liar of the most transparent and loathsome variety.Plus he's butt ugly, and well lets face it:stupid.
Boortz is hilarious....
Uh..no. Boortz is a garden variety, unfunny prick.
It's a real treat, these rightwing bloviators eliminating the line between sincerity and truth, and not-serious and trying for specific provocations.
Having it be mysterious whether the talking head is being HONEST, or DIShonest is a wonderful guessing game for the listeners. For example, one might have thought that in the run-up to the 2006 election, Rush Limbaugh was very much FOR the Republicans, their policies, and hoping desperately for their victory.
Hee-haw! Fooled you. Limbaugh was "carrying water" for those who DID NOT DESERVE his support. He was FAKING his approval, when in reality he was disgusted with the GOPers in man and deed.
So, what happened? Did a large segment of the Republican electorate decode the disgust, and intuit that Limbaugh WHILE SINGING PRAISES was actually signalling his dislike for the Republican Slate? Once decoded, did those potential GOP voters stay home, or switch votes to Democrats because they realized that Limbaugh was saying the opposite of what he really believed? Can THIS explain the GOP's loss of majority in 2006?
Bottom line, all these "commentators" HAVE is the integrity of their word, the certainty that they speak their mind and have root principles that they will not violate. Now all that's out the window ... you can never tell any more if they MEAN what they say, or if it's a put-on for some obscure reason.
Renders them useless, it does.
MMFA, Boor(tz) yanked your chain and got the reaction he wanted.
Yup, he fooled 'em REAL good. Them media moran yokels moseyed right into his trap.
And did ya notice - they even done printed where he said he was gonna do it. Hyuk!
Morans...
OSCAR:
Yes indeed. The church's pastor could also "yank my chain" by pulling down his pants on the steps of the county courthouse. Yeah, boy, that would really elicit a REACTION, to be sure.
It would ruin HIS reputation, ruin HIS credibility, and be a spectacle. But it sure would "yank my chain."
So now we know Boortz can't be believed, that he's a blowhard poser who says things ONLY to get a reaction, and not to advance his perspective, educate, or inform. ONLY to "get a reaction". So, in addition to destroying his reputation and credibility, he has "yanked a chain". Is this a WIN? If so, how so?
Yanking someone's chain means you are purposely teasing and fooling them in a humorous way or purposely trying to deceive your victim about something in a sinister manner.
Either way, your analogy about a preacher pulling his pants down doesn't make any sense.
Would it also include telling people publically that you were going to tease them? Doesn't that just make you look foolish?
Tex, before pointing out the flaws with any other posts, please remember to have Taz define all terms to his specs.
Otherwise, you might make sense. ;0)
HBL:
You are quite correct, that rightwing propaganda only works as long as the rightwing gets to "control the language" (as Frank Luntz instructs).
This means all terms must be defined with rightwing spin, regardless of consistency, double standards, or common sense.
Boortz shows his ass when he reveals what he's saying isn't true, or to be believed, or based in any reality; he is just doing it to "get a reaction" ... just like that pastor who dropped trou ... to get a reaction and show his ass.
The analogy is correct in all particulars, but the rightwing wants to dismiss it, because it reveals a TRUTH. So they want to redefine the terms to suit them. They have the right to speak, and the right to show their OWN asses, but they don't have the right to redefine commonly understood terms to suit them.
Hee Hee calling a woman who was nice to you and your wife a bitch...what a real knee slapper. What wit!
The whole tone of the discussion is putrid, just frat boy put down humor toward the designated neocon hate Kachinas, with lots of naughty words for titillation.
Focusing hatred seems to be their one true skill, but it's not much to base a world view on, much less a way to govern a country..
Never Forget What You Stand For
When the tides turn, and soon the left will be running most of this country, and true competitive liberal journalism is available for the masses, shock jock radio will be a thing of the pass.
When the time comes for a change in what people want to hear on the airwaves, I suspect right wing radio will take a serious hit. Then I want to hear this loud mouth coward talk about what it means to be a survivor of the fittest. I bet he will not go down quietly.
Hopefully, he will retire with to a big home where he can take care of one his aging relatives, for which he will leave on the free way just to see it they could survive among automobiles.
Joseph
Neal Boortz is the illegitimate child of jackass and a rodent. My apologies to their animals.
Others have noted it in various ways, but I want to reinforce the notion: All the nonsense that people like Boortz spew is just proof that MMFA is getting under their skin - they know they're being watched and will get called on their bs.
It's a sign of success.
I think MMFA had certainly gotten under the skin of an O'Reilly & Savage. Their tirades against this site are proof positive of that.
However I don't believe Boortz or Limbaugh are shaking in their shoes.
First, Limbaugh will never be brought down by anything printed here. He knows that, and simply acknowledges this site as a small pup nipping at his ankles. He thrives on this kind of attention from the Left.
Boortz on the other hand is probably delighted to be getting the publicity.
I'd never heard of the guy till I came here.
"First, Limbaugh will never be brought down by anything printed here."
That really depends on what Limbaugh says to get those words printed here in the first place. If one day Limbaugh happens to go on a Michael Richards-style tirade, then he could certainly be brought down by that. Imus proved that it's not even necessary to go that far. MMFA is just an amplifier. Whether or not someone is brought down by anything MMFA writes depends entirely on that individual's own words.
They won't be brought down by MMfA.
They'll be brought down by their own words, ampliifed by MMfA.
That's a great way to put it, Clams.
The sad fact is, and yes I do listen to Boortz sometimes, he is noted for pushing buttons to get reactions. The more reactions the more button pushing. Not unlike Al Franken and any other host be they Liberal, Conservative, or Libertarian.
It's too bad that the Democrats do not have a stronger media presence in the radio other than Air America.
It irritates me that we allow this nut to get under our skin. He always tries to get us to swing at a pitch in the dirt and we never fail him.
Waaaah! Waaaah! Waaaah! I suppose that you would have complained about Thomas Nast's political cartoons as well, or Herblock's Nixon cartoons. If you paid attention to what Boortz was saying and understood it, you would see that despite the semi-sour public persona he calls for more common sense (such as the government staying out of the bedrooms of adults, out of the pockets of taxpayers, out of dictating what newspapers, radio, teevee and cable are editorializing, and so forth) and less uncontrolled emotion. Or perhaps, as a judge once suggested to me, perhaps if grownups acted like grownups, maybe things would be a bit better?
And if he makes fun of Brock...so?
Herblock
Nast
Boortz
Har! You can not be serious !
The things you say Boortz stands for might be admirable traits to most libertarian conservatives.
Joe Biden stands for a lot of things that I like too. That didn't stop me from taking him to task when he said a couple of really offensive things.
Why people think that because someone might have good traits, we should never point out their bad traits, is beyond me. Can anyone explain that to me?
All of these talking heads are going crazy now since things are going so bad for there side. Just sit back and watch folks. The White House doesn't have an ounce of respect left save for the diehards, the Republican congress is scattering like a group of roaches and scandal after scandal comes out on a daily basis.
I'll give them Jefferson (Loser) and even the not so popular and often spineless Dem congress (not being as agressive as I would like).
But come election time the Reps. are screwed, they know it and it scare the piss out of them. If the Dems can do anything even half way competent the Troops will be out soon and we can start but this country back together again.
Just sit back and watch em squirm folks!
If the Dems can do anything even half way competent the Troops will be out soon and we can start but this country back together again.
Sadly Monk short of impeaching BOTH Bush & Cheney I don't know that anything Congress does will matter. Hopefully more Republicans will get on board, but even then Bush & his veto pen will be waiting.
Bush isn't gonna budge on Iraq. It's time to depose this nitwit!
I think your absolutely correct, but the current public officials don't have the spine to do it and any time we get close to finding evidence that this administration is corrupt to the bone Bush claims executive priviledge or some such nonsense. At this point the only way to impeach would be for the public to storm the capitol and I don't see that happening as long as the Gov has all of the real fire power.
It's all very nauseating and depressing. All I have is my vote and my voice and unfortunately it's not enough.
Larrye writes "Its a sign of success"
He's exactly right, but it's a sign of Boortz's success, not mmfa's. Another good sign of succuss is ratings, which Boortz and many conservative hosts enjoy. Very few liberal hosts have ratings. Why? Because very few people want to listen to their left-wing, cry-me-a-river, void-of-logic, bleeding-heart, emotional bs.
"Because very few people want to listen to their left-wing, cry-me-a-river, void-of-logic, bleeding-heart, emotional bs."
Now that was a dispassionate, well reasoned and weighted preponderance of factual evidence.
Do you ever wonder just what Limbaugh and Boortz and all those guys are appealing to when they say things like, liberal wimp, feminazi, cut and run, or the death tax?
That's right. Those are emotional appeals crafted for specific emotional affect.
So please, don't try to imply that righty talkers are popular because they traffic in logic and cold fact because it just isn't supported by well, facts.
It doesn't seem fair or right, that the broadcasting company known as 'Cox Radio Syndication' can use their FCC License to personally attack those whom they disagree with politically (or disagree with any other way).
'Cox Radio Syndication' is using the Public Airwaves (Public Property, not owned by them, but by us, We the People), using the Public Airwaves to advance their own political agenda...
When 'Cox Radio Syndication' uses their FCC license to broadcast an array of commercials advertising an array of crap for you to buy, then so what and who cares... then they're using that FCC License for their own private financial gain, like other FCC Licensees.
But when they use the Public Airwaves (our Public Property) to broadcast their personal political agenda (or personal attacks), then that seems to me to be an unfair and wrong use of our Public Property, the Public Airwaves...
Doesn't it seem that way to you too?
The Fairness Doctrine, before it was repealed by Reagan's FCC in 1987, didn't prohibit such a personal political use of Public Property (our Public Airwaves)...
...it just required that those who were personally attacked by way of the Public Airwaves (by an FCC License holder) be allowed to reply, on those same Public Airwaves, to that personal attack.
And when what it was the FCC License holder was doing on the Public Airwaves, was to advance their own personal political message, then those who have differing or opposing politics, be given an equal opportunity on that Public Property, the Public Airwaves, to have their message heard too.
Seems like a Fair and Balanced way to use our Public Airwaves, Public Property, when it comes to broadcasting political opinions (or personal attacks) on that Public Property.
Considering that it affects our Democratic process (as it is intended to do by those broadcasters), it seems the Fairness Doctrine of "providing reply time" and equal time is a Fair and Balanced use of Public Property, the Public Airwaves...
A Fair and Balanced use of an FCC License to use that property, our property.
If you really want that and believe in it, fine. But we have to take it all the way and apply it to all major TV news outlets, and all printed forms of media.
Oh wait, those are left wing. Why in the world would you want those to be "fair"?
Yes, "all major TV news outlets" (as you say), because they use Public Property (our property), the Public Airwaves, and therefore must have an FCC License and therefore come under the jurisdiction of FCC Regulations.
No, not "all printed forms of media" (as you say), because they do not use Public Property (the Public Airwaves, our property) in any way that I know of, and therefore do not require any License from the FCC, and therefore do not come under the jurisdiction of FCC Regulations.
We the People have every right to require the Public Airwaves to be used in a Fair and Balanced way... that if they be used for political purposes (which they don't have to be, but they are, by so many broadcasters)...
...then that private political use of Public Property, be Fair and Balanced.
I don't feel like getting into the Public Airwaves debate, but let me counter you ith some history. Did you see what happened when the Fairness Doctrine was implemented? The same thing would happen again. An opposing viewpoint would have to get an equal amount of time, but, guess what? People don't want to hear it. it's why conservative radio is succeeding, because moreso than TV they can turn it off or change the station if they want to. Once the stations realize that anything one of their popular hosts says must be counterbalanced and people won't even be listening then, they'll make sure that the news is as strictly news as possible, with no leaning either way. I know, I know. It sounds good, right? Sure it does, except it wouldn't have the ideal set up the Doctrine intended, hearing both sides. Instead you'd hear neither side.
You'd hear neither side?
What, the newspapers would all be closed?
A complete black-out of the news?
We'd all be in the dark, were the television and radio broadcasters required to make for Fairness and Balance in their broadcasting political opinions, on the Public Airwaves?
...just as it was for the 40+ years that the Fairness Doctrine was in effect?
I don't know what "history" it is you're referring to, but it isn't U.S., that's for sure.
I was speaking only of the radio side. And yes, it would lead to that now, because there's so much other ways to get information, especially on the internet. If you take away the thing people love (which happens to be conservative radio) they'll find other ways to get the information or simply jsut not listen.
Appreciate the dialogue, we agree to disagree, in a civil manner... fine.
But on my way out the door, I'd point out yet again what I'm sure you know, and what is certainly my point here:
That where you refer to "people love ...conservative radio"... well, I do not doubt it.
But be sure to remember, that "conservative radio", broadcast on the Public Airwaves, uses Public Property, by way of a License from the FCC...
Again, those broadcasters do not own the Public Property they use (to their great advantage).
We the People own the Public Airwaves... it's our property being used, not the broadcaster's (be they "conservative" or whatever).
Do the "people love ...conservative radio"?
I don't doubt it.
But the American People love also Fairness and Balance, especially when it comes to the use of their Public Property, the Public Airwaves...
Especially when it comes to the use of their Public Property, for political purposes.
No they arent leftwing. That is a fallacy that the truly brainwashed take as dogma. I am leftwing and the mainstream media does NOT reflect my point of view.
Boortz on his "Love Fest for Himself", show the other day, was reading the definition for the word "Myrmidon", spelling it "MIRMIDON"! This High School Graduate only, can't even read the correct spelling, while looking at it!
You're right, this overpaid, undereducated, balding galoot believes the sun rises and sets around him! Damn right he's scared, he can read the writing on the wall, even if he can't spell it properly! His days of bragging about himself, and his toys are numbered.
As America tires of these loud, self-serving, obnoxious blowhards, their audiences will drop-off, (and they are) and no longer meeting the bottom line for their employers,"MONEY"! They'll become yesterday's news, old and not worth listening to,or reading about!
Boortz:"The sound a fart makes in the bathtub!" Copied from a previous post.
These are the people who complain about "angry libs".
Neal Boortz is one of the best radio talk show hosts in the country. I happen to agree with every word he says about you Libtards.
Well you certainly sound like a fascinating, intelligent and witty person.
Kodera is, as the majority of conservative comments in this thread suggest, indicative of the intellectual acumen of the audience of talk radio. It's no wonder conservatives have been so successful in the medium with world-class critical thinkers like Kodera tuning in every day.
Kodera. if you ever agree with every word anybody says about anything, it's probably more an indication of your own lack of independent thought than to the greatness of that commentator.
And for all the "Ratings Queens" who can't defend any of the righty talkers stoopidity with anything but "They're popular, I have to add;
OVER 1 BILLION SERVED
You've got to remember, when talking about the popularity of conservative talk, who the daytime radio audience is--
The unemployed, the unemployable, the idle rich, trust fund babies, the elderly, shut-ins and the mentally ill. The GOP base has nothing better to do than listen to talking points all day.
HMMM..I thought the unemployed and the unemployable were the DFL base since the GOP base would never show compassion towards any of "those" people...
They don't need to show them any compassion, Bruce, they just need to get them to vote Republican. ;0)
(and I think you know me well enough that I was giving back BS to BS)
And we wouldnt expect anything else from a moronocon like YOU.
In reading the context you have quoted, it is clear that Boortz' comments about a school bus as population control was meant only as humor. This site should focus on statements offered in earnest. Good grief, don't waste our time. If you think being funny is now off limits, then you'll have a seriously difficult time picking targets.
Most people consider advocating killing children on a school bus as a means of population control as not humorous.
Is Boortz his real name? The coincidence would be incredible because I consider him to be quite boorish.
Every time one of the blowhard jokers says something that ends up on this site they claim it was a joke. I was just kidding is a response of a child when they do something mean or nasty. Prefacing his hateful and meanspirited speach with "Some of what I say might be a joke" is an unclever and frankly insulting to us, his targets, and you, his audience. I thought it was talk radio and not joke radio. When right wing jokers give their "meaningful" take on politics, how are you supposed to know which is real and which is the routine?
If they cannot attack the message, they attack the messenger,
It's really sad that they apparently have an audience that doesn't understand the difference between a substantial and relevant attack on the way Media Matters runs their business and an immature name calling episode!
You people have nothing better to do than take things out of context to get "offended". How lame. I agree with Boortz, you idiots are so easy to manipulate, which is the ONLY reason I am here, to see it for myself.
Transcipts and voice/video recordings are taking things out of context? Paging planet Wingnut!
Hey, there seems to be a sudden influx of low-level rightys.Was there a mass Troll Parole?
Friday the 13th has always been lucky for me.
Funny how someone comes here to see how people are "manipulated" with things like facts and logic. I guess when reality shows up at your door, you just say "Get out of here with your sly manipulation. I will believe whatever I want despite your manipulation, you dirty rotten FACTS!" Now, go back and listen to Boortz again where you are NEVER "manipulated" by propaganda and lies? Nooooo, never!
Who are you going to beleive? Boortz or your own lying eyes and ears?
Hey MORON, do you know what the word context means? Context IS supplied here. Only a brainwashed moron who didnt even CHECK the thread but just repeated what he was TOLD would claim Boooooore was taken out of context. Then to prove once again that brainwashed rightwingnuts are totally immune to the concept of irony after being so easily manipulated he accuses US of being easily manipulated. It would be funny if it werent so pathetic.
And look down your nose a bit too? God I feel so manipulated, used, and cheap. I think I'll go shopping.
Before everybody gets all starry eyed over the cellar ratings of the GOP and the current administration it would be very prudent to step back and look at why the disapproval level is so low and........ahem so too is the approval of the Dem controlled congress. The plain and simple answer is that the two parties have put thier interests above the interest of the citizens of this country, organizations left and right alike have discovered that they can manipulate thier followers by making wild assed accusations and keeping the pot stirred. But what many fail to understand is that those who tend to be politcal junkies are in a decidely small minoity, vocal yes but they don't decide the elections. Those people who have real lives, that don't pay attention to political events and campaigns until late in the game are the ones who turn the tide.
The GOP and this administration may be in deep doodoo but it would be a huge mistake to think that conservative americans are a dwindling group, I would in fact argue that conservatism is growing but it is mixed with a more rational view of the social needs of this country and dare I actually use the word..... true compassion for those in need and of lesser means.
Talk radio left or right is nothing but entertainment... that like wrestling draws huge numers and therefore advertisers and money. To give these blowhards more attention only solidifies thier ratings.
Turn off the arrogant asses and turn the music back on...............
I think Boortz is pretty sharp, some of you should listen to him. He's really not that conservative, he's yanking your chain for fun.
You mean he's not really a hateful reactionary racist, he just plays one on the radio? For fun?
He doesn't discriminate by race and seams to have A well thought out code of ethics.
He doesn't discriminate by race? Uh, the record says otherwise:
On the conviction of Tookie Williams: "There will be riots in South Central Los Angeles and elsewhere. There are a lot of aspiring rappers and NBA superstars who could really use a nice flat-screen television right now."
On Cynthia McKinney: "She looks like a ghetto sl#t."
On deporting illegal immigrants: "We're not gonna throw these people out of airplanes with taco-shaped parachutes."
More here:
[link to mediamatters.org]
His ethic follows the golden rule: Those who have the gold make the rules.
He does not believe that voter rigts should be extended to all Americans. The stupid (his view) and those who do not own land, should be disallowed the vote.
No. Ethics include compassion. Ethics are governed by one's desire to place helping others ahead of one's own personal desire and gain.
Boortz has no ethics.
Good stuff!!! This had me rolling on the floor laughing from start to finish. I'm going to start listening to this guy. Keep this material coming!
Boortz has also stated on-air, that the more money you have, the more times you should be able to vote! This comes from a bloviating, airhead that's in love with himself.
When it came time for Boortz to act like a true citizen, he lied to the Selective Service, Texas A&M, his listening audience, and anyone including himself, that would listen to him. He's big on wanting his rights protected or enlarged, but when it comes time for instance, like serving in the Military(during Vietnam), he lied for a few years about his status as a student in college, then he flunked out! Then he hid behind his daughters birth, to gain a exemption that protected him from ever being drafted.
But his sleaziness didn't stop in '68,he continually lied to anyone that would listen to him about being 4-F in the Draft, and graduating from Texas A&M! He wasn't 4-F, and he's still only a high school graduate!
Just the other night, he a few of his fellow Chicken-hawks, pranced around, sang and acting like true warriors, just back from the war front in Iraq! The Wounded Veterans Concert in Duluth, Ga was for wounded servicemen/women and their families. Boortz, Hannity and Newtie acted like they were The Kings Warriors, when in reality all three of them avoided serving their country in it's "Time of need"!
Boortz was dressed up in a American Flag shirt, looking like a gay party-boy trolling for a little action, on the sidewalk, from Midtown, Atlanta! Go to his site, for Wednsday July 11, look at the pictures and read his column, it's not about the Wounded Warriors , it's all about him and the good time, he and his fellow Chickenhawks had, so pathetic!
He's full of it, and full of himself, if you don't believe it, call him up and ask him!
OMG, how could anyone not realize that Neal was just saying something outrageous so that he would be written about here? BTW, liberal talk radio is not a threat to conservative talk radio, not in the least. There needs to be MORE liberal talk radio so that the liberals in Congress will not try to shut down conservative talk radio by trying to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine.
RIGHT-WING RADIO IS SO POPULAR BECAUSE YOU PEOPLE NEED OTHER PEOPLE TO THANK FOR YOU . SAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I float a boat in the middle of the ocean on most issues, but your comment is perfect food for a cow to poke fun at right-wingers, and in this case.... SPELLING.
People to "Thank" for you?
C'mon, G_d commands you to spew, and spell, the Limbaugh rhetoric on PORPOISE.
And to reflect upon an earlier post from a day or so previous, if Georgia, and the south for that matter, is such a "backw("ar"-or-"oo")ds" place, then why do most extreme left leaning liberals retire in either florida or georgia?
In observation of these posts, lefty's believe that they are geniuses and right -handed thumpers believe they are always right aka correct.
Consider the idea that both sides make a good point some of the time, which is rare at best, but more often than not a scratched record of John Denver playing his long-lasting "hits" over and over again in a Vietnamese torture prison would be a relief from the common, and always tiny, banter presented from both far reaching sides on practically EVERY issue posted on ALL discussion boards.
No Bush did not lie. No Soros is not wrong. C'mon.. Your both BS and every "REAL" logically thinking AMERICAN, whom do not float to either side, knows it.
No, not Jewish to those of you who wondered.
So Boortz all but claimed that he was baiting this site for free publicity... and this site posted his comments anyway? This site is like a 'john' saying he was entrapped by a cop/hooker because she just looked too good to resist. Boortz intentionally invokes his Free Speech rights to get a rise out of us, and it worked. His comments were just too inflammatory to resist, weren't they?
Why not wait until he makes a comment or two that he doesn't preface with "I am very concerned, Belinda, that I am going to leave town without having done, you know -- without having stirred the pudding with Media Myrmidons at least one more time." ?
Makes us look like a bunch of Suckers! We should be ashamed for falling for such a juvenile prank.
Social Darwinism? How quaint. How very 1880s. No doubt Boortz (and what an Aryan name that is! I can almost hear the the beat of studded boots on the floor) also believes in a Ptolemaic cosmos. Someone should explain to the jackass why "Social Darwinism" is not only bad ethics but also bad science. Dibs not me.
MMFA, you need to develop a thicker skin. Boortz played you like a violin to get himself a writeup, and it worked.
No, he didnt. What he DID do was wind you up like a chatty Cathy doll to repeat his storyline as IF it actually made sense. SQUAAAAKKKKK played you like a violin SKWAAAAAK just a joke, just a joke. SKWAAAAKKk You guys are sad. If you ever had an original thought in your LIFE you would mistake it for a brain aneurysm
I dont agree with Boortz on a lot of issues, but isnt it refreshing to hear somebody just absolutley denagrate both parties instead of the same old song and dance that we here day after day after day on the left and right wing tv and radio shows? Why do we have to get offended b/c people say rediculous things to or about us. I dont respect everything that he says, but I respect him b/c he says them without being beholden to any person or party. I hear a lot of talk about a "Ron Paul Revolution". Ron and Neal differ on a lot of issues, but they have the same fundamental approach. I respect both of them for that. Dont You?
Wow. Neil Boortz seems to have it all figured out for himself. He has finally found a way to broadcast his contemptable and bigoted thoughts and ideas without any consequences (So he thought).
Just say that he is just kidding or it's only a joke.
Just curious, but where did this obnoxious bald man get it wrong? Helen Thomas is anything but unbiased. While she may question the Bush administration publicly, she does come across as a crusty and bitter old woman. Maybe she can show a little more of her "Aunt Bea" side to the rest of the viewing public?