> > She does not like Schultz
> > because of his hardball over timeslots and he receives
> > Democratic Party money, which she won't take.
>
> Another bold statement. You can't just say these things,
> state them as fact and leave it be. You MUST back up your
> statements with proof.
If you are looking for proof that Randi Rhodes has said this, while there may not be a link immediately available, I have also heard Ms. Rhodes say this many times. I'm sure that if I did enough digging in the audio archives, I could provide several clips of her talking about this, especially before or after recounting her experience attending a fundraiser for "Democracy Radio" hosted by Senator Mary Landrieu.
You can find some discussion of this in the Google cache of Randi Rhodes own message board (it may have expired from there, or just been relocated, I haven't gone looking on the message board itself yet) at
http://shorterlink.com/?4W5HLR
An excerpt:
Last February, the Air America talker [Rhodes] was quoted by The New Republic sounding surprised as Democrat donors at the Landrieu event pledged staggering sums to bankroll the liberal "Democracy Radio" network.
"I heard people yelling out dollar amounts. I thought it was two hundred and fifty dollars, but it wasn't," she told the magazine. "They were pledging two hundred and fifty thousand dollars."
But Rhodes says TNR omitted a key part of her quote showing she was anything but delighted - and wanted nothing to do with raising money from Democrat contributors.
"I felt like I was getting off the Amistad; like I was on the auction block. I had no idea that fund-raisers were there, but I knew I couldn't work this way."
What about the comments of Florida Sen. Bob Graham, who was also on hand to help line up funding for the liberal radio network?
TNR reported that Graham told potential donors on hand "about the many Democrats who had replaced Republicans in elected office in South Florida since Rhodes went on the air there."
He went on the claim that "no Republican could win wherever Rhodes was heard."
But the Air America talker told NewsMax that Graham's comments were no big deal - and didn't compromise her political independence.
"I simply was acknowledged from my chair by Senator Graham because I was a Florida broadcaster that he knew. I thanked him and told them they'd 'be a minority party for a very long time' if they 'didn't do something about talk radio.'"
Rhodes said she had nothing to do with Democracy Radio either before or after the fund-raiser, which had no connection to Air America.
"No one was contributing to Air America, it didn't exist" at the time, Rhodes said. "I wasn't touting anything except the return of the Fairness Doctrine."
"I don't know what the fund-raisers were told to get them there that day," she said. "But I thought it was just a lunch to discuss conservative talk radio and its effect on voters."
If you are looking for evidence that Schultz has taken Democratic party money, it's available.
For example, there's a transcript of Schultz' appearance on Bill O'Reilly's show on Ed Schultz' web site, at
http://www.wegoted.com/EdInTheNews/more.asp?ID=36
An excerpt:
Now, Mr. Schultz, your program is funded by Democracy Radio, which has close ties to the Democratic Party. In fact, our pal, Senator [Mary] Landrieu in Louisiana actually did a fundraiser to raise money for Democracy Radio. Is that a conflict of interest, or anything, that you work for almost a political party arm?
SCHULTZ: Not really, Bill. In fact, it isn't at all. These are all private donations from people next door, so to speak, who want to get involved and change the landscape of political talk radio in America, so it's not tax dollars. These are people who are progressives, liberals, who feel that their message isn't being heard and I signed onto it a year ago when I was convinced that we were going to have an opportunity to make a change and be funded for a couple of years.
O'Reilly: OK. But, if you are - if your organization that's funding you is close to the Democratic Party, aren't you hamstrung then by ...
SCHULTZ: No.
O'Reilly: ... party politics.
SCHULTZ: No. I'm not hamstrung. I had it written in my deal that I wasn't gonna be beholden to anybody. I've got total freedom of editorial content. There have been situations that have come up that I've actually opposed the Democrats on some issues and taken, actually, some middle of the road positions on some things, so it's not tax dollars at all. Never has been, never will be. I would've never signed on to something like that ..
As I understand it, the issue here for Rhodes is not that Schultz is actually beholden to the Democratic Party (I don't think he is, and I don't think she thinks so either), but only the appearance of being beholden.<P ID="signature">______________
also known as tombetz.</P>
