Maloney: Some on Right may want AAR to stick around

[raccoonradio]

"Why Some Conservatives Like Liberal Radio Network
Useful Idiots?
Some On Right May Want Air America To Stick Around"

http://radioequalizer.blogspot.com/2005/09/why-some-conservatives-like-liberal.html

One comment pointed out that on the Ed Schulz show, there was a theory that
conservatives _cheered_ for the hurricane because "more devastation" meant more no-bid
contracts. The theory here is that while AAR, Michael Moore, Howard Dean,
and the like may seem off the deep end, they actually drive more people
to the RIGHT...the so-called "Reagan Democrats" who leave the party
because it seems to have drifted too far to the left...And in the political
equation of last year, there were a lot more "Democrats for Bush" than
"Republicans for Kerry". And the likes of the AAR people, Moore, and Dean
may have helped to bring out the GOP's conservative base, alarming them enough to make SURE they went to the polls to ensure the Dems wouldn't return to power.

<font color="red">[EDIT]</font><P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by cabradio on 09/22/05 03:49 AM.</FONT></P>

 

[Gnarlodious]

This ironic twist...

> there was a theory that
> conservatives _cheered_ for the hurricane because "more
> devastation" meant more no-bid contracts.
That's an ironic twist. I have been hearing extreme-right talkers accuse the left of cheering at the devastation because it proves what a failure George Bush is. Just like the accusations the BBC has been under with its anti-Bush platform. Is there ANY moderation among talkers?

I am constantly impressed with Doug Stephan and his buddy (TALKERS publisher) Michael Harrison, the partisan thing they avoid skillfully and steer guests into reasonable territory. I wish there was more radio like that.<P ID="signature">______________
• K5ZN</P>

 

[raccoonradio]

Re: This ironic twist...

> > Is there ANY moderation among talkers?

you could also argue that the Left _wants_ the Michael Savages out there,
the very brash voices of the Right...in the hope that people will
shake their heads at the extremism, and vote Democratic

 

[dampier]

The Baloney Sandwich

> And the likes of the AAR people,
> Moore, and Dean
> may have helped to bring out the GOP's conservative base,
> alarming them enough to make SURE they went to the polls to
> ensure the Dems wouldn't return to power.
>
> Perhaps a repeat of the
> "Reagan Democrat" factor? The conservative wing of the Dems
> has fallen away from the party and either become GOP or
> independent,
> and the more the moonbats howl, the more of them defect.

The only moonbat here is the Unemployed One. Evidently his latest nonsense about Air America finance scandals went over like FEMA during Katrina, so now we're on to trying something else. Since last year we've been hearing that nobody wanted to hear libtalk, that the libtalk hosts were embroiled in finance scandals, and that stations were dropping the format all over the place, all courtesy of this blog nobody. Now that none of that has turned out to be true, it's time to respin it as "libtalk a useful tool to frighten conservatives." This, of course, belies the earlier theory that nobody listens to libtalk or takes them seriously. Logic taffy pull.

The more this clown writes, the less seriously anyone outside of the right wing he preaches to will take him. Any "journalism" that he purported to engage in was flushed during his last piece, so why hold back here? It sounds like the unemployment benefit checks are running out so he needs to do something to get paid. Being a paid escort for the right wing blogs sounds like QUICK CA$H to me.

He needs to read the polls. The folks not sleeping at night aren't Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer.

It's interesting watching the spin strategy conservative talk shows have been trying since they gave up defending the Administration bungling of Katrina. The new trick is to play the game of low expectations. Set the bar -so low- that the very act of getting up and to a microphone with a shirt buttoned up correctly or without a permission slip from Condi is seen as some victory.

I would want to hear an actual clip from Ed Schultz's show saying there is a serious theory that conservatives are cheering hurricanes so they can win no-bid contracts. The fact that the Unequalizer is saying it is a sure-fire bet that we need to check the transcript. His "Fact-o-Matic" has been unbalanced for months now.

When your opponents sound reasonable about asking for things like qualified people in charge of emergency response, an independent investigation, a questioning about why it's okay to cut pay for reconstruction workers, complain about possible fraud and corruption by local officials while awarding huge no-bid contracts to the politically well-connected equivalents of Enron, it's much safer to invent fictional opponents who claim that George Bush is using a weather machine to kill black people, or there aren't any Democrats who believe that Bush won't be arrested on war crime charges, or look at all those evacuees abusing their debit cards spending $2000 on crack.

I like the game Twister too, but no matter how many yoga classes Brian takes, he's never going to get his right foot out of his mouth. Spin again.

 

[clichemoth]

Re: The Baloney Sandwich

> > And the likes of the AAR people,
> > Moore, and Dean
> > may have helped to bring out the GOP's conservative base,
> > alarming them enough to make SURE they went to the polls
> to
> > ensure the Dems wouldn't return to power.
> >
> > Perhaps a repeat of the
> > "Reagan Democrat" factor? The conservative wing of the
> Dems
> > has fallen away from the party and either become GOP or
> > independent,
> > and the more the moonbats howl, the more of them defect.
>
> The only moonbat here is the Unemployed One. Evidently his
> latest nonsense about Air America finance scandals went over
> like FEMA during Katrina, so now we're on to trying
> something else. Since last year we've been hearing that
> nobody wanted to hear libtalk, that the libtalk hosts were
> embroiled in finance scandals, and that stations were
> dropping the format all over the place, all courtesy of this
> blog nobody. Now that none of that has turned out to be
> true, it's time to respin it as "libtalk a useful tool to
> frighten conservatives." This, of course, belies the
> earlier theory that nobody listens to libtalk or takes them
> seriously. Logic taffy pull.
>
> The more this clown writes, the less seriously anyone
> outside of the right wing he preaches to will take him. Any
> "journalism" that he purported to engage in was flushed
> during his last piece, so why hold back here? It sounds
> like the unemployment benefit checks are running out so he
> needs to do something to get paid. Being a paid escort for
> the right wing blogs sounds like QUICK CA$H to me.
>
> He needs to read the polls. The folks not sleeping at night
> aren't Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer.
>
> It's interesting watching the spin strategy conservative
> talk shows have been trying since they gave up defending the
> Administration bungling of Katrina. The new trick is to
> play the game of low expectations. Set the bar -so low-
> that the very act of getting up and to a microphone with a
> shirt buttoned up correctly or without a permission slip
> from Condi is seen as some victory.
>
> I would want to hear an actual clip from Ed Schultz's show
> saying there is a serious theory that conservatives are
> cheering hurricanes so they can win no-bid contracts. The
> fact that the Unequalizer is saying it is a sure-fire bet
> that we need to check the transcript. His "Fact-o-Matic"
> has been unbalanced for months now.
>
> When your opponents sound reasonable about asking for things
> like qualified people in charge of emergency response, an
> independent investigation, a questioning about why it's okay
> to cut pay for reconstruction workers, complain about
> possible fraud and corruption by local officials while
> awarding huge no-bid contracts to the politically
> well-connected equivalents of Enron, it's much safer to
> invent fictional opponents who claim that George Bush is
> using a weather machine to kill black people, or there
> aren't any Democrats who believe that Bush won't be arrested
> on war crime charges, or look at all those evacuees abusing
> their debit cards spending $2000 on crack.
>
> I like the game Twister too, but no matter how many yoga
> classes Brian takes, he's never going to get his right foot
> out of his mouth. Spin again.


Libtalkers should be tossing everything they have on Bush against the wall and hoping something will stick. While it may not win elections (after all, we didn't have President Dole from 1996-2000), it does create entertainment value. After they've established themselves as either the most infuriating thing on the dial or the only people who speak the truth (depending on who you ask, of course), then they can tone it down a notch.

 

[FloridaBear1776]

Of course if the right REALLY wanted AAR's combative hosts to stick around...

..then by definition it would view talk hosts like Alan Colmes as the
real "threat", and would be doing everything it could to keep them off the air, rather than using them as toy poodles on H&C and Fox News Radio.

 

[Tom_]

Bob Brinker, Bruce Dumont, John Rothmann, Jay Diamond, Alan Colmes, Bruce Williams, Jim Bohannon

> I am constantly impressed with Doug Stephan and his buddy
> (TALKERS publisher) Michael Harrison, the partisan thing
> they avoid skillfully and steer guests into reasonable
> territory. I wish there was more radio like that.

And indeed there is, but it doesn't get much recognition on this forum or elsewhere, and that is unfortunate. Brinker, Dumont, Rothmann, Diamond, Colmes, Bohannon, Williams will look at both sides, and have guests and callers from both sides. Political debate and contrasting points of views from hosts, guests, and callers makes the best radio, in my opinion. (Disclaimer: that is, as a listener.)

 

[raccoonradio]

Re: Bob Brinker, Bruce Dumont, John Rothmann, Jay Diamond, Alan Colmes, Bruce Williams, Jim Bohannon

I'm mostly conservative but I must say I didn't mind it when WRKO/Boston
ran Colmes briefly...

Laura Ingraham will also have guests on from both sides, even Hannity too
(and will take them on)

> And indeed there is, but it doesn't get much recognition on
> this forum or elsewhere, and that is unfortunate. Brinker,
> Dumont, Rothmann, Diamond, Colmes, Bohannon, Williams will
> look at both sides, and have guests and callers from both
> sides. Political debate and contrasting points of views
> from hosts, guests, and callers makes the best radio, in my
> opinion. (Disclaimer: that is, as a listener.)
>

 

[954]

> "Why Some Conservatives Like Liberal Radio Network
> Useful Idiots?
> Some On Right May Want Air America To Stick Around"
>
http://radioequalizer.b> logspot.com/2005/09/why-some-conservatives-like-liberal.html
>
>
> One comment pointed out that on the Ed Schulz show, there
> was a theory that
> conservatives _cheered_ for the hurricane because "more
> devastation" meant more no-bid
> contracts.

That's dumb. How about the 99.99999% of Republicans who have never seen or benefited from a no-bid contract?

<font color="red">[EDIT]</font>

73s from 954<P ID="signature">______________
Hurricane Info on South Florida Radio</P><P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by cabradio on 09/21/05 06:14 PM.</FONT></P>

 

[Tom_]

Re: Alan Colmes

> I'm mostly conservative but I must say I didn't mind it when
> WRKO/Boston
> ran Colmes briefly...

I have yet to meet a conservative who does not like Colmes, whether it be in person or over a radio discussion forum...

As for liberals, for whatever reason they criticize Colmes, and I just do not understand it...

What is it recently with other progressive talk hosts criticizing Colmes on their own radio shows? When syndicated liberal hosts start attacking each other on their own shows then liberal radio which is already struggling loses some of its energy...

Where are the program directors for these hosts? You don't criticize someone on the same political side of the fence. For the opposite side? Rush? O'Reilly? Savage? Well...it's rude, but it's accepted in the industry and gets those ratings...

> Laura Ingraham will also have guests on from both sides,
> even Hannity too
> (and will take them on)

Or also Michael Medved who has guests with opposite points of view. It makes stimulating talk radio to hear contrasting opinions going back and forth...

 

[dampier]

Re: Alan Colmes

> I have yet to meet a conservative who does not like Colmes,
> whether it be in person or over a radio discussion forum...
>
> As for liberals, for whatever reason they criticize Colmes,
> and I just do not understand it...

You answered your own question. Conservatives who like a liberal host generally means the host is either not so liberal, ineffective at putting forth a strong argument, or has become the token house liberal at Fox. If Colmes slapped down Hannity a few times, I don't think you'd find such charity among conservatives who typically attack things they fear as possibly effective.

He's Vichy to progressives... a collaborator, and not trusted.

> What is it recently with other progressive talk hosts
> criticizing Colmes on their own radio shows? When
> syndicated liberal hosts start attacking each other on their
> own shows then liberal radio which is already struggling
> loses some of its energy...

Colmes has -always- been attacked by every libtalk host I've heard, as well as most of the progressive political organizations out there. Only Randi Rhodes routinely attacks a wide variety of other shows, including Franken, Garofalo, and Maddow. She only trusts one other show host completely - Mike Malloy, and has generally good relations with Jerry Springer. She also seems to get along with Sam Seder and Laura Flanders.

> Where are the program directors for these hosts? You don't
> criticize someone on the same political side of the fence.
> For the opposite side? Rush? O'Reilly? Savage? Well...it's
> rude, but it's accepted in the industry and gets those
> ratings...

It's no different than Letterman attacking GE or whatever. The concept here is that there is no libtalk echo chamber that is 100% in lock step with each other. It's like herding cats on the progressive side.

> Or also Michael Medved who has guests with opposite points
> of view. It makes stimulating talk radio to hear
> contrasting opinions going back and forth...

Medved is not stimulating to me regardless of who he has on. I prefer conservative shows not beholden to the Christian right or morals police, and they are getting harder to find.

 

[RobertGoldberg]

Re: Alan Colmes

Well said. Alan Colmes is weak, ineffective defender of liberal views and causes. When he's on with Sean Hanity it's the HANITY & colmes show. I would not want to be in a fox hole with him and have to depend on him to save my life.

 

[gr8oldies]

Re: Alan Colmes

So what's a PD to do? Ideological purity or ratings?<P ID="signature">______________
Greetings from Ohio-where the governor wants everyone to know he's sorry.</P>

 

[954]

Alan Colmes Fan

> > I'm mostly conservative but I must say I didn't mind it
> when
> > WRKO/Boston
> > ran Colmes briefly...
>
> I have yet to meet a conservative who does not like Colmes,
> whether it be in person or over a radio discussion forum...

That's interesting. I like Colmes because he
intelligently discusses the liberal point of
view without being a snotty obnoxious insulting
bush-Basher.

The only other liberal talker I can think of
like that is a local talker, Joyce Kaufman.

Unfortunately, she's just playing records on
WJNA (640) "Adult Hits", not talking, right now.

> As for liberals, for whatever reason they criticize Colmes,
> and I just do not understand it...

I wish Colmes had a better slot. He's on WFTL "Live 85" (850) at midnight!

73s from 954<P ID="signature">______________
Hurricane Info on South Florida Radio</P>

 

[954]

Alan Colmes & Neal Boortz!

> Medved is not stimulating to me regardless of who he has on.
> I prefer conservative shows not beholden to the Christian
> right or morals police, and they are getting harder to find.

Then you'd better quit looking for a
conservative talk show.

The definistion of conservative has
unfortunately changed since the days of
Barry Goldwater, and those religious
right folks define people who disagree
with their "moral" views as liberals.

The worst are the ones who call themselves
social conservatives but fiscal liberals.
It's not an exact definition, but that
sounds like fascist to me.

BTW, I recommend listening to libertarian
Neal Boortz!

73s from 954<P ID="signature">______________
Hurricane Info on South Florida Radio</P>

 

[cabradio]

>
> That's dumb. How about the 99.99999% of Republicans who have
> never seen or benefited from a no-bid contract?
>
> [EDIT]
>
> 73s from 954

The first part of what you said, is borderline, but it is a response to the first post. The second part, I edited.

Stay on point with your posts...keep the political junk off.
<P ID="signature">______________



</P>

 

[cabradio]

Re: The Baloney Sandwich

Stay away from the name calling...and stay on point. We are not here to discuss the radioequalizers blog. Next time I'm deletingthe whole thread. Not because I side with the blog, but because IT'S NOT RADIO.<P ID="signature">______________



</P>

 

[cabradio]

I'm gonna put the kabosh on the radioequalizer's blog being the center of the posts here. We are not here to discuss what HE says in his blog. It is getting old...like parklane's incesant drones about Severin in Boston.<P ID="signature">______________



</P>

 

[talkjim]

Re: Alan Colmes

Tom,

I'm going to make one more stab at helping you understand it, and I say the following with respect for Alan as a nice guy and a gentleman, who is not without some talent as a talk host.

But he also has some major credibility problems with the liberal "base" and others. He may be perceived as Abbie Hoffman by the Fox base, but by his own admission, he is simply not that progressive. We are talking about a man who enthusiastically supported Rudy Giuliani's angry reign of terror as mayor of New York--so enthusiastically that Rudy cut promos for his show on the now-defunct WEVD/New York. He's talked about the fact that he has no problem with public school teachers leading prayers, and the laundry list goes on and on.

He also wastes a lot of time talking about how he loves Limbaugh and Hannity as people, but disagrees with them. If I hear that rap one more time, I'm going to hurl.

I've also heard Alan guest on several local talk shows around the country, making the case that Fox News is not a conservative-biased operation. I heard
one particularly hilarious interview in which WPHT/Philadelphia's conservative morning host Michael Smerconish just laughed at that--thought it was ridiculous to suggest that Fox doesn't have a conservative bias. By the way, even the champion critic of the so-called "liberal media"--former CBS corresponent Bernie Goldberg, has emphatically said that "Fox certainly has a conservative attitude"--for some reason Bernie wants to use the weasel word "attitude", and won't go all the way and say "bias".

Many progressives also have a problem with the fact that Alan simply is not as aggressive in his presentation on "Hannity and Colmes" as is Sean, who selected Alan as his partner-and it shows-night after night.

For these and other reasons, the progressive base has problems with Colmes and this attitude does show up in research, which is why the Colmes show is not carried by many of the Clear Channel progressive talkers.

So that's it in a nutshell, Tom. I don't expect you to get it, but at least I tried.

As for liberals, for whatever reason they criticize Colmes,
> and I just do not understand it...
>
> What is it recently with other progressive talk hosts
> criticizing Colmes on their own radio shows? When
> syndicated liberal hosts start attacking each other on their
> own shows then liberal radio which is already struggling
> loses some of its energy...
>
> Where are the program directors for these hosts? You don't
> criticize someone on the same political side of the fence.
> For the opposite side? Rush? O'Reilly? Savage? Well...it's
> rude, but it's accepted in the industry and gets those
> ratings...
>
> > Laura Ingraham will also have guests on from both sides,
> > even Hannity too
> > (and will take them on)
>
> Or also Michael Medved who has guests with opposite points
> of view. It makes stimulating talk radio to hear
> contrasting opinions going back and forth...
>

 

[dampier]

Re: The Baloney Sandwich

> Stay away from the name calling...and stay on point. We are
> not here to discuss the radioequalizers blog. Next time I'm
> deletingthe whole thread. Not because I side with the blog,
> but because IT'S NOT RADIO.

As far as I'm concerned, you could just ban the guy from the entire forum. He discusses radio, which is what I suppose makes it at least look on topic, but I've given up worrying about him unless someone else brings their muddy shoes in here and leaves dirt on the carpet. If you elect to keep that out, you won't see a word from me about the guy.