"The Assassination of Rush Limbaugh"

[fred flintstone]

RadioDailyNews.com

While some people on the extremes of America’s political spectrum might find it plausible, for one Baytown man, “The Assassination of Rush Limbaugh” is merely an act of his own imagination. (click here to read 2 chapters). Tom Layne is the pseudonym of a retired dentist and oil company executive who is embarking on a nationwide tour to promote his first novel, a thriller whose plot is based on a plot to kill the controversial radio talk show host. Layne said he and his publishing company submitted galley proofs of the novel to the real-life Limbaugh’s company for comment, but received no response. “I’m not sure he even saw it,” he said (read more - Ken Fountain - Baytown Sun)

 

[SaltyDog]

"I t was a dark and stormy night..."

 

[evnlee]

"I t was a dark and stormy night..."

McCoff said, “Why can’t we find a liberal talk show host to counter his venom?”

“Oh for Christ’s sake, Jerry, who would you suggest?” asked the governor, waving his arms about wildly. “Mario Cuomo tried it. Sam Donaldson tried it. Hell, Al Gore tried back in 2004 to establish a liberal TV network and the liberal Air America radio network. We all know how that turned out.” Edmund Hill was fifty-nine years old, looked ten years younger. He was slim, fit, and handsome with wavy blond hair and gold-hazel eyes. He had attended Ole Miss, graduating Magna *** Laude, and then topped his class at Mississippi Law but never practiced the profession, going instead immediately into politics. His enemies, as well as a few of his friends, liked to say that he had never held an honest job.

Senator Hill added, “Even if we could find someone, Limbaugh is too far ahead of us. The only way to have a fair chance is to start even. That means getting that son-of-a-bitch off the air.”


http://www.redgingerpublishing.com/redginger/chapterone.asp


"The perfect election-year thriller. A cleverly sinister blend of suspense, politics, organized crime, and America's #1 talk radio host. The who, how and why are so skillfully conceived, then mixed with fact and fiction, that the unthinkable becomes frighteningly plausible. An exhilarating ride with plenty of twists and surprises.” - New York Times Book Review

 

[Radio_Realist]

Mario Cuomo tried it. Sam Donaldson tried it. Hell, Al Gore tried back in 2004 to establish a liberal TV network and the liberal Air America radio network.

Fred Flintstone had it half right. He suggested getting any good radio talk host and getting him to pretend to be liberal. Fred was wrong about the "getting him to pretend" part, but he was spot-on correct about getting a good radio talk host. Surely in this nation there is a local talk show host on some station somewhere who has both the radio skills and a bona-fide liberal outlook who only needs a chance at a national audience.

If those who want to push liberal talk radio would forget about trying to get liberals with no radio experience and turn them into radio professionals and instead would give some unknown local liberal talk host a national shot, they might improve their luck.

 

[Herb999]

An ideology based upon the marching orders of selected elitists needs its radio host to be someone who gives the marching orders like Franken, this is why lib talk is different than conservative/moderate talk.

 

[evnlee]

If those who want to push liberal talk radio would forget about trying to get liberals with no radio experience and turn them into radio professionals and instead would give some unknown local liberal talk host a national shot, they might improve their luck.

You know what I would like to hear?

Rather then Rush and the wingnuts, or Franken and his merry band off moon-bats, I would prefer a syndicated show that follows the cable tv pundit model. A Right winger and Left winger host the show together and take calls from BOTH sides.

We have a tiny local show here in Atlanta, with a redneck lawyer and a former african-american state Rep using that format. They are freakin HILARIOUS. Yeah, they aren't that intellectually challenging, but it's damn entertaining. And they have 'fans' on both sides to keep the other guy in check.

Simple ground rules ( no overtalking each other ) and a structured debate setting and it works.

Instead, we get right wingers 'pretending' to be in the middle ( Beck, OReilly ) and leftists masquerading as 'moderates' ( Springer,Schultz ).

Why not get 2 good radio pros from each side and if you are going to syndicate it, use that format? Would it work on a national level?

 

[Herb999]

Hannity and Colmes, problem is that every liberal will say it is not fair unless the liberal wants to/gets to shout down the conservative and doesn't allow the other side its say. You shouldn't take my word for it, ask any liberal you know what they think of Hannity and Colmes.

 

[AVNevis]

"Rather then Rush and the wingnuts, or Franken and his merry band off moon-bats, I would prefer a syndicated show that follows the cable tv pundit model. A Right winger and Left winger host the show together and take calls from BOTH sides."

Curtis & Kuby?

 

[Radio_Realist]

Rather then Rush and the wingnuts, or Franken and his merry band off moon-bats, I would prefer a syndicated show that follows the cable tv pundit model. A Right winger and Left winger host the show together and take calls from BOTH sides.

I'd tune in to a show like that every now and then, but I doubt that many listeners would want a steady diet of that sort of quarreling.

In any case, whether that would be entertaining radio or not, it wouldn't solve the problem being discussed, namely coming up with a successful liberal alternative to Rush Limbaugh.

 

[STEALINGyourAUDIENCEgirl]

I am not so shallow that i want the man dead but if they killed his lame ass radio show... it would have been just as good.

 

[radiofriend1]

An ideology based upon the marching orders of selected elitists needs its radio host to be someone who gives the marching orders like Franken, this is why lib talk is different than conservative/moderate talk.

absolutely correct. just like the current administration choreographs FNC, rush, hannity, oreilly, prager, hewitt, et al

 

[evnlee]

Rather then Rush and the wingnuts, or Franken and his merry band off moon-bats, I would prefer a syndicated show that follows the cable tv pundit model. A Right winger and Left winger host the show together and take calls from BOTH sides.

I'd tune in to a show like that every now and then, but I doubt that many listeners would want a steady diet of that sort of quarreling.

In any case, whether that would be entertaining radio or not, it wouldn't solve the problem being discussed, namely coming up with a successful liberal alternative to Rush Limbaugh.

I'm telling you, if done correctly, I bet this format would work. You just have to have a neutral 3rd party ( like a board op ) that cut's off the mic once the bullying begins. YOu have to make your points without shouting down your co-host, and keep the mean spirited name calling to a minimum.

I have seen it work here. I haven't ever heard Curtis and Kuby, but is that what they sound like?

I bet there is not a single fan of Rush or Franken that wouldn't give thier eye teeth to hear both those guys go at it head to head with a decent moderator.

You cant do it in Rush' studio, or in front of Franken's live syncophants, but if you could get those guys for 3 hours on something like C span, or a Larry King ( too biased there ) type call in show, admit it, that would be priceless.

I would gladly listen to a fair debate, not what these guys are providing on thier respective shows now.

Whaddya think?

 

[dampier]

Rather then Rush and the wingnuts, or Franken and his merry band off moon-bats, I would prefer a syndicated show that follows the cable tv pundit model. A Right winger and Left winger host the show together and take calls from BOTH sides.

You mean Crossfire, the show that Jon Stewart helped to kill by pointing out the obvious - viewers are not interested in the same tired hollerfests. It's like Hardball or one of those cable segments where they pack four guests and runs a three minute segment made up of people hollering over one another and issuing zingers. It's not compelling or informative.

 

[dampier]

Hannity and Colmes, problem is that every liberal will say it is not fair unless the liberal wants to/gets to shout down the conservative and doesn't allow the other side its say. You shouldn't take my word for it, ask any liberal you know what they think of Hannity and Colmes.

Uh, the problem with Hannity & Colmes, as well documented by people who actually count the minutes given to each host, the ground rules present, and the time given to each guest, is that Hannity & Colmes is wildly unbalanced. More than 70% of the airtime is given to Sean Hannity and his particular guest, Colmes is not allowed to specifically question or debate Sean (while the reverse is not true), Hannity selects the guests and on many nights it will be an Ann Coulter or other right winger (and on many occasions Colmes is not allowed to ask any questions or participate at all), and if you watch the show yourself, just notice how often the clock runs out on Alan who is the one who usually ends up with the role of dumping his questions and instead telling viewers who is coming up after the break.

Liberals aren't really angry with Sean Hannity - he's just being the right wing tool he is. We're far more upset with Alan Colmes who allows these kinds of "fair and balanced" ground rules and, in the end, is left almost completely ineffective and a Vichy-style collaborator of the Fox News agenda which tosses the occasional liberal guest into the mix in an effort to try and convince people they are "fair and balanced." Colmes' radio show runs mostly on stations that aren't running progressive talk as a format (for a reason - his show is marketed to conservatives).

If you want to claim a fair and balanced operation, then don't allow one side of the discussion to dominate the show.

 

[dampier]

As far as this pulp fiction novel goes, Rush is slowly killing himself, so you don't really need to have someone "take him out."

What will likely happen here is that this will be used as part of the "I'm a victim" strategy a lot of Republicans love to use. Now it will be the writing community who is trying to write books suggesting that Rush be "taken out."

 

[bigtalkradiofan]

Rather then Rush and the wingnuts, or Franken and his merry band off moon-bats, I would prefer a syndicated show that follows the cable tv pundit model. A Right winger and Left winger host the show together and take calls from BOTH sides.

I'd tune in to a show like that every now and then, but I doubt that many listeners would want a steady diet of that sort of quarreling.

In any case, whether that would be entertaining radio or not, it wouldn't solve the problem being discussed, namely coming up with a successful liberal alternative to Rush Limbaugh.

I'm telling you, if done correctly, I bet this format would work. You just have to have a neutral 3rd party ( like a board op ) that cut's off the mic once the bullying begins. YOu have to make your points without shouting down your co-host, and keep the mean spirited name calling to a minimum.

I have seen it work here. I haven't ever heard Curtis and Kuby, but is that what they sound like?

I bet there is not a single fan of Rush or Franken that wouldn't give thier eye teeth to hear both those guys go at it head to head with a decent moderator.

You cant do it in Rush' studio, or in front of Franken's live syncophants, but if you could get those guys for 3 hours on something like C span, or a Larry King ( too biased there ) type call in show, admit it, that would be priceless.

I would gladly listen to a fair debate, not what these guys are providing on thier respective shows now.

Whaddya think?

I think it works better on public radio, than on commercial radio.

Many public radio show hosts pride themselves on being "neutral" (although many will disagree with that statement) but having biased guests, and this type of format works well with a debate format - where listeners are interested in learning more details about topics and issues they care about.

Whereas, much commercial talk tends to side one way or the other - and I don't think a debate format works as well on commercial radio.

Here in WI:

WI Public Radio has a Friday morning Week in Review show that every week brings a guest from both sides, and the show host, Joy Cardin, is the moderator - and its' pretty well controlled by her, I've never heard one person shout at, or over, the guest from the other side. She comes in with a few major stories of the week for them to both comment on, but after that the callers bring up issues they feel are important and want the guests to comment on.

WIBA's Mitch Henck also does a good Week in Review debate show on Friday and also does a good job of controlling the guests - but on a station with a primarily conservative following - the callers, issues and topics tend to get steered that direction - which is another reason why I think it works better on public radio.

 

[evnlee]

Rather then Rush and the wingnuts, or Franken and his merry band off moon-bats, I would prefer a syndicated show that follows the cable tv pundit model. A Right winger and Left winger host the show together and take calls from BOTH sides.

You mean Crossfire, the show that Jon Stewart helped to kill by pointing out the obvious - viewers are not interested in the same tired hollerfests. It's like Hardball or one of those cable segments where they pack four guests and runs a three minute segment made up of people hollering over one another and issuing zingers. It's not compelling or informative.

Phil, if you can honestly say you would not want to hear Franken VS Rush in a neutral debate setting, then you are being as intellectually dishonest as the right wingnuts you rail against.

From Wikka: The origin of the show goes back to the late 1970s when Tom Braden and Pat Buchanan cohosted a radio show in Washington. Braden was a liberal newspaper columnist, Buchanan a conservative columnist who had worked in the Nixon White House. The show became popular because of the uninhibited way the pair debated political issues

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossfire_(TV_series)

As for Stewart, if you think he 'killed' Crossfire, you are deluded. The thing that 'killed' crossfire was the sucky hosts they hired to drive that sucker in the ground. As for your misguided point about how Crossfire was 'not compelling or informative', the radio version ran for 12 years, and the TV version for 23 years. Not a bad run for a show your hero told you to hate :

In it's best incarnation the years of the Kinsley-Buchanan partnership( 89-91 ) were considered by some as Crossfire's best years. Both were good debaters, strong interviewers, with wit and neither felt obliged to reflexively defend the Democratic or Republican side of the argument.

According to wikka on the demise of this format: The new hosts on the left were probably the two best-known Democratic Party political strategists, Paul Begala and James Carville. The show now seldom discussed issues, rather it was straight politics and political strategy with a rota of party consultants and strategists reading their party's talking points of the day. The show was looking less like a lively debate, and more like an extension of the two parties trying to promote their policies and strategies - and attack their opponents.

 

[Herb999]

Alan knows that on FNC you have fair minded people watching not the angry frothers. Him yelling "you're a Nazi" to anyone to the right of Karl Marx might be what you call a winning argument, but the conservatives and moderates disagree with you.

As for Rush, libs wanting conservatives to die for not marching to the liberal ideology is nothing new, the comments against Clarence Thomas by lib writers and talking about shooting bush from lib democrat politicians is really the norm, some pacifists huh?
:

 

[dampier]

Phil, if you can honestly say you would not want to hear Franken VS Rush in a neutral debate setting, then you are being as intellectually dishonest as the right wingnuts you rail against.

Rush wouldn't do it, first of all. Secondly, it would be as predictable as everything else. Recite the talking points, go to break. Crossfire's ratings sucked at the end, precisely because the show was so predictable, and was also loaded up with guests who needed exposure for their own political careers.

As for Stewart, if you think he 'killed' Crossfire, you are deluded. The thing that 'killed' crossfire was the sucky hosts they hired to drive that sucker in the ground. As for your misguided point about how Crossfire was 'not compelling or informative', the radio version ran for 12 years, and the TV version for 23 years. Not a bad run for a show your hero told you to hate :

Even Tucker says the Stewart appearance was what tipped a show already lagging in ratings over the edge when CNN management started focusing on it post-Jon Stewart. I don't need a "hero" to tell me to hate or love a show. Recitations of talking points made me flee the show years before.

 

[dampier]

Alan knows that on FNC you have fair minded people watching not the angry frothers.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH... this is the funniest message I've seen here since the start of this board.