Palin: amendment needed on gay marriage

This is some pretty interesting (and tragic) footage of Sarah Palin answering a question about gay marriage.

In a word, disgraceful. And it's neither surprising nor remarkable that Palin openly and overtly contradicts herself in less than 60 seconds:

I am, in my own, state, I have voted along with the vast majority of Alaskans who had the opportunity to vote to amend our Constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman. I wish on a federal level that that's where we would go because I don't support gay marriage. I'm not going to be out there judging individuals, sitting in a seat of judgment telling what they can and can't do, should and should not do, but I certainly can express my own opinion here and take actions that I believe would be best for traditional marriage and that's casting my votes and speaking up for traditional marriage that, that instrument that it's the foundation of our society is that strong family and that's based on that traditional definition of marriage, so I do support that.

So, let's get this straight - you claim that you're not going to be out there judging individuals, nor sitting in a seat of judgment telling [them] what they can and cannot do, yet you want to amend the Constitution?

Call me crazy, but isn't amending the Constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman telling other people what they can and cannot do?

As a country, we've come a long way with regard to gay rights, but we sure have a long way to go, too. I heard an excellent interview with Melissa Etheridge on Air America Radio last Friday, and she put it best - you can't put the genie back in the bottle with respect to gay marriage. It might take a while longer, but we will get there, and gays will get the support, respect and rights they should've been given to them by the federal government long ago, the Sarah Palins of the world be damned.

In lieu of wealth, McSame's spreading something else around

I was listening to last night's Real Time With Bill Maher this morning, and I heard some pretty sage words from Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) (at right) that really struck me. We've been hearing all sorts of rhetoric from the McCain camp about Obama's comment that he intends to "spread the wealth around," which has been stoking up people's prejudices and hatred toward the lower class since those words came out of his mouth.

Actually the hatred in this country toward those less advantaged is nothing new; it's been happening for decades now, since at least 1980, and actually even longer. Of course, the right is willfully and forcefully aided in no small part in spreading this hatred by the hatemongers on right-wing talk radio and TV: Sean Hannity, Glen Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Lou Dobbs, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, etc.

What gets pathetically little coverage in the media, and quite frankly what the Obama campaign should be doing a better job of articulating, is just how spectacular the chasm is between America's wealthiest and poorest, and how this democracy-threatening trend has spiraled out of control during the Bush administration.

Take it away, Bernie:

We don't talk about it terribly often, something they don't talk about in Congress and certainly in the corporate media - that the wealthiest 1 percent in America earn more income than the bottom 50 percent. The top 1 percent own more wealth than the bottom 90 percent. We have by far, more inequality in terms of wealth and income than any other major country on earth. We have the highest rate of childhood poverty and more billionaires [than any other country] and I don't think that's what our forefathers intended.

Truer words have never been spoken by a politician in my lifetime.

What Sanders had to say is beyond inconvenient for Republicans and their many right-wing enablers - the right has successfully used Karl Rove wedge issues like gay rights, abortion, gun control, RELIGION, immigration (the '08 campaign's #1 wedge issue) and xenophobia to distract people who really need economic relief from nearly 30 years of Reaganomics, which has bankrupted our treasury and worked to destroy the middle class in this country.

We (and by "we," I mean the middle and lower classes of America) are never going to take our country back until we stopped being duped by politicians who really don't have our best interests at heart.

Incidentally, Sen. Bernie Sanders appears on Thom Hartmann's radio show on Air America Radio every Friday for a one-hour Brunch With Bernie segment, and it's excellent. I'm never going to live in Vermont (too cold for me), but I wish I could cast a vote for Sanders, and I hope more like him get elected to the U.S. Congress.

Randi Rhodes suspended from Air America

Click on the YouTube video above, and you'll quickly see and hear why I despise most talk radio, on the right and the left. Randi Rhodes has joined a long list of both liberal and conservative morons who I cannot stand spending 10 minutes listening to - most of it is about attacking and name calling. I used to think that Air America Radio was above most of this, but my naïvetay has received a not-so-subtle dose of reality as of late with what passes for on-air talent at the liberal network these days.

Quite frankly, Thom Hartman, Bill Press and Ed Schultz are the only ones I have any use for. And Stephanie Miller.

Lynn Samuels would make a freight train take a dirt road - her voice is quite possibly the worst I have ever heard on any network, ever. I don't mean to play attack dog myself - she can't help how her voice sounds, but her pure obnoxiousness makes it all the more tougher to endure.

Alex Bennett is another one that drives me crazy, so I don't complain, I just don't listen. He goes out of his way to say that he hates Democrats as much as he hates Republicans. Well, good for you, Alex, but you are working for Air America Radio. Thinking for yourself is always a good thing, but I don't tune in to her his screeds against all politicians of any stripe. Please.

And now we have Randi Rhodes - what a sad example she's setting for liberals and progressives. I constantly am complaining about the likes of Limbaugh, Hannity, Savage and all the rest about their incessant attacks and demonizing of anyone even a nanometer left of center, much less everyone else who doesn't carry the GOP party line, 24-7.

Well, Rhodes is no better. I'd like to know exactly what she thinks she's accomplishing by attacking Hillary with so much gusto. She can't possibly be considering voting for McSame if Hillary is the nominee, can she?

I was just on Air America's Website, and I was reading the comments that follow the announcement of her suspension, and they make for an interesting read, no doubt. Sure, Rhodes is free to say what she would like - we do, after all, have a little something called the First Amendment. But, that doesn't mean that Air America is under any obligation to make her voice heard. There is a thing called standards, and what does it hurt for Air America to take a stand? After all, she couldn't get away with saying stuff like that if she were on terrestrial radio, and most agree it's a good thing that people can't go around saying "fuck this" and "fuck that" on radio that is available to everyone over public airwaves.

Yes, she was saying this during a comedy routine, but AAR is correct in discipling her; broadcasting personalities can't simply make comments like these and not expect to be reprimanded. How long do you think Wolf Blitzer would be employed if during a stand up comedy act he called Ann Coulter "a stupid c---"? Or how about Jonathan Alter of Newsweek, who is a political columnist - what if he called Condi Rice "a stupid bitch" during a comedy sketch? He'd be out of a job tomorrow. The reason is simple - Blitzer and Alter are both reflections of the very public media they work for, and inappropriate, hateful comments would probably be viewed in a very negative light by many of the viewers and readers of those respective media.

I do agree that free speech and censorship are both valid concerns and must be monitored closely, but there are standards that most media will abide by, and evidently, according to AAR, she violated them.

What's more, Rhodes' comments represent the kind of hate speech, as I've mentioned, that the right-wing talking heads engage in just about every day, and Progressive and liberal bloggers the world over (yours truly included) vilify them for it. Isn't it possible for any nationally known broadcaster of any political stripe to comment on a candidate or an issue without it turning into fifth-grade name calling?

Just a thought.

Al Franken for U.S. Senate - the funny man with a serious campaign

Al Franken, the former comedian and radio talk-show host turned politician, is running himself a great campaign for U.S. Senate so far against incumbent Sen. Norm Coleman (R-MN). Right now, he's about 10 points behind, up from about 30 down about eight months ago, and he's equaling Coleman in fund raising. Pretty impressive for a political neophyte.

If Jesse Ventura and Arnold Schwarzenegger can be elected governors of Minnesota and California, then surely Franken can win against Norm Coleman. (The fact that Franken is running in the same state that elected Ventura should say a great deal about his chances of winning - Minnesotans embrace candidates for office who are not run-of-the-mill politicians.)

Anyway, take a look at the video above - it's Franken's introduction to voters. As a Philadelphian, I'm writing about Franken because I'm concerned where our country is going, and I'm following a number of races in '08. Each and every race in the U.S. Senate will be critical, and Progressives need all the help they can get. I really like Al because I feel that I came to know him, at least a little bit, by listening to The Al Franken Show on Air America Radio during its nearly three-year run. Franken's show was one of wit, information an humor, in that order. Many people who have never listened to the show have criticized it, but if they had actually given the show a chance, I believe they would have come around. His show was not, I repeat, not in the vein of Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage or Sean Hannity shows - it didn't tear people down, it made political points with humor and informative guests.

In short, Norm Coleman had best not underestimate Franken, or he'll be former Senator Norm Coleman. (I believe he will be, anyway.) Al's smart as a whip, he knows politics and policy and he really is a true Progressive.

If you have the means, regardless of where you live, I urge you to support Al Franken, even if it's just five bucks. Every dollar counts, and every supporter will make the difference in his race against Coleman.

Air America lives

It seems that reports of Air America Radio's demise have been greatly exaggerated. And thankfully so.

I'm the first to admit that when Air America launched on March 31, 2004, I was very enthusiastic, specifically because of Al Franken's involvement. When Franken left the network on February 14 of this year, I canceled my subscription to the network. (A small fee every month gets you an Air America Premium account, where you have unlimited access to podcasts of every Air America program.)

However, after hearing good things about Thom Hartman, Franken's successor, I figured I'd listen to him on a trial basis. After listening to one episode of the show, I re-upped my subscription and haven't looked back.

There are many progressive talk-shows hosts I respect and admire on a consistent basis - Stephanie Miller (more on her in a separate post later this morning), Ed Schultz, Randi Rhodes, Bill Press and Rachel Maddow, but Hartman sits firmly atop the list.

Hartman's an encyclopedia of political knowledge, and not just about liberal stuff. The author of 19 books, he has been in radio since 1967. The best part about Hartman's show is that it's not about tearing people down and denigrating them. (If you want that, listen to The Sean Hannity Show or Rush Limbaugh's daily rant.) Hartman's show is about debating the issues, and he often has on conservatives to discuss issues and a (mostly) civilized manner. Opposing opinions are respected and sometimes vigorously debated. But, in the end, listeners can weigh both sides and decide for themselves.

And Hartman won't go down the smear and fear road, either. Recently, when one caller began making comments about Newt Gingrich's character flaws (like those are hard to find), he cut the caller off, saying, "I'd rather stick to the issues."

Bravo, Tom - you're a bigger man than me.

If you haven't listened to or considered Air America Radio lately, give it a go - you'll be happy you did.

Rachel Maddow calls b.s. on Orrin Hatch

There has been lots of talk this week about Orrin Hatch's appearance on Meet the Press last Sunday. During his appearance, Hatch mentioned Carol Lam, a former U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of California and one of the eight attorneys recently fired by the Justice Department.

During his appearance, Hatch mentioned that Carol Lam worked for the Clinton campaign (see video below).

At the heart of Hatch's inaccuracies is this paragraph:

Carol Lam, it’s amazing to me she wasn’t fired earlier because for three years members of the Congress had complained that there had been all kinds of border patrol capture of these people but hardly any prosecutions. She was a former law professor, no prosecutorial experience, and the former campaign manager in Southern California for Clinton, and they’re trying to say that this administration appoints people politically? Of course they do.

Here's the video clip...



Rachel Maddow (top left), who hosts her own program on Air America Radio, did a little digging of her own and began poking holes in Hatch's lies and distortions, writing this letter to the Hatch:

Dear Senator Hatch-
You don’t call, you don’t write...

I’ve just about exhausted myself trying to get someone in your office to call me back this week. Please apologize to your adorable receptionist on my behalf – the poor man now gets audibly exasperated as soon as I say "hello."

What I’d like to talk with you about is very simple: on NBC’s Meet the Press this past Sunday, you said this about Carol Lam, the US Attorney for San Diego who was fired by the Justice Department in December:

"She was a former law professor, no prosecutorial experience, and the former campaign manager in Southern California for Clinton"

I checked the transcript against the video (or click here for the specific clip) and it’s clear to me that you weren’t misquoted.

Here's my question for you or your staff: what in the Lord's name are you talking about?

Here at Air America, we called John Emerson, who managed Clinton's California campaign in '92 and again in '96 to ask if Carol Lam had been the "campaign manager in Southern California for Clinton" – you might have thought we'd asked him if the sky was green.

First of all, uh, NO, she wasn't.

And second, Carol Lam was an Assistant US Attorney at the time of Clinton's campaigns, and she therefore couldn't have also been a campaign manager for any presidential candidate without violating the (ironically-named) Hatch Act, which restricts political activity by federal government employees.

Then we called a source close to Carol Lam in California, who expressed utter bewilderment at what old Orrin said on Meet the Press.

The source confirmed for us publicly-available documents about Lam's career which indicate that she is not a law professor, she's "been a federal prosecutor for nearly 18 years and [has] never been a fundraiser for any president."

Senator Hatch, what’s going on here?

Were you thinking of someone else? You seemed under the weather on Sunday - did you maybe fall asleep and wake up in the middle of what you thought was a totally different interview – an interview about someone who DID work for Clinton's campaign?

Don't you want to apologize and set the record straight? Won't you be embarrassed if Meet the Press has to run a correction about something you said, that you won't retract?

Or do you have secret information that no one else has, that will back up your off-the-wall claims about Carol Lam?

Senator Hatch, call me.

My voicemails have filled up the systems on all of your press guys' phones, so I know you know how to reach me.

When you call me back, I'll give you all the time you want on my radio show to either explain your top-secret Carol Lam information, or to apologize for your utterly outrageous, inexplicable smear.

I know it's difficult to have to defend the Bush Administration for their political purge of the US Attorneys - but that doesn't mean you get to make stuff up about the US attorneys that you think will make it seem like they deserved what they got.

Come on, come on, Senator Hatch. I caught you on this one. Return my calls - I'll help you make it all better.

All best wishes,
Rachel Maddow
Host, "The Rachel Maddow Show"
Air America Radio 6-8 PM Eastern

###

Who says that letters don't make a difference? Hatch has responded in a letter to Tim Russert. [Click on letter for larger image.]

###

And Maddow responds to Hatch's b.s. letter. ...

Apparently this open letter thing works!

Senator Hatch has now issued a letter climbing down from the pile of lies he told about Carol Lam on Meet the Press this weekend.

He now says thought he was talking about a person named "Alan Bersin" when the name "Carol Lam" accidentally escaped his lips instead.

Given the massive media attention and debate about "Alan Bersin" recently, I can understand his mistake.

For more on this weird controversy, tune into my next show, titled, as always, "Yet Another Two Hours of Talk Radio All About Alan Bersin."

Rachel

****

Bravo, Rachel - keep up the good work. For those of you who haven't listened to her show, I urge you to - visit her blog Here, where you can find out more about her, the show, get lots of opinion, and best of all - downloads of audio and video files from her show.

By the way, for those of you who don't think Hatch's mistakes are important, think again. They are, because all signs point to the fact that they were deliberately said. The fact is that Lam and the other dismissed U.S. Attorneys are having their reputations wrongly and needlessly smeared so this administration can cover its ass.

Tom Hartmann Show the place for informed, reasonable debate on war

Today, I listened to a podcast of Thom Hartmann's show from yesterday, and during it, a Vietnam Veteran called in, and what he said struck me in a very profound way. He said that many Vietnam Veterans are alive today because Congress pulled the plug on that war. He also mentioned another thing I hadn't thought about - that generals are in the business of getting promoted (Read: Getting another star). When that happens, they are replaced with another general, who comes in and has to clean up the mess (or continue on with a war strategy that isn't working).

Pretty well stated, from a man who lived through the disaster of Vietnam.

When I heard the vet call in, it also reminded me of the new Nixon book that I blogged about last night: Nixon and Kissinger: Partners in Power, by Robert Dallek. The book was recently profiled and excerpted in Vanity Fair, and in that excerpt is the following passage from the book:

Using language that has a painfully contemporary echo, Kissinger and Nixon very quickly came to private conclusions about Vietnam that they never revealed publicly and denied entertaining. "In Saigon the tendency is to fight the war to victory," Nixon told Kissinger, according to the transcript of a 1969 phone conversation. "But you and I know it won't happen - it is impossible." Even so, according to [White House Chief of Staff Bob] Haldeman's unpublished diaries, Nixon later urged that Democratic critics making this same point should be labeled "the party of surrender." When someone told Kissinger that Nixon could not be re-elected, because of Vietnam, he disputed it and added, according to a memo of a conversation, that "anytime we want to get out of Vietnam we can," and that "we will get out of Vietnam before the [1972] election." Nixon wanted to plan the removal of all U.S. troops by the end of 1971, but Kissinger cautioned that, if North Vietnam then de-stabilized Saigon during the following year, events could have an adverse effect on the president's campaign. According to Haldeman's diaries, Kissinger advocated a pullout in the fall of 1972, "so that if any bad results follow they will be too late to affect the election." He apparently had nothing to say about the American lives that would be lost by deliberately prolonging the war. Just before a peace treaty was signed, Kissinger in a phone conversation advised Nixon against stating that this was a "lasting peace or guaranteed peace because this thing is almost certain to blow up sooner or later."

[Emphasis Mine]

When I heard the Vietnam Vet on Hartmann's show today, all I could think about are that the parallels between Vietnam and the War in Iraq grow more and more apropos by the day.

So, to quickly put the Vietnam War in perspective - 20,604 Americans gave their lives AFTER Nixon took office in January 1969 in a war that, according to Dallek, Kissinger said, "anytime we want to get out of Vietnam we can"? Just another revelation from a war that continues to be a national disgrace. When I read items like that, it's absolutely no stretch to say that President Nixon and Henry Kissinger are war criminals.

Put another way, it is not out of the question for Bush to pursue a similar strategy? Who among us, other than the blowhards at Fox News and the radical religious right, would be surprised if our troops were withdrawn from Iraq in July or August of next year, amidst a backdrop of Repubes claiming victory?

Whenever we bring all of our troops home out of Iraq, one thing is for certain - Democrats won't get an ounce of credit, at least among Republicans and most of the mainstream media.

Another caller on Hartmann's show, an MP from Arizona who served in Iraq, called in, and was livid at what this administration is doing to our military, and our soldiers. He briefly discussed the very active campaign to recall John McCain in Arizona. Whether the drive will ultimately be successful is anyone's guess, but it is a signal that his support is collapsing in his home state. This caller also discussed President Nixon's idea to use tactical nuclear weapons in Vietnam to achieve victory. I've read about this before, and I don't know the veracity of those stories, but considering everything else Nixon did, it wouldn't really come as a shock. According to this caller, Nixon looked out onto the National Mall in Washington, D.C., and saw one million protesters sharply opposed to his war policies, and he changed his mind. His point in bringing up that story (true or not) is the power of the protest, and he makes an excellent point - our voices can and must make the difference in this war.

It's become a running theme with just about every election - that it's the "most important election in our lifetime." It does become trite, but I shudder to think what would have happened had the Democrats not regained control of Congress some 20 weeks ago.

One thing's for certain - there would be very few, if any, substantive discussions about bringing our troops home, and the Democrats would have been a marginalized minority, just like they were during the first six years of this administration.

Franken bids adieu, declares for '08

I felt just a little bit older on Thursday. That's because I spent the drive to work listening to Al Franken's last broadcast of The Al Franken Show via podcast. I fondly remember Franken (above, taking off his headset for the last time after his show on Wednesday) on Air America Radio when the network made its debut.

At first, I had mixed emotions on Franken the radio broadcaster (above, after his last show). I've always loved his books, going all the way back to Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot. It was clear from the outset that he was a neophyte in the radio business - his transitions were awful, his voice not much better, and the show wasn't always as planned as it should have been.

But, it didn't take Franken long to find his voice. His show began in March 2004, and I started listening on the Internet as soon as it became available. Looking back, '04 was a pretty big, exciting year for me politically; presidential election years always are for me, but 2004 was more so than any other so far in my life. At the risk of sounding sappy, Franken built up liberals and progressives, and then built us up again after the disaster that November.

Along the way, Franken honed his skills as a host, and sharpened his wit and rhetoric. The last year of his show, Franken really rounded into form - he ratcheted down the sarcasm and ramped up his game, bringing top notch guests to the show every week, including Joe Conason, a noted and respected author; David Brock, the founder of Media Matters; Jonathan Alter of Newsweek; Thomas Oliphant of The Boston Globe; Melanie Sloan and Norm Ornstein. Heavyweights all, and some of them were Republicans.

And, like Olbermann, Franken spent a considerable amount of time taking shots at Bill O'Reilly (whom he christened "O'Lielly" in one of his books - and as readers of The Journey know, I've been carrying that flame). Originally, Franken dubbed his radio show The O'Franken Factor. He's had some legendary run-ins with BOR and even Fox News. In 2004, the network tried suing him for copyright infringement for using its term "fair and balanced" in his book Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right. The judge overseeing the case, in the midst of throwing Fox's suit out of court, noted the irony of a news network, which is supposed to protect First Amendment rights of free speech, suing someone over their right to free speech.

Anyway, at the end of Franken's show on Wednesday, he declared his candidacy for the U.S. Senate in 2008. Franken will face Norm Coleman, who won Paul Wellstone's seat in the aftermath of Wellstone's death in 2004. Wellstone and Franken went back many years - both are from Minnesota, and the two had a close relationship. It will be poetic justice if Franken wins the seat next year.

I know there are many who will sell Franken short because of his history as a comedian. Those who underestimate him do so at their own peril. Personally, I can't wait to see Franken tear Coleman to shreds. If Franken holds to form, he will realize success as a candidate just like he has as a comedian, author and radio host.

However, one can predict the Coleman and his staff's plan of attack. For starters, there are literally hundreds if not thousands of audio clips available that can and will be taken out of context by his opponent(s).

On Wednesday, Franken offered up an example of just what his opponents had in store for him. He likes to use a joke about John McCain (that McCain now uses himself). It goes something like this -

People paint John McCain as some sort of war hero, but I don't know why. Real heroes fight, but McCain sat out the war for five-and-a-half years. I don't see how he's a hero.

Even McCain thinks it's funny. But, according to Franken, some people have criticized him for the joke, opining that he's making fun of a war hero.

There'll be a lot more of that in the next 18 months. I'm rooting like crazy for Franken, and whatever happens, he will certainly add a lot of wit and wisdom to the 2008 election.

I've got $20 that says Coleman won't debate Franken more than twice, if at all. (Assuming Franken gets the nomination.) Matching wits with Franken would be a very bad idea for Coleman.

Very bad.

In the meantime, Thom Hartman (above) will take Franken's place on Air America Radio. The future of the fledgling network is still uncertain, but the network was recently approved to emerge from Chapter 11.

Clearly, there's a market for a liberal radio network; Air America has merely been the unfortunate victim of bad management.

For the moment, I've dropped my subscription. I'll admit that Franken was the biggest reason for my subscribing to Air America. It irked me that I had to subscribe at all, but Air America doesn't have an affiliate in Philadelphia, and its satellite agreement is with XM Satellite Radio, and I'm a Sirius man. So, I was paying to listen to Air America's podcasts a day late. But, I'm spending enough money on subscriptions right now, so Air America loses out. Maybe in the future again, someday.

I'll wait and see how Hartman's received, and then maybe sometime in the future I'll subscribe again. (Above, Hartman's bulletin board outside his radio studio.)

I'm certainly rooting for Air America's success, just like Franken's. God only knows that there needs to be more voices to combat the far right blowhards like Insanity and Limbaugh.

Air America lives

As a subscriber and listener of Air America since the network began, yesterday was bittersweet. The fledgling liberal radio network announced yesterday that it has been purchased by SLG Radio LLC, an entity controlled by Stephen L. Green. The sale is expected to close by mid-February. The announcement was made by Air America CEO Scott Elberg.

"We are extremely pleased to have reached this agreement with Mr. Green, which will solidify Air America’s future," said Elberg. "When you combine Steve Green's business skills and successes -- with his brother Mark Green's history as a respected progressive policy voice, including as a frequent guest and host on our network-- Air America will be in the best hands to sustain our powerful radio voice, expand our reach and broaden the audience."

I know I'M pleased about it. No one can tell me that there isn't a demand for a liberal radio network in this country, because there is. Look at all of the people who voted against Bush in '04 and against his party in '06? No one can make the case to me that this radio network can't survive. It's just been unfortunate that it's had poor management.

Yesterday also marked the announcement that Al Franken will be leaving Air America, effective February 14. That was a disappointment to me - I've listened to Al since day one. His material is good, but his voice and radio hosting skills are wanting. But, in the end, he brought me to the network, and I love his knowledge, wit and political smarts.

Fans of Franken shouldn't weep, though. We haven't heard the last of him, via his great books, or perhaps as a candidate. He has expressed interest in running for the Senate in his home state of Minnesota.

Yesterday, he said he will make his decision soon. I for one think he has as much smarts as many who occupy the Senate chamber today.

So long, Al. It's not an overstatement that if it weren't for your star power, Air America would have gone under probably long ago, so well done. And keep writing those books and engaging rightist blowhards.

And sorry, Matt Drudge, Bill O'Lielly, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Insanity - you don't get to have your Air American funeral. Boo hoo.

What a Rush - intolerance in the morning

My favorite drug addict is at it again.

Yesterday, I was listening to Howard Stern (as usual) on Sirius Satellite Radio while getting ready for work. I must confess that I don't always agree with what Stern says, but yesterday he took off on a rant about Rush Limbaugh, complete with audio clips from his show. His rants on Limbaugh and Republicans are usually worth the price alone for subscribing to Sirius, but yesterday's rant was sort of special.

The short of was this - Limbaugh was talking about Barack Obama getting a celebrity endorsement from actress Halle Berry. This is how Rush announced it on his show it:

"Halfrican American Barack Obama has received another endorsement, this time from Halfrican American Halle Berry."

I'm trying REAL HARD to stick to my New Year's resolution of not using profanity on this blog, but it's not easy when I hear stuff like this.

Stern wasted no time laying waste to Rush. ...

"He's such a f------ dickhead. I hate it that he's successful. I mean, what's your point?!?"

I think Howard missed the point about Limbaugh's mispronunciation, though. At best, Limbaugh was intentionally mispronouncing "African-American" simply to annoy people (unlikely, but it IS what he's best at), and at worst (likely), he was mispronouncing it because both Berry and Obama are half African-American.

His listeners must be awfully proud. Making fun of Michael J. Fox's Parkinson's Disease (which he can't help) wasn't enough - now Limbaugh's moved on to making fun of people's ethnic make-up (which they can't help, either [not that they would want to, I'm quite certain]).

It got me thinking - I listen to Al Franken quite a bit on Air America Radio, and I defy anyone to come up with an instance when he race-baited his audience (or his detractors), or made fun of people's diseases because he disagreed with them politically.

Granted, Franken did write a book called Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot, but that's really what Rush is. I wonder if Franken will write a sequel, Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Intolerant Drug Addicted Moron. Now that Franken is leaving Air America Radio (more on that in a minute), he'll have the time. Get going, Al.

Air America crash lands? Not quite

Say it ain't so, Air America Radio. The fledgling left-wing liberal radio network has declared bankruptcy. It really comes as no surprise, since there have been rumors of financial trouble since before it even went on the air in March 2004.

It's too bad, because if the company was run right, I'm sure it could be a success, and it may end up being one after it emerges from bankruptcy proceedings.

One could easily argue that there certainly is a market for a liberal slate of radio programs. After all, over 50 million people voted for John Kerry (or should I say against President Bush) in the last presidential election, so one would think that a majority of those people would be interested in that political point of view.

I hope the network gets its act together. I'm a paid subscriber for its podcasts. Of course, I'd enjoy listening to the show live on satellite radio, but Air America opted to go with the inferior company, XM Radio. If memory serves me correctly, Air America was initially on XM and Sirius. Going to Sirius would be a good start, since that company is on its way up, and XM is going in the other direction.

I'm not exactly fretting over this news, or fearing that AAR will go out of business. After all, Fox News Channel lost an average of $90 million a year for about five years before it became profitable. It's just that Rupert Murdoch has pockets that are, ahem, just a bit deeper than AAR.

Liberal Stephanie Miller appeared on Howard Kurtz's CNN show Reliable Sources recently to discuss AAR's fate. Take a listen...



Get it together, Air America. We need liberal voices in the media like never before, with the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Lielly, Ann Coulter and the rest of the lying, distorting, radical religious right conservative scum distorting, lying and bullying their way to power. With a little luck, in about two weeks, part of the GOP power will be eroded.