Republicans PUNKED by Liberal Talk Show Host

Crossposted on DailyKos

March 3, 2009 on Larry King liberal talk show host, Stephanie Miller said:

MILLER: Nancy, you are right about one thing. We love this episode of Republicans eating their own. It's delightful and it's not solving any of the serious problems that the country is facing. You know who is it good for? Rush Limbaugh. He loves this attention. If I could say something tonight that gets me that kind of attention, like maybe: Rush Limbaugh should be executed for treason. How about that?

it's at about 1:15

Thursday afternoon Noel Sheppard picked up on it, Lib Talker: 'Maybe Limbaugh Should Be Executed For Treason'

Predictably Miller's email box began to fill with right wing hate mail. (Friday morning she read many on air throughout the show.)

Then around 1am EST March 6, 2009, World Net Daily picked up on it. Execute Rush Limbaugh for treason? That's what Obama-loving talker suggests on CNN

Hot Air also picked it up. It may be hitting right wing websites like a metal ball in a pinball machine.

This is exactly what Stephanie Miller stated she wanted on yesterday's program. They are making her day!

What is funny is that the transcripts on both Newsbusters, Hot Air are WRONG and incomplete in regards to what Stephanie Miller actually said. (the quote above IS correct) Funny, but not surprising.

Miller was clearly joking, but many conservatives haven't picked up on that fact.

I wonder if Rush will comment on it today or "wait" for a caller to his show to bring it up today.

Still waiting and watching Drudge.

***

UPDATE: Freepers got it too! Interestingly enough their transcript has the same omissions and mistakes. Hmmm you think they are copying and pasting the purported "transcript" without looking at the video? /snark

I've been out and have so idea if Rush answered this.

Conservatives hate the FREE market of ideas

Conservatives love to say that they are in the market place of ideas. But how can it be a market or a free market, if there is no choice? They say progressive radio is doesn't sell, but even streaming on the web (DC station because we lost our station in Boston) I've noticed a whole bunch of commercials; a whole range of local commercials we never heard in Boston . "Beecause we know progressives in Boston and our "metro area," don't eat, don't go grocery or car shopping, don't go to shows( like monster truck rallies), don't shop for prom wear or any clothes for that matter, don't take our family to fun places. . . etc.

In reality conservatives don't like a real open/free market, because if they did they would be meeting the talk radio needs of half the nation. They don't want to have a real competition - and they need to be challenged every time they spout the marketplace of ideas and that progressive radio doesn't sell. They are saying, by default, that they can only win in that marketplace when the cards are all stacked in their favor. (NPR isn't a commerical radio network and cannot be used to compare commerical to commerical radio)

I'm fired up, I am tired of watching progressive radio stations fall. If it is truly an ownership issue and radio stations are expensive to buy we need to have progressives donating to the cause of buying station and progressives with deep pockets helping to buy stations.

Progressive talk was a large part of the reason for the 2006 Democratic talk over of the house and senate. And conservative power brokers know it. The loss of more and more progressive stations also confirms this - without progressive talk we may loose the gains we have gotten and 2008.

In Boston we can't hear Kennedy's wonderful speeches on the Senate floor, Ohio can't hear Sherrod Brown. If the average joe can't hear our message, if the Republican's get to define who and what we are on their unchallenged talk radio stations, how do we truly compete? How do we get our message out? How do we keep our gains and get more?

This liberal media bias is a specious argument. Back in the day when it was only newspapers many large communities had two newspapers, one newspaper was known to be conservative and one was liberal. Everyone accepted that. If you wanted both sides, you read both newspapers. Now many places have lost one of their newspapers, once liberal newspapers like the LA Times are owned and controlled by conservatives and their bias is there.

We don't have radio balance. Some how we've allowed the conservatives to make a liberal bias in the media a bad thing instead of what it was when we had choice in media (two newspapers, etc.) a normal accepted thing BECAUSE both the conservative and liberal bias were represented in the choice of newspaper/media.

And if progressive radio can't sell, why are three (3) progressive talkers (Ed Schultz, Stephanie Miller, and Randi Rhodes) listed in the top 15 in Talkers magazine. That's even more impressive when you realize that they are on less radio stations than the other 12 are.

Examples of what was two newspaper ideology representation:
Denver Post (used to be considered Liberal) and the Rocky Mountain News (conservative)
Boston Globe (liberal) and the Boston Herald (conservative)
NY Times (liberal) and the NY Post (conservative)
etc.

(Donate to Non-Stop Radio where ever you are to keep us on in every city in the nation)

Bad, Bad, Evil George Soros, it's all YOUR Fault, again

I just visited Paul Shanklin's site. He's a neo-conservative political satrist. Rush Limbaugh (who regularly plays his stuff) calls Shanklin the "man of many voices." Okay so we have the awesome Jim Ward, among others, as a voice diety.

I was looking for something they had done on Hillary 6 to 10 years ago. While there looking for this bit that was done on Rush about Hillary (it's not there or under a title I don't remember, EIB may have done the parody themselves) I happened to listen to a clip from Shanklin's latest "American Spastic", entitled Big Oil. And I guess I shouldn't have been shocked but despite what we KNOW about Dick Cheney having secret meetings with big oil and allowing them to write enviromental and oil policy, Bill Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Jimmy Carter, George Soros, Democrats, etc. are to blame for gas being as high priced as it is.

And the poor whittle oil companies are only earning $0.09 a gallon.

Yeah right.

No wonder dittoheader blame the Iraqi war failures on "Democrats," and their supposed "lack of support and not letting the generals run the war the way they want (ie bomb everything, always) and not where the blame lies; Rumsfled's policies, lack of troops, lack of armor, lack of knowledge of the enemy (Sun Tzu is shaking his head right now), etc. etc. etc.

A Tale of Two Children: 9 Years, 2 Presidents and 1 War Apart

Way back in 1997 the neo-cons got their knickers in a twist over a teacher keeping a 4th grader from reading "The Way Things Out to Be" by Rush Limbaugh and the "Limbaugh Letter" in the classroom during personal reading time (probably during D.E.A.R - Drop Everything And Read)

Part of the news release read:

"We are deeply concerned about these additional infringements," said Wayne Haig of Donald W. Huffman & Associates, who is handling the case for The Rutherford Institute. "School should be a place which tolerates the free discussion of different views and beliefs."

The original complaint included an incident in which teachers took Rush Limbaugh's "The Way Things Ought To Be" away from Jason when he attempted to read it during a free-reading period.

"There is no tyranny quite like the tyranny of the classroom," said Haig, "where a teacher uses her authority to censor the small voices of children with viewpoints contrary to her own. As far as school children am concerned, the teacher is the law in the classroom, and there is normally no watchdog to guard the constitutional rights of the students, We commend the Gardners for taking a stand."

In this instance I agree. I've fought for 1st Amendment rights, and I've read "The Way Things Ought To Be." If a 4th grader can read and understand it, then I don't see a problem with it. I don't agree with the what is inside the book, BUT it doesn't contain overt sexual and violent content that is too much for a 4th grader.

Fast Forward to 2006, an 11 year old girl, Molly Shoul, wants to sing Pink's "Dear Mr. President" for her school talent show. The principal is barring it after deeming it inappropriate and too political

The reasons?

The song does not mention abortion, and the profanity mentioned is the word "hell." The drug use refers to Bush's alleged conduct before he became president.

… What kind of father would take his own daughter's rights away

… And what kind of father might hate his own daughter if she were gay

… I can only imagine what the first lady has to say

… You've come a long way from whiskey and cocaine

Another portion criticizes Bush for the war:

… How do you sleep while the rest of us cry

… How do you dream when a mother has no chance to say goodbye

Molly said Thursday she thought the song was "really cool" because it spoke about important subjects like war and homelessness.

Molly said she liked the way the song addressed the president directly

One wonders if the Neo-cons will step up and be as outraged that Freedom of Speech is being denied for this girl as they were for the boy in 1997. Probably will not, they are hypocritical that way.

But do you know what she will sing if she is not allowed to sing a song about social conscience and concern for one's fellow man? She will sing a hip hop song about 2 girls fighting over a boy. Hmmm... something more up the theocons alley.

Here's hoping that Pink contacts this little girl, and that she will be able to sing about something that means something her and that is social relevant and not some mindless drivel.



The video

keywords: Molly Shoul, Nancy Shoul, Jason Gardner

Something about Eddy

Okay hokey title I know. Here's some links you might want to investigate:

General Wes Clark on his website WesPAC, is urging people to send an email to Members of Congress now to persuade the Pentagon to enforce fair play on Armed Forces Radio by honoring their promise to broadcast Ed Schultz's radio show! Put Ed Schultz on Armed Forces Radio!
(hat tip: http://www.wegoted.com)

Democracy Radio (Ed's radio affliation) has a petition:
"Join thousands of other Americans in demanding that our troops around the world be provided a balanced political perspective on the Armed Forces Radio and Television Service (AFRTS)." Radio for the Troops

from Media Matters:

Rush Limbaugh still the only political radio show broadcast on American Forces Radio

Last year, with your help, Media Matters for America drew attention to right-wing radio host Rush Limbaugh's presence as the sole political commentator on American Forces Radio and Television Service (AFRTS), a taxpayer-funded service that provides radio programming to American armed forces around the world. In the wake of Limbaugh's reckless and harmful endorsement of the prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib, Media Matters called for AFRTS to remove Limbaugh from its broadcast schedule.

There is no way to truly provide "balance" to Limbaugh's hateful rhetoric, which ranges from calling people "feminazis" to saying "A Chavez is a Chavez. These people have always been a problem" to claiming that women "actually wish" to be sexually harassed. But AFRTS was set to take a step in the right direction by adding progressive radio host Ed Schultz to its broadcast schedule, beginning October 17.

However, AFRTS put those plans on hold at the last minute -- and now claims it never decided to add Schultz in the first place. Defense Department official Allison Barber personally announced the cancellation just three days after Schultz drew attention to Barber's role in a controversial scripted event President Bush held last week. Barber reportedly called Schultz's producer at home on the morning of the 17th with the news that Schultz would not be broadcast on AFR. The Defense Department's apparent decision to cancel Schultz means that Limbaugh will continue as the only political commentator on American Forces Radio and Television Service.

The brave members of our armed forces deserve an alternative to Rush Limbaugh

Limbaugh, NPR and Ed

Limbaugh says that he is the balance on AFRN because it carries NPR. He contends that AFRN doesn't need Ed. However, many on the left have noticed a steady shift to the right in NPR since Kenneth Tomlinson (AFOK) was named to CPB’s Board of Directors. Many long time NPR liberal listeners now turn off NPR.

Ed Schultz remarked on his radio program the other day that there is a vast difference between public and commercial radio and television. And he is right! This is something that conservatives like Limbaugh have said for years. So to try make an equal comparison between public and commercial media now is disingenuous.

Ed is the true balance to Limbaugh on AFRN because he's a liberal in the commercial market. Until now, Limbaugh liked to trumpet that liberal talk shows could not flourish in commercial radio. That the only place they could project their ideas was on NPR. They were not, as he liked to say, commercially viable.

Air America, Democracy Radio and Ed Schultz are proving Limbaugh wrong and that's his real rub. Plus Ed is actually in "fly over country" delivering his radio show from North Dakota. Limbaugh broadcasts from New York City or Florida, but says he speaks for the heartland of America. In addition Ed takes his radio show on the road, something Limbaugh rarely does. (Rush on Broadway is not a live radio show) So who's really out of touch?

Limbaugh really doesn't want to go head to head with an equal on the other side of the aisle, a conservative commercial talk radio host vs. a liberal commercial talk radio host. Despite all his "free market" talk he would rather not compete that way.


*AFOK = A friend of Karl (Rove)

Ed protest banner

See also:
http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oId=18930
http://christian-dem-in-nc.dailykos.com/story/2005/10/17/152413/97
http://mediamatters.org/archives/search.html?string=Limbaugh
http://mediamatters.org/items/200510190010