Thursday, 18 October 2007
HATRED, CONTINUED: RACHEL MADDOW
While we're on the subject of hatred, I forgot to mention that, this morning
on the Today show, rachel maddow - who hosts a show on what's left of air
america radio, called President Bush a psychotic.
Specifically she said that
if he thinks Iran is a problem but Pakistan is no problem he is
Now I don't recall President Bush ever saying that, but maybe Ms.
maddow doesn't require the actual statement to be made for her to tell us
the President is mentally disturbed.
Matt Lauer was the questioner. And guess what, he didn't
ask her about that hateful comment...not one word. This could mean...
...he didn't notice she said it (pretty hard to believe),
...he thinks this is acceptable commentary (not so hard to believe),
...or that he is sympathetic to her hateful rant (also not so hard to
Left wingers can say hateful things like this with impugnity.
Right wingers cannot.
Apparently, therefore, when you want to pump out hate - like pete stark and rachel maddow do - it's good
to be to the left.
PALESTINIAN ARAB GOALS: REALITY VERSUS FANTASY
What is it with the world, including the USA these days and Condoleezza Rice
in particular? Is this their imitation of Charlie Brown with the football
that Lucy pulled out from under him at the start of every season?
There is absolutely no doubt about what mahmoud abbas wants, any more than
hamas. It is the end of Israel and the creation of a state of Palestine on
all Israeli land. They may have different avenues of trying to accomplish
this, but their goal is exactly the same.
I've shown this over and over again here, but it seems that, for some reason,
another proof always seems to be needed.
Here's one for you, courtesy of www.israelnationalnews.com.
The bold print is mine:
On PA TV, All of Israel to be Replaced by
(IsraelNN.com) Even as Palestinian Authority
chief Mahmoud Abbas declares his demand for "only" all 6,205 kilometers of
Judea, Samaria and Gaza, his official TV station shows a PA flag covering all of
Palestinian Media Watch (PMW), a media watchdog group
that monitors the media in the Palestinian Authority, reports on a clip
broadcast by Fatah-controlled Palestinian television this week. The clip
shows a map in which Israel, in its entirety, is painted in the colors of the
Palestinian flag - black, white, red and green. The message is that the PA
strives to replace all of Israel, and not just Judea, Samaria and
Itamar Marcus and Barbara Crook of PMW write
that the broadcast of the map at this particular time renders the matter of even
greater concern. "As preparations for the American peace
conference continue," they write, "the leaders of the Palestinian Authority have
announced their demands for a future Palestinian state with an area of 6205
square kilometers. This would include the Gaza Strip, the West Bank [Judea and
Samaria - ed.] and [eastern] Jerusalem. However, the message they have conveyed
to their people for years, and continue to convey on the eve of the conference,
is that 'Palestine' exists and it replaces all of Israel."
documented by PMW for many years, the idea of turning Israel into an
Arab-Palestinian state is part of a formal educational approach throughout the
Palestinian Authority. "The picture painted for the Palestinian population, both
verbally and visually, is of a world without Israel," PMW
writes. "This uniform message of a world without Israel is repeated
in school books, children's programs, crossword puzzles, video clips, formal
symbols, school and street names, etc."
Street names in the PA
have been changed to memorialize terrorists, for instance, and PA textbooks
regularly include references to the "Israel is Palestine" canard. For
instance, a 12th-grade literature book states, Palestines war ended with a
catastrophe that is unprecedented in history, when the Zionist gangs stole
Palestine and expelled its people from their cities, their villages, their lands
and their houses, and established the State of Israel. [Arabic Language,
Analysis, Literature and Criticism, grade 12, p. 104
Crossword puzzles in the official PA newspaper, Al
Hayat al Jadida, have included clues such as A Palestinian city - with the
proper answer being, in various places, Haifa, Lod, and Ashkelon; all three, of
course, are present-day Israeli cities within the pre-1967 borders.
Another clue calls Yad Vashem Holocaust Center a "Jewish Center for eternalizing
the Holocaust and the lies." Other crossword puzzle examples can be
Palestininan Arabs could not make themselves clearer about this if they took
full-page ads in the New York Times and broadcast a battle plan on national
TV. But, still, we pretend we don't know.
Eventually Israel is going to have to do something about this, far more than
it has done so far, or it will literally cease to exist.
Right now, the world can at least try to peacefully facilitate what is
necessary. But that window of opportunity is running out. At some
point Israel must act, with or without the world's support.
If and when that day comes, who will the world blame? Who will Europe
blame? Who will the UN blame?
Who will Condoleezza Rice blame?
THE HATRED OF PETE STARK
If you think Nancy Pelosi is the worst congressperson from the Bay Area (San
Francisco/Oakland/etc.) you are wrong.
That's pretty amazing, isn't it, given how godawful Pelosi is. But pete
stark has her beat by a mile.
Stark has threatened a fellow congressperson with
physical harm, called him a "fruitcake" (that is a pejorative reference to a
gay male), has made numerous hate statements about Israel, hates Bush, hates Republicans, hates
religion, hates hates hates.
Here is stark's latest hate comment. It is a
demonstration of what an embarrassment he is to the congress...and the
country. It comes in the form of a rant on the house floor (the bold print
is mine). If you have a strong enough stomach, the video can be found at
"Where are you going to get that money? Are you
going to tell us lies like you're telling us today? Is that how you're going to
fund the war? You don't have money to fund the war or children. But
you're going to spend it to blow up innocent people if we can get enough
kids to grow old enough for you to send to Iraq to get their heads blown off for
the president's amusement." .
That, friends, is sheer, naked hatred. Nothing more, nothing less.
In a decent political climate, Democratic house members would be falling over each
other to disavow, disassociate themselves from and condemn that hate comment.
But, under Nancy Pelosi (remember, I acknowledge she gives stark a run for his
money) we are not in a decent political climate.
Let's see if mainstream media report this hate speech and show stark up as the
embarrassment he is tonight on the network news or in tomorrow's papers.
Do you want to take bets?
ELLEN DEGENERES & THE POWER OF MEDIA
Ok, tell me you ever heard of "Mutts and Moms" until, maybe, a day or two
ago. I dare you.
Unless you happen to live in their immediate area, you'll never convince
But now millions of people not only know of the existence of Mutts and Moms,
maybe even the names of the women who run it, but they also know that
those women are heartless scum who wrenched a dog from a loving
And how do they know this? Because Ellen DeGeneres told them.
Oh, did I mention that Ellen DeGeneres has a personal stake in making
Marina Batkis and Vanessa Chekroun, the women who run Mutts and Moms, look
bad? And a huge national audience with which to do it?
Please read the Associated Press account below (and please note that
the AP tossed in a picture of their for-profit business too, just so
you'd know how to hurt them financially). The bold print is mine:
Woman Claims Threats Over DeGeneres'
Oct 17, 9:12 PM
|(AP) Ellen DeGeneres is shown in this, Jan. 9, 2007,
file photo in Los Angeles. DeGeneres is in the...|
LOS ANGELES (AP) - Ellen DeGeneres' doggie
dilemma took a nasty turn Wednesday, with the operator of the animal rescue
organization that took the pooch away saying she has been deluged with
threatening e-mails and phone calls.
The calls got so bad that Marina Batkis
said she had to close her business and stay home Wednesday, a day after
DeGeneres broadcast a tearful, televised plea for the dog to be returned to her
hairdresser and the woman's daughters.
"My life is being threatened. This is
horrible," a tearful Batkis said outside her home.
Batkis and Vanessa Chekroun co-own Mutts and Moms,
the nonprofit dog-rescue organization that gave DeGeneres and her partner,
actress Portia de Rossi, the dog.
"They have gotten thousands of e-mails," attorney
Keith Fink told the television program "Inside Edition.""Most of them are hate
e-mails threatening them with lynchings, bombings of their home."
|(AP) A closed pet supply and grooming store, Paw
Boutique, is shown Wednesday Oct. 17, 2007 in
One recording "Inside Edition" played had a male
voice saying, "You Nazi, scum-sucking pigs. You're gonna pay dearly for stealing
this dog from those little girls."
The twisted dog tale began last month when
DeGeneres and de Rossi adopted a cute, black Brussels Griffon mix terrier named
Iggy. When Iggy wasn't able to get along with DeGeneres' cats, the couple gave
the dog to DeGeneres' hairdresser.
That, Batkis pointed out, violated a
written agreement de Rossi signed in which she agreed to return the dog to Mutts
and Moms if the adoption didn't work out.
DeGeneres acknowledged she erred but said her
hairdresser and her family shouldn't be punished.
"This is so insane," a calmer DeGeneres said on
her talk show Wednesday. "It's just the dog needs to go to the family."
Batkis has refused to back down.
"If Ellen wants to place dogs and decide what's a
good home, then she should start her own rescue group," she told "Inside
Edition.""But I'm the one doing this and I know what I'm doing."
Meanwhile, the dispute has become a hot
topic on news and talk shows.
"There's got to be some sort of rational
compromise," ABC's Diane Sawyer said on "Good Morning America."
I, like untold millions of people, watched Ellen DeGeneres' tearful, sobbing
plea for Mutts and Moms to return the dog to the people she gave it to -- in
violation of the written agreement Ms. DeGeneres had signed.
Let me say that again before I continue: Ellen DeGeneres took the dog
under specific conditions and signed a written agreement which clearly stated
those conditions. She was NOT allowed to give the dog away to
anyone, only back to the rescue organization. She violated that condition
by passing the dog along to her hairdresser.
The written agreement also specifically stipulated a minimum age for children
in a household that a rescued dog could go to. The hairdresser's
children are both under that minimum age.
One other thing: Ellen DeGeneres does not do a
live show. It is taped. Thus her out-of-control crying at the
beginning of the show did not
have to be aired. They could have restarted the show. So the
fact that you saw her in that state was 100% intentional on her part, not
"spontaneous" at all.
And can we please remember that, in addition to being a daytime show host and
comedian, Ellen DeGeneres is an actor? I loved her in Ed TV. She
knows how to make it happen acting-wise. So you will never ever know if
what you saw was sincere.
Now, what about Marina Batkis and Vanessa Chekroun, the women who run an
animal rescue organization?
I consider people like this the salt of the earth. They perform
wonderful, compassionate service to the community with, I suspect, little
thanks other than an occasional lick from a surviving animal they saved and
Do Ms. Batkis and Ms. Chekroun deserve this? What exactly did they do
wrong, other than expect Ellen DeGeneres to meet the agreement she herself
signed? If two young girls bonded with the dog Ellen DeGeneres had no
right to give them, whose fault is that?
Now their lives are probably ruined. The reputation of
their rescue operation is a shambles. Who knows what will happen to
their business, if it will even survive?
Will DeGeneres' syndicator provide equal time? Will it air a few minutes of Ms. Batkis and Ms,
Chekroun crying over the vicious insults and threats they've been flooded with
because Ellen DeGeneres used her media power this way?
Maybe that's some footage a few of the Ellen DeGeneres faithful who sent
those e-mails ought to see.
BAD THINGS SOMETIMES COME IN THREES
Earlier today I did an R.I.P. for the great Deborah Kerr, who passed away at
I am sorry to say I have two more to do.
Joey Bishop, the comedian, talk show host and "rat pack" member, died today
at his home in Newport Beach, California. He was 89 years old.
And Teresa Brewer, the perky young lady with her little-girl voice and a
string of hits through the 1950's, died yesterday.
In their very different ways, they made a lot of people happy for a lot of
years. May all three rest in peace.
FROM HERE TO ETERNITY...FOR REAL
She danced with Yul Brynner in The King And I;
She embraced Burt Lancaster on the beach in From Here To Eternity;
Now she has gone from here to eternity in real life.
R.I.P. Deborah Kerr, great actress and singer, dead at the age of
UPDATE: THE DCC SMEAR LETTER TO RUSH LIMBAUGH
Here is the latest update on how E-bay bidding is coming along on the DCC***
Smear letter, inspired by senate malaise leader harry reid, that was sent to
As you remember, the letter was signed by 41 Democratic senators/DCC members,
and condemned Limbaugh for being unpatriotic and anti-troops - which has
made reid and the DCC into national laughingstocks.
Currently, with 20 hours to go, the bidding is at, so help me,
$851,100. Maybe that's a typo on e-bay's part, but not mine, I assure
you. And it is absolutely flying upward. I guarantee it will go far
higher, probably over a million dollars.
Rush Limbaugh has pledged to match the winning bid, which means at least
$1,700,200 will go to an educational fund for the families of fallen marines and
law enforcement officers.
Limbaugh has challenged the DCC to match the amount too, as he is personally
doing. They have not responded. They are apparently too busy cooking
up new ways of not getting anything done legislatively to bother with a trifle
***DCC is the Democratic Clown College
DEMOCRATS AND DIRTY MONEY: THE SAGA CONTINUES
Sometimes the New York Times surprises me in the positive. It doesn't
happen near often enough, but I'm glad when it does.
Last month the Times was better in covering the Hillary Clinton money scandal
than most print or broadcast media.
In case you forgot due to lack of media coverage, Norman Hsu was the guy who
gave millions to Democrats and $850,000 to Hillary Clinton in particular.
The problem? Hsu is a convicted swindler who should have been serving
jail time. It was dirty money that was illegally given.
Now anyone who honestly looks at Hillary and Bill Clinton's money sources
over the years could not be surprised about this. A mountain of dirty
money has come their way from many sources - a number of which I have blogged
about on this website.
What has been not so much surprising as exasperating, is the dearth of media
coverage this has received. Hillary Clinton is running for President and,
by most accounts is favored to win. If her hands are all over this much
dirty money shouldn't the media be talking about it? SCREAMING about
Well, here is a new money scandal....not new but newly uncovered, to be
exact....that goes not only to Ms. Clinton but to every major Democratic
candidate for the presidency. Every one.
And the New York Times, to their credit, is all over it, as you can see
in their article which I've posted below. I've put a lot of it in bold
print, but the truth is, every word should be read.
You want damning? This is damning:.
Accused Law Firm Continues Giving to
Over the years, as it became Exhibit A for
critics of shareholders class action lawsuits, the law firm of
Milberg Weiss often enjoyed the support of Democrats who called
the suits an invaluable weapon in the universal conflict between big business
and the little guy.
The Democrats, in turn, enjoyed the
support of Milberg Weiss and its partners, who together have contributed more
than $7 million to the partys candidates since the 1980s.
Last year, the firm was indicted on
federal charges of fraud and bribery. But the political partnership has not been
entirely severed. Since the indictment, 26 Democrats around the country,
including four presidential candidates, have accepted $150,000 in campaign
contributions from people connected to Milberg Weiss, according to state and
federal campaign finance records. And some Democrats have taken public actions
that potentially helped the firm or its former partners.
The recent contributors include current
and former Milberg partners who had either been indicted or were widely reported
to be facing potential criminal problems when they wrote their checks. One,
William S. Lerach, was a fund-raiser for John Edwardss presidential campaign until his guilty plea last month.
Melvyn I. Weiss, a founder of the firm, gave the maximum $4,600 to
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York in June. Other firm members
contributed to the presidential campaigns of Senators Barack Obama of Illinois and Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware.
Milberg Weiss reaped billions of dollars in legal
fees over four decades as the acknowledged king of class action lawsuits, which
accused executives of misleading investors with erroneous financial statements
or some other fraud. According to the indictment, the New York-based firm ran a
racketeering enterprise that collected a quarter billion dollars in 250 cases
in which people were paid secret kickbacks for serving as plaintiffs.
The law firm has denied the charges.
The reluctance of Democrats to shut off the cash
spigot, even in the face of scandal, underscores how the pressure to raise money
creates marriages of political interests that can be difficult to break up. Fred
Wertheimer, a longtime advocate of campaign finance reform, called it the
natural outcome of a system where huge amounts of private contributions are
raised and spent, and the political parties turn to groups with interests in
government to feed the spending machine.
In the current campaign, the race for cash has led
to several embarrassments for the Democrats, including the indictment of a trial
lawyer, Geoffrey Fieger, who was accused of using straw donors to make illegal
contributions to Mr. Edwardss 2004 presidential campaign, and the arrest of
Norman Hsu, a
businessman accused of fraud who raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for
In addition to the kickback charges in the Milberg
Weiss case, federal agents have investigated accusations that the firm funneled
campaign contributions through plaintiffs and expert witnesses in the 1990s,
said two lawyers familiar with the inquiry. The guilty plea entered by Mr.
Lerach hinted at that, but it also specified that prosecutors would not pursue
campaign finance violations, in exchange for Mr. Lerachs admission that he had
conspired to obstruct justice by concealing the kickbacks.
Beyond campaign contributions, Milberg Weiss
became deeply ingrained in the financial firmament of the Democratic Party in
other ways. Members of the firm gave $500,000 toward construction of a new
Democratic National Committee headquarters, and some became partners in a private investment venture
with several prominent Democrats. They included former Senator Robert G. Torricelli
of New Jersey, who is a fund-raiser for Mrs. Clinton, and Leonard Barrack, a
Philadelphia trial lawyer who was once the national fund-raising chairman for
the Democratic Party.
Along the way, as Milberg Weisss brass-knuckles
legal strategy made it a target for Republicans advocating limits on class
action suits, it usually could count on Democrats in Washington to protect its
interests. After federal prosecutors indicted the firm in May 2006, four
Democratic congressmen issued a joint statement, posted on Milberg Weisss Web
site, accusing the Bush administration of persecuting lawyers who take on big
The statement, signed by Representatives Gary L.
Ackerman, Carolyn McCarthy and
Charles B. Rangel,
all of New York, and Robert Wexler of Florida, contained several passages that
appear to be lifted directly from a class action press kit distributed by a
national trial lawyers group. All but Mr. Wexler have received campaign
contributions from Milberg Weiss partners.
More recently, Mr. Edwards, a trial lawyer who
became wealthy pursing personal injury cases, joined labor unions and consumer
groups last May in pressing securities regulators to intervene in a lawsuit
against banks brought by Mr. Lerach on behalf of Enron investors. His campaign
said Mr. Edwardss actions had nothing to do with Mr. Lerach, and were
consistent with the candidates longstanding defense of working
Still, Mr. Edwardss willingness to be seen doing
anything that could benefit Mr. Lerach, and allowing him to raise money,
provided fodder for critics. At the time the Edwards campaign took on Mr. Lerach
as a fund-raiser, it was already widely reported that Mr. Lerach, who left
Milberg Weiss in 2004, was one of the unnamed co-conspirators cited in court
documents related to the firms indictment.
In all, Mr. Edwards collected about $16,000 from
people connected to Milberg Weiss, including Mr. Lerach and two other former
Milberg Weiss lawyers who had joined him at his new firm, Patrick J. Coughlin
and Keith F. Park. Federal authorities agreed not to prosecute them as part of
the plea deal with Mr. Lerach. (Mr. Lerach also raised $64,000 for Mr. Edwards
from members of his new firm who were not named in the Milberg case.)
With Edwards, he has associated himself with
people in his campaign that dont represent the face that even the trial lawyers
want to put forward to the country, said Walter K. Olson, a fellow at the
Manhattan Institute, a conservative research group, who has written extensively
on the American legal system.
Eric Schultz, a spokesman for the Edwards
campaign, said that it had given Mr. Lerachs $4,600 personal contribution to
charity and that should anyone else be found guilty of wrongdoing, we will
donate their contributions to charity as well.
The bottom line is, the system is far from
perfect, Mr. Schultz said. The influence of money in politics has gotten out
of control. Thats why John Edwards has decided to play by the rules that were
designed to ensure fairness in the election process by capping his campaign
spending and seeking public financing.
John W. Keker, a lawyer for Mr. Lerach, declined
to comment on his clients guilty plea.
A spokesman for Mrs. Clinton said her
presidential campaign did not intend to return the contribution from Mr. Weiss.
A spokesman for the Obama campaign, whose Milberg Weiss contributions came from
lawyers not directly involved in the kickback scandal, declined to comment.
In a statement denying the charges in the
indictment, Milberg Weiss, which continues to operate, said: The indictment is
unprecedented and unfair, and the firm intends to vigorously defend itself
against the charges. We are confident that we will be fully
The indictment of Milberg Weiss was a stunning
turnabout for the firm, which has recovered $45 billion for clients since it was
founded in 1965.
Its approach was controversial. The moment a
publicly traded companys stock dropped, Milberg Weiss would enlist a
shareholder as a plaintiff and rush to court with a lawsuit. Usually, the sued
company would end up settling rather than risk going to trial.
Milberg Weisss supporters gave it credit for
enforcing accountability in the boardroom. Critics, however, accused the firm of
economic terrorism, and with the Republican takeover of Congress in 1994 a
business-backed movement took hold to change securities laws to make it harder
to bring shareholder lawsuits.
The firm found a friend in President
Bill Clinton, who, a few days after being seen chatting and shaking hands
with Mr. Lerach at a White House dinner in 1995, vetoed legislation that clamped
down on class action suits. Congress overrode the veto, but the image remained
of a close relationship between the president and Mr. Lerach, a Lincoln Bedroom
guest during the Clinton presidency who donated more than $100,000 to Mr.
Clintons presidential library.
Beginning in 2000, federal investigators began
looking into Milberg Weisss litigation practices, particularly its uncanny
ability to beat other firms in the race to be named lead counsel in large class
action suits, thereby ensuring itself a larger percentage of fees. By last year,
two people had pleaded guilty to accepting kickbacks from Milberg Weiss in
return for being on call to serve as plaintiffs in more than 100 lawsuits; an
expert witness used by the firm was implicated in the fraud; and two partners,
Steven G. Schulman and David J. Bershad, had been indicted.
Both Mr. Schulman and Mr. Bershad have since
pleaded guilty. Late last month, Mr. Lerach also pleaded guilty, leaving Mr.
Weiss as the only named partner facing criminal charges.
The case has taken a toll not only on the lawyers
involved, but also on the firms name plate. After Mr. Lerach left to form his
own practice in San Diego, his old firm dropped his name, becoming Milberg Weiss
Bershad & Schulman. Two resignations and guilty pleas later, it is now
simply Milberg Weiss..
This is a scandal of epic proportion. It is huge and more.
But the Today show this morning didn't do a thing on it. No feature, no
panel discussion, nothing. They did, however, devote significant time
to the month-old story of Larry Craig and whether or not he is gay. That,
apparently is far more important to NBC than whether their heroine Hillary,
along with Obama and Edwards, is awash in dirty money.
Do you think they'd ignore it if someone finds dirty money going to,
say, Rudy Giuliani or Mitt Romney?
NOTE: I'm sorry if you read that last sentence while swallowing
coffee. Just send me the cleaning bill.
LIMBAUGH UPDATE (CONT.)
Over a day to go, and the DCC smear letter to Rush Limbaugh has been bid up
to $117,100. Count on that number going up significantly before this is
And as "Russ" has commented in my previous update, Limbaugh has pledged
to personally match whatever the final bid is...which means that a minimum of
$234,200 will be contributed to the fund that helps to educate fallen marines
and law enforcement officers.
If the 41 DCC members made the same pledge as Rush, that amount would be
$234,200. But they didn't.
They're too busy trying to convince you that Rush Limbaugh is against the
troops and they're for them.
MORE ON THE RANDI RHODES EPISODE
Brian Maloney, of www.radioequalizer.blogspot.com,
has a very, very interesting and thought-provoking take on the Randi Rhodes
mugging/non-mugging earlier this week. It includes the possibility that
her fall may have been related to either alcohol or drug impairment...something
I had not thought of , but which Mr. Maloney has some information about
which I hadn't known.
Here, take a look:.
Randi Rhodes Non-mugging
Incident, Media Response
A PUBLICITY BUMP
What's The Rest Of
years, your Radio Equalizer has
covered many bizarre twists and turns at the nation's most eccentric radio
network, Air America. But the Randi Rhodes
Bumpgate affair is
by far the most
For one thing, the way the story
broke has implications that are broader than merely pondering the weak state of
liberal talk radio. How did the tiny blog that relayed AAR talker Jon Elliot's on- air claims of a Rhodes
mugging suddenly gain credibility? Why did
so many mainstream media outlets fall into this journalistic trap without first
checking for suspiciously- absent facts?
Thoughts, questions and updates on where this muddled
mess now stands:
First and foremost, if Randi Rhodes does have a substance abuse problem, it's time
to confront the issue head-on. Rush Limbaugh did and is a better person today
for having done so. While many sites today have
wondered aloud whether Rhodes is an
alcoholic, rumors of a drug habit have
persisted for years. If that's the case, it's time to get
Given that, was the mugging story a weak attempt to cover up the
truth? How did Air America's Jon Elliot
get the story so wrong? Was he trying to help a friend / colleague? Will he take
the hit merely for passing along what he was probably told to say? Think about
it: how could Elliot be so far off the mark otherwise? He's already been
compelled to apologize.
Was this an abortive effort to smear the right
that was quickly undone after it became clear the plan was much too half- baked?
Since conservative Rhodes enemies were quickly named as the likely "attackers",
was this an attempt to create a new Tawana Brawley- like opportunity
out of a mere accident?
While conservatives could cut the left some slack on this
question, they shouldn't. Consider the timing, coming just after recent
dishonest attacks against Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh. It fits perfectly:
bring down Rush and Bill, prop up Randi as a martyr for the
Why is her attorney making statements on her behalf if this is nothing more than a simple case of stumbling on a sidewalk or
bumping into a tree? Doesn't that seem inherently defensive in nature?
Why did Air America compound its PR disaster
through an initially vague and evasive approach to media inquiries? It was more
reminiscent of the previous managerial regime than the current
Interestingly, Air America's prior owners and managers watched over
Rhodes much more carefully, supplying a car and driver and other personal
assistants. That seemed to go away with the network's bankruptcy and subsequent
purchase by billionaire Manhattan landlord Stephen L Green.
The big question, one that is buzzing around
the radio industry: was this all a big stunt? Think about it: it's the first
time in ages that Air America Radio has generated real publicity. Sure, it was
for all the wrong reasons, but ink is ink, right? When you're this desperate,
perhaps you'll do what's necessary to remain alive. But the company's muddled,
seemingly- disorganized response seems to discount this
Funny enough, the blog that started it all
refuses to retract its initial report, instead choosing to attack your Radio Equalizer in a subsequent
Oh yes, and then one final shout-out --
to conservative talk radio blogger Brian Maloney who for the first time
mentioned Talking Radio in his "no-spin zone." Well, Maloney didnt actually
mention Talking Radio by name, but he did say that the Randi Rhodes mugging
story was started by "a tiny blog whose author has been a frequent critic of
Tiny! Whens the last time that your blog recorded over a
here's the link you've always wanted, right
Finally, your Radio Equalizer took some flak for making
Drudge the issue yesterday, rather than focusing on the real point: that
liberals lie. Point taken.
does this bizarre mess go from here? It's clear there is much more to
this story than a sidewalk accident, the cover-up and attempted smear campaign
is the real, ongoing issue now. Something doesn't smell right.
Like Alice In Wonderland, this gets curiouser and
curiouser. I wonder if we'll ever know the truth.