Randi Rhodes' Rant Reminds Re: Radio

Air America (are they still on?) has suspended Randi Rhodes for calling Hillary Clinton lewd names. Ms Rhodes also referred to Geraldine Ferrarro as "David Duke in drag". WWRL in New York City announced, in a related development that only Ed Schultz would remain in their line-up. They are replacing the rest with tapes of Al Sharpton.

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/tv/2008/04/02/2008-04-02_wwrl_still_has_plenty_left_to_offer.html

http://radioequalizer.blogspot.com/2008/04/randi-rhodes-suspended-after-calling.html

Sometimes bad things happen to bad people, too

I really think this Randi Rhodes is indicative of a large subset of the American left that is so angry that they cannot control themselves.

John McCain needs as many of these stories as possible, and I think he'll get them.

I'm seeing lots of stories about folks who swear the other side is so intransigent, so off-putting that they'll vote for McCain rather than vote for Hillary/Obama.

I think it's a little more likely, in this age of polarization, that a would-be Democrat will stay home rather than vote for McCain in November, although that's almost as good for McCain. I think the Democrats are taking a silver-platter election and returning it because the duck isn't quite exactly as their nanna used to make it.

A couple people here I do not want to speak for have indicated that they will hold their noses and vote for McCain. What do you intend to do, if'n you are comfortable saying? Right now, my choice is either Libertaian party or McCain, with the third party being a little more likely at this time. If I were a Democratic stategist, I'd try to find the strongest Libertarian I could to run such that there would be a battle on the right just as there is on the left.

SheikBen wrote: Right now, my choice is either Libertaian party or McCain, with the third party being a little more likely at this time. If I were a Democratic stategist, I'd try to find the strongest Libertarian I could to run such that there would be a battle on the right just as there is on the left.

Well Mike, your choices might be increasing.

Published on: 04/05/08
KANSAS CITY, Mo. — Former Georgia Congressman Bob Barr eased into presidential politics Saturday with an announcement that he has formed an exploratory committee to gauge voter interest in his candidacy as Libertarian.

If there are "sufficient numbers" of people behind a Bob Barr presidential race, he's running, the former Republican said.

His announcement brought whoops and applause from the audience of 130 Libertarians, mostly from Midwestern states.

http://www.ajc.com/news/content/metro/stories/2008/04/05/barr_0406WEB.html

I like Barr's candidacy very much. It gives the voters an alternative and it also forces the Republicans to take Libertarian and fiscally conservative minded voters much more seriously.

I think the Republicans have largely taken economic conservatives for granted, just as the Democrats have largely taken union voters for granted.

I'll either write in Ron Paul, vote for a libertarian, or ... this is hard to type ... vote for McCain. I see that Gary Trudeau is asking this morning whence came the myth of the fiscally responsible republican? It was from Barry Goldwater.

Barry Goldwater wasn't the first, and he isn't the last. Taft, Goldwater, Paul. These men aren't myths.

I have to say not so much Obama himself but a lot of his arrogant supporters are really alienating people.

Just like I never voted for Bill Clinton, I have never been a big Hillary fan.

But the more the Obama nation takes on this attitude the more likely I will vote for Hillary in the Primary.

(However I have a feeling either Democrat will adopt a "me too" republican stance on the Iraq occupation for the fall. )

Sherm,

I do not think that either Hillary or Obama have the courage to actually stand up for their convictions on Iraq, if even those convictions truly exist. I trust Kucinich or Paul to do according to their beliefs, but not Hillary or Barack (and that is being charitable and assuming they have the convictions in the first place, of which I am quite uncertain)

I think we are pretty close on this one mike.

If the democrats deny Obama the nomination after he's captured a majority of the popular vote, it threatens the symbiotic relationship the democrats have inexplicably held with the African-American vote for the last sixty years. If Obama wins the democrat nomination and is defeated in the general election, it reinforces with African-Americans what the democrats have told them for years: that rebublicans are racist.

Frankly, I don't understand your personal buyer's remorse. Obama is way more liberal than Hillary. Why would you reject the straight forward liberal in favor of the candidate you've never embraced for the last sixteen years?

Barone says you are a Jacksonian. How'd he know what county you lived in?

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/barone/2008/4/2/reviewing-the-primary-results-academics-versus-jacksonians.html

ohio county wrote:If the democrats deny Obama the nomination after he's captured a majority of the popular vote, it threatens the symbiotic relationship the democrats have inexplicably held with the African-American vote for the last sixty years. If Obama wins the democrat nomination and is defeated in the general election, it reinforces with African-Americans what the democrats have told them for years: that rebublicans are racist.

Frankly, I don't understand your personal buyer's remorse. Obama is way more liberal than Hillary. Why would you reject the straight forward liberal in favor of the candidate you've never embraced for the last sixteen years?

How much of that popular vote is cross over indepenents and Republicans and how much of it is democrats? That's a question (as well as how it relates to pledged delegates) I think should be answered before anyone starts telling SD's how to vote?

And I think for you to say the only way Obama loses to McCain is racism is garbage. If he loses, it could be the same that happened in 2000 and 2004, America rejected liberalism.

Aaron,

I don't think you understood OC's point. He wasn't saying that Obama would lose to McCain based on racism, but rather that it would be taken that way.

SheikBen wrote:Aaron,

I don't think you understood OC's point. He wasn't saying that Obama would lose to McCain based on racism, but rather that it would be taken that way.

ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY ...... it would.

(Ohio) it reinforces with African-Americans what the democrats have told them for years: that rebublicans are racist.

And the Democrats will be telling them that ....... every day and 20 times on the weekends ........... for the next 4+ years.

And of course, the black Reverns will capitalize on it to further their "cause", also.

.

It will be taken that way and the democrats will spoon feed it to them that way.

At the same time, Obama will be seen as Reagan was in 1980: the candidate who was wrongly denied the nomination by a myopic party or, conversely, denied the office by the racist GOP. Obama is someone the republicans will have to face again. He's either the new FDR or the new Adlai Stevenson.

SheikBen wrote:Aaron,

I don't think you understood OC's point. He wasn't saying that Obama would lose to McCain based on racism, but rather that it would be taken that way.

You are correct. I skimmed over it and I was wrong.

Jimmy is correct as well. If Obama loses then democrats will swear is it racism. And if he does lose, he'll be the nominee again in 2012.

ohio county wrote:If the democrats deny Obama the nomination after he's captured a majority of the popular vote, it threatens the symbiotic relationship the democrats have inexplicably held with the African-American vote for the last sixty years. If Obama wins the democrat nomination and is defeated in the general election, it reinforces with African-Americans what the democrats have told them for years: that rebublicans are racist.

Frankly, I don't understand your personal buyer's remorse. Obama is way more liberal than Hillary. Why would you reject the straight forward liberal in favor of the candidate you've never embraced for the last sixteen years?

Inexplicably? Reagan announced his campaign in Philadelphia, Mississippi, where civil rights workers were slain re-allowing blacks the right to vote. Racism is a chunk of GOP voting, and drives African-Americans into the Democrats.

If the GOP had any integrity, they would let the racist voter "wither on the vine".

You are saying that there is no way the choice of cities was either a coincidence or meant for less nefarious purposes than you suggest?

Racism surely accounts for less GOP voting than does abortion, terrorism, taxing and spending, or gun rights; further, what then do you say to the voters who supported Ken Blackwell, JC Watts, Robert Steele, Alan Keyes, etc?

The first African American in the Senate was Hiram Revels, a Republican from Mississippi; the first in the US House, Joseph C Rainey, a Republican from South Carolina.

In 1964, the Civil Rights Act was passed by a larger percentage of Republicans than it was by Democrats.

The myth of Republican racism is itself the most successful snow job on a populace since Goebbels was able to convince Germans that the Jews were out to ruin them.

If the Democrats had any integrity, they would have let the racist Senators wither on the vine, they wouldn't have charged ahead with the character assassination of Justice Thomas, and they would stop pitting Americans against each other by playing the race card every time it suits their purposes.

If the democrats had any integrity, they'd be republicans.

ohio county wrote:If the democrats had any integrity, they'd be republicans.

In West Virginia most Democrats are Republicans- just in Democratic drag.

SheikBen wrote:You are saying that there is no way the choice of cities was either a coincidence or meant for less nefarious purposes than you suggest?

Racism surely accounts for less GOP voting than does abortion, terrorism, taxing and spending, or gun rights; further, what then do you say to the voters who supported Ken Blackwell, JC Watts, Robert Steele, Alan Keyes, etc?

The first African American in the Senate was Hiram Revels, a Republican from Mississippi; the first in the US House, Joseph C Rainey, a Republican from South Carolina.

In 1964, the Civil Rights Act was passed by a larger percentage of Republicans than it was by Democrats.

The myth of Republican racism is itself the most successful snow job on a populace since Goebbels was able to convince Germans that the Jews were out to ruin them.

Where to begin with your "errors"?

The Black Republican politician is as common as a the dodo bird. Why is that, when the black vote was once nearly monolithic in supporting the Republican party? How many Black Senators or Congresspeople are Republicans? The fact that you can count those in the past on one hand is telling, no?

The Civil Rights Act was not a partisan split, it was regional. See here: http://www.holycross.edu/departments/economics/vmatheso/edit8.htm

The Segregationist Southern Dixiecrats have been absorbed in to the GOP. This is why the once solidly Democratic south has turned to the GOP. And you know, of course, the Republicans had very little presence in the South in 1964.

George H.W. Bush voted against the Act.

Back to modernity: Ronald Reagan in Philadelphia, Willie Horton, McCain's black baby, Jesse Helms' "black hands", Katrina, James Byrd, Neo-Confederacy, Strom Thurmond, Trent Lott.....phew.

Helms and Thurmond left the Democratic party BECAUSE of its support of black rights, by the way.

In West Virginia most Democrats are Republicans- just in Democratic drag.

I worked as an aide one whole Legislature (two sessions) in 1972 and 1973 and I'd agree that there are two separate and distinct wings of the party in West Virginia. One of those wings is friendly to what might be considered republican precepts.