Mike Siegel (KTTH 6-9a) is so predictably craven, we almost feel guilty about exposing him once again--but we can't help ourselves. It's a new low--one at least as hypocritical as KIRO Lexus liberal Mike Webb's union busting.
Like all the right-wing noisemakers, Siegel has been shitting in the chapeaux of the French, those decadent, bath-hating, Jerry Lewis-loving, frog-eating, arrogant, self-serving...Europeans. The Bush Administration and the GOP, with the help of such as Siegel and Bill O'Reilly have tried to create an "other" out of the French, because of their notable lack of enthusiasm about the Iraq War..(As we all know, the French's "otherness" is self-imposed and a matter of intense national pride).
Guess where, mes petits choux, Siegel is finishing up his vacances as we speak? That's right...En France!
Like his old friend Bill O'Reilly, Siegel has repeatedly called for a boycott of France.
(O'Reilly claims to have cost France billions of dollars because he called for a boycott of its goods and serviceson his radio and TV shows. This has been exposed by MediaMatters.org and New York Daily News columnist, Jack Matthews as a lie. The fatuous confabulator not only fabricated statistics; he even quoted the Paris Business Review which turned out to be a made-up publication.)
Earlier this month, Siegel praised a Danish pizza parlor owner who refused to serve German and French customers because of what he calls their anti-US policies. Siegel encouraged listeners to write to the guy and give him support.
On his website in 2003, Siegel pontificated in an essay called: The Arrogance of Countries That Stood By And Watched:
"It should not even have been an expectation of those who sat on the sidelines or even tried to block the efforts of the coalition to reap any rewards...I for one am thoroughly supportive of their being denied benefits because they simply do not deserve them."
That was then.
The now is: He's touring France, sipping Bordeaux and giving his good ol' US greenbacks to those socialistic, America-hating, cheese-eating, yellow-bellied Pétains--the citizenry of one of what Siegel has so indignantly denounced as the, "nations of expediency and disregard for consequences of their actions." (sic)
Mike Siegel ought to know expediency when he sees it.
We didn't need Entercom leakers to learn about Mike's big vacation, we heard it on his very own show Monday morning; subbed by KTTH producer Dan Boze, and Medved Show's tight-sphinctered bouncer, Dave Sytman.
When Siegel's name comes up around right-wing radio people, there's always a lot of eye-rolling--they know how situational his conservatism is.
Monday morning, the eye-rolling was deafening. Sytman's an ideologue, an enforcer by trade, a radio gatekeeper for Michael Medved--that's why they call him "Darth" Sytman. He's humorless, so when he jokes around, there's usually an agenda. He led the laughs at Siegel's expense with the listeners, while Boze just sounded uncomfortable.
Who knows what Sytman's agenda was for spreading the news--maybe Siegel's impurity bothers him or maybe he wants his job--Siegel's ratings are terrible. KTTH has suffered by having him as the only local host on the station. They have Limbaugh, but KVI drivetime jocks, Carson & Wilbur have smoked Siegel and the churlish bombast, Michael Savage through the elections, the intense post-gubernatorial mess and now the anti-roads repair initiative they cooked up.
Entercom, apparently distracted by the problems with the faltering mothership, KIRO has ignored KTTH like a red-headed step sister. Some radio insiders say KTTH is a life-support system for Rush Limbaugh; others say Rush Limbaugh's a life support system for KTTH. They're both right.
Back when Seattle talk radio turned conservative, Siegel made an abrupt right turn from being a lefty populist who fought corporate malfeasance and corrupt government to become one of the first smashmouth reactionary talkjocks in the country.
Like O' Reilly, he says he's a pragmatist, not a conservative. But his 15-year record on conservative radio belies that since his "pragmatism" is rarely even moderate-which is where real pragmatism lives.
Mike Siegel's had a long and checkered career; but always manages to stay in Seattle, on the air and surviving every pickle barrel he can't help but dive into.
Just another example of the Republican Mantra: Do As I SAY, Not as I DO...followed closely behind by " That's Different!"
Posted by: sparky | July 26, 2005 at 06:55 AM
Whatever his motivtions, Mike Siegel has made no secret of his trip to France. In fact if you were listening this morning he did a long distance ad with his longtime sponsor "The General" and mentioned that he was calling from France.
Also it's Dan Sytman, not Dave. He is called Darth Sytman because of his opbsession with all things Star Wars.
Posted by: Michael B. | July 26, 2005 at 08:48 AM
If Siegel's position is that we should boycott France, then I think it's hypocritical.
That being said, I tend to be more conservative in my middle age. Standards and consistency are important to me, so hypocrisy irritates me.
It seems like most lefties tend to be against standards - they don't want to be judgmental, or put their values/standards on others, etc. So, why are lefties so quick to want to find hypocrisy? What do they care if someone's actions match their rhetoric if there are no standards?
Posted by: ExDem | July 26, 2005 at 10:45 AM
The hypocrisy comes from their statements, Limbaugh-"..no mercy for drug users"...in which we have seen how quickly Rush greased his own skids on that one. I don't know how lefties 'tend' to be against something anymore that the new radicals of the GOP, "..If there is a leaker, he will be fired.." to a new and improved statement issued by bushler.." he has to be convicted , first.." Yes "exdem", tell me what standards are being set there?
Posted by: chris | July 26, 2005 at 02:42 PM
I'm against hypocrisy because I believe in standards and consistency. If those people you mentioned changed their tune, then I won't defend their hypocriscy. The mainstream media is investigating and reporting on all of that stuff every day, so the public gets their chance to make their own judgments.
Are you saying that you also believe in standards and consistency? I want to know if that's what you stand for also? I'd love to hear your answer.
And just as a favor, please keep the answer limited to what you believe and don't redirect or drag other people into your response. It's more interesting to know what you think.
Posted by: ExDem | July 26, 2005 at 03:42 PM
Oh fuck you, don't tell me how to think. Now, can you or not, given a simple example of a person who has claimed to be a 'straight shooter" , has he, in the case of bush, changed his standards or not when it comes to the firing of a WH staffer over leaking information, it's a simple answer....
Posted by: chris | July 26, 2005 at 05:34 PM
I got the impression that Siegals French vacation was just a big joke they made up. He is probably sitting at home right now.
Posted by: Food Critic | July 26, 2005 at 06:06 PM
Chris,
Thanks for the laughs. Hard to have any serious dialogue with someone who is unable to articulate what they stand for.
I already gave you my answer. I won't defend people that don't do what they promise.
Unfortunately, you can't answer a simple question about what YOU believe without asking rhetorical questions about other people/situations, cussing at someone, telling people how evil the administration is, etc.
Someday, if you ever do some introspection, you may be able to answer simple questions more directly and with conviction. We'll all celebrate if that day ever arrives....
Posted by: ExDem | July 26, 2005 at 09:36 PM
You went off topic by making some assumption that 'lefties' have no standards and saying
"It seems like most lefties tend to be against standards - they don't want to be judgmental, or put their values/standards on others, etc" This is also your statement "..And just as a favor, please keep the answer limited to what you believe and don't redirect or drag other people into your response. It's more interesting to know what you think."
So why bring up the 'lefties' when the issue was about talk-show hosts and their hypocrisy? Were you planning to talk about some 'lefties' and their lack of standards? Do you have any to discuss? You seem more willing to defend Seigel and his hypocrisy by waiting around to see if it's really true....
Posted by: chris | July 26, 2005 at 10:25 PM
For the 3rd time, I'll repeat this - hopefully you will actually read it:
"I already gave you my answer. I won't defend people that don't do what they promise."
I can name some lefties that don't hold to standards - that's easy. I was just wondering if you fell into that category. But you won't answer the question. So, that means your answer is that you probably don't really hold to standards either...although you seem to want to reserve the right to call out hypocrisy.
I'm guessing that it seems kind of silly to the average person.
Posted by: ExDem | July 26, 2005 at 10:56 PM
ExDem says
"Thanks for the laughs. Hard to have any serious dialogue with someone who is unable to articulate what they stand for."
Actually what you should have said is "You can't have a battle of wits with an unarmed person."
Chris can't even get Bush's quote right about the leaks.
Posted by: Lump | July 26, 2005 at 11:06 PM
Hey, I believe in standards and consistency -- that's why I'm now born-again, pro-NAMBLA, and anti-Internet Explorer.
Posted by: BiRightGuy | July 27, 2005 at 05:20 PM
All I want to know is, does Siegel still have the corn-row hair plugs he had when I met him in 1988?
Posted by: snarque | July 28, 2005 at 12:31 AM
dude, they're all still there, but there's many, many more.
Posted by: blathering michael | July 28, 2005 at 12:34 AM