White house freely fellates fallacious friendlies

(photo: why does Michael Medved let Glenn Beck touch him?)

It was another of those talk radio tête-à-têtes with The Decider.

Prisoner Bush met Wednesday (aug.1) with another clot of syndicated 2nd-tier talk hosts: Glenn Beck, Bill Bennett, Neal Boortz, Scott Hennon, Hew Hughit, Laura Ingraham, Lars Larson, Mark Levin, Michael Medved, and Janet Partial.

They went in to get a fluffing and pick up some talking points straight from the fluffer-in-chief.

The catch was that despite they could ask their best questions, but there were no recordings or even direct quotes allowed, which is the administration's favorite interview model.

Medved, who seems a little sensitive on the subject, came home and wrote a blogpost defending the meeting:

"Can I claim to maintain my objectivity when the chief executive himself has worked to build this sort of comfortable and friendly relationship?

And when, precisely, did I ever claim objectivity?"

Not that they needed much fluffing. Bush has no credibility with anyone these days except these true believers who, (with the exception of Boortz, Ingraham and Larsen who have been critical) carry his miserable water day in and day out on the radie-yo.

Talk radio's credibility and listenership has never been lower- a preacher needs a choir, and a choir needs a preacher, especially when the world has cast such pall over the choir loft.

(Laura Ingraham reportedly gave Bush hell about immigration recently on a bike ride they took together. Even so, she still talks on-air about how "hot" Bush is. She's gotten around, as it were, in right-wing circles- she was once engaged to conservative author, Dinesh D'Souza (!) or Distort D’Newsa,” as we're fond of writing).

As always, it's notable is who wasn't at the meeting. Missing: Billo Reilly, too hot for a weak administration to handle; Rush Limbaugh, upon whom the Christian right has put a schmutz since his last drug bust; and Michael Savage, who can never be trusted in the same kennel as the other dogs.

Comments

[jman]

Blam-o-man sounds jealous to me!!! Michael, when are you going to realize that the free market is kicking your lib radio ass from here to Iraq? Or are you holding you breath for Big Ed to save the world and the Dakota's.

[blathering michael]

they can have talk radio- we'll be satisfied having the government.

[Duffman]

Some previously reported 'viable candidates' seem to be imploding...EXcept for Mrs Clinton.
One has to admire how she keeps a steady pace with hardly a distraction. I am now convinced more than ever that indeed she will be our next POTUS.
Then these talk show cronies (like especially Mark Levin) can STFU in referring to Mrs Clinton as 'Her Thighness', et al.
I believe you're right Bla'M - we will 'be satisfied having the government'; I only hope we can do something with it.

[seattlejew]

Poor Dinesh D'Souza! What can he be thinking? Is this a race thing? Short, handsome dark man weds tall harpy? Is he THAT desperate?

Dinesh D'Souzais a bright man. Ingram, unless it is an act, is a redux of My Friend Irma?

Can you imagine the snappy breakfast talk. I DO hope they do NOT plan on children. While I personally like the idea of the golden human as a replacement for the golden retriever, crosses like this are all too likely to produce a mean spirited cocker spaniel.

[Duffman]

SJ: don't believe he married her; married a woman (small petite California blonde) named Dixie. :o)

[Tommy008]

Michael Medved- what a disgrace. This callow, callous, craven and contumacious cabinboy for Bush is known to have- spewn hateful venom and contempt on the homeless (who he believes should be rounded up and jailed or institutionalized) despite his professed pious, devout Judaism; become swollen with an insulting, condescending hubris, on Saint Patrick's day no less, as he boasted of how much better his fellow Jewish folks have done for themselves in our land than the Irish, since their respective immigrations; and proclaimed his belief that a business owner should be allowed to discriminate aganst blacks or other races, contrary to federal civil rights laws whose passage was earned through blood, sweat and lives lost.

[Duffman]

contumacious: WADR T008, I don't believe this is apt, as he 'talks the talk' but doesn't 'walk the talk' :o)

[Tommy008]

I see what you're saying, Duffman, but I believe "contumacious", which means stubbornly disobedient and rebellious, is apt for Medved in the sense that his contempt and hatred for the poor and rejection of civil rights laws, among other things, is openly rebellious and disobedient to the mainstrem American Jewish community tradition of compassion, charity and justice. Many Jewish Americans were civil rights workers in the South, and some even died for the cause.

[sparky]

Wow! Lars Larson got to meet the pResident!

[coiler]

Yes, most of the spare parts of hate radio was there.

[Tommy008]

Shades of Frank Siers! O'Reilly was deeply yearning for a change in the defamation laws last night on KTTH, so that he could go after us mean nasty bloggers!

[Dagmar]

good thing we're getting rid of these fucking republicans. o'reilly, limbaugh, frank shiers, dori monsoon, they're all talking about limiting free speech on the web. with the number they've done on the constitution on privacy, and govt eavesdropping, executive power, they could have if they hadn't been throswn out of congress, killed the progressives only forum.

[coiler]

Yes, we must round them up. They have fucked up this once great country and sold their souls to satan.

[Duffman]

..it must get confusing at times keeping track of a lie. :o)

[KS]

dagmars thread..taken from the talking points of the Daily Kos and Democratic Underground...

[coiler]

Indeed, glad you have taken the time to read kos and DU.

[dagmar]

KS: do you really want to regulate speech on the Internet as O'Reilly is suggesting? It would also kill the conversation on your fave unSound politics site. Remember, the liberals are taking over next hear- it should last for a long, time: do you want all this power and censorship in the hands of the Democrats???

[sars]

If the "discussion" is slanderous, or treasonous, the writers should be punished. That's all Bill O'Reilly is saying. what's wrong with that. people are getting hurt.

[Tommy008]

Medved Has Blatherwatch'es Latest Headliner Rushed to Him (T-8 News Service) As Medved opened today's show talking about his White House visit, it was obvious from his comments that an aide had just rushed a copy of the Blatherwatch Story about it to him, but he simply referred to it this afternoon as a "negative piece" in The Blogosphere. Why are Sytman, Medved and other conservatives terrified to say the name Blatherwatch? "The blogsite so terrifying they dare not speak it's name!!"

[KS]

The liberals will make their attempt to control free speech, blatherwatchers. Sars quote is correct - yours is not, dagmar - your blather cannot be trusted. I believe that you merely projecting the progressive agenda for what happens if and when Hill-Billy get in, because face it - they are the only Democrats who have a chance in '08.

The progressives would never punish anyone who is slanderous, treasonous UNLESS that is if they are conservative (they who support the Fairness Doctrine).

[Andrew]

It might not have been this particular blog, and its understandable that they don't want to promote their enemies.

[Duffman]

Exactly...and remember Bla'M's amazing statistics: Every day, 120,000 new blogs are created and about 1.5 million new posts- 17 a second- are published.
I found that to be incredible!

[Andrew]

sars says "If the "discussion" is slanderous, or treasonous, the writers should be punished. That's all Bill O'Reilly is saying. what's wrong with that. people are getting hurt. "

This is the reason China and other countries don't have free speech. They know that rebellions begin with people talking amongst themselves about how much they hate the current government. Politicians should discourage criticism by doing a good job, not by making it illegal.

[Tommy008]

Did you righties read what I ORIGINALLY posted? O'Reilly wants to CHANGE the existing defamation laws, because he thinks they are somehow not up to snuff in giving him the power to go after us bloggers. He pretends on his shows that the internet blogosphere and other sites are somehow outside the control of law, but slipped up with this latest pronouncement, by basically admitting that the blogosphere is already subject to defamation lawsuits. When true defamation or slander occurs, such as was the case on some Yahoo Finance individual stock message boards, individuals or companies have already been successful in going after an individual poster for damages and/or jail time.

[Andrew]

I think he's mad that blogs can slander people but are too remote for anyone to care while he can't because his words are heard by one or two million people.

And of course he can't possibly give a shit because he knows as well as anybody that nobody regards blog content as esteemed journalism. He's feigning outrage for the sake of his 75+ year old viewership.

[FREMONT]

Jew, your "My Friend Irma" link was cold, but thanks for the memories...

[dagmar]

o'reilly considers media matters an evil hate-blog. anone who reads it can see they just pass along to readers the exact quotes in audio or video clips or transcripts the exact words of media people including o'reilly. funny he never speaks of smoking gun which has the smutty transcript of his former producer's harassment case evidence. thro his own words, o'reilly is revealed as a dirty, arrogant old man hitting on an employee in the most sexually explicit speech. that's hate speech in the o'reilly world.

[Duffman]

dagmar: you got it entirely right; the guy is a genuine sleaze...no doubt about it. And a 'bloviating blow-hard'. He fools the elderly and one's that are in lock-step with the rebub talking points. He bought his way out of a pretty sticky situation.

[joanie]

The Decider has to keep his "propaganda machine" happy. And don't these guys (and girls) come cheap? A pic (without the Decider) and an oath of comaraderic secrecy is all it takes to get these guys fudging their integreity: "when did I claim to be objective?"

And, you're right, Tommie, (in the best sense of the honorable left), we do already have laws in place for both treason and slander. Anybody on the right should know that by now. Doncha think KluelesS?

[KS]

Ph(Joa)nie - your dufus insight underwhelms me. Are we enforcing our laws on the books regarding border security? Hell no, so what makes you think we would enforce laws regarding treason and slander ?

Bush, the Decider is a LOSER. The Daily Kos and Dem. Underground are also LOSERS, but of a different variety. I don't have the time or interest to read Media Matters. O'Reilly is correct in that there is alot of bulls**t on these blogs and alot of irresponsible editorializing by many who are adept at bloviating and lieing by omission or commission - that takes little talent. This is America and there is no punishment for that stuff, no matter what paranoia you want to throw out there to show how evil those dam Republicans are. I don't agree with O'Reilly that there needs to be punishment limiting free speech on blogs (if he actually said that), but I think they need to come down hard on pedophiles and put in some safeguards for pedophilia havens like MySpace. However, if the liberals seize control of DC like many of you are salivating over the prospects of, as sure as you sitting there - they will initiate controls on free speech - in attempt to silence the opposition (i.e. right) - especially if the Clinton's get back in - because that is how their ilk operates. But, you all get the Government you deserve and don't blame me - as I'll never vote for her.

What I have noticed is that noone has attempted to refute the following statement;

"The progressives would never punish anyone who is slanderous, treasonous UNLESS that is if they are conservative."

So, do you like cheese with your wine ?

[PugetSound]

tommy
""The blogsite so terrifying they dare not speak it's name!!"

love your tie in to oscar wilde.

[KS]

Ph(Joa)nie - your dufus insight underwhelms me. Are we enforcing our laws on the books regarding border security? Hell no, so what makes you think we would enforce laws regarding treason and slander ?

Bush, the Decider is a LOSER. The Daily Kos and Dem. Underground are also LOSERS, but of a different variety. I don't have the time or interest to read Media Matters. O'Reilly is correct in that there is alot of bulls**t on these blogs and alot of irresponsible editorializing by many who are adept at bloviating and lieing by omission or commission - that takes little talent. This is America and there is no punishment for that stuff, no matter what paranoia you want to throw out there to show how evil those dam Republicans are. I don't agree with O'Reilly that there needs to be punishment limiting free speech on blogs (if he actually said that), but I think they need to come down hard on pedophiles and put in some safeguards for pedophilia havens like MySpace. However, if the liberals seize control of DC like many of you are salivating over the prospects of, as sure as you sitting there - they will initiate controls on free speech - in attempt to silence the opposition (i.e. right) - especially if the Clinton's get back in - because that is how their ilk operates. But, you all get the Government you deserve and don't blame me - as I'll never vote for her.

What I have noticed is that noone has attempted to refute the following statement;

"The progressives would never punish anyone who is slanderous, treasonous UNLESS that is if they are conservative."

So, do you like cheese with your wine ?

[PugetSound]

KS
"So, do you like cheese with your wine ?"

You know that ph(J)oanie rarely owns up. I use to think that someone was going online and posting under her name but sad to say I now realize that ph(J)oanie unwittingly engages in self parody.

[FREMONT]

This fiendish freakshow was facetiously featured on Friday's Countdown...

KS sez twice:"What I have noticed is that noone has attempted to refute the following statement;

"The progressives would never punish anyone who is slanderous, treasonous UNLESS that is if they are conservative. (sic)" What "punishment" do progressives administer to conservatives? Huh?

[KS]

Fremont said;
"What "punishment" do progressives administer to conservatives? Huh?"

One likliehood is a similar type of punishment that they claim the right would administer to them, OR they may even decide to be more like Cuba or Venezuela where their pals; Castro and Chavez have effective ways of limiting speech that gets in the way of their agenda or political aspirations. They do that, ya know and to those who say it can't happen here - because of the Constitution - not so fast - it depends how the judges in the courts interpret them..

[Andrew]

That guy said "What I have noticed is that noone has attempted to refute the following statement; "The progressives would never punish anyone who is slanderous, treasonous UNLESS that is if they are conservative.""

I admire how the conservative body has been quick to dismiss and shun Ann Coulter. This fact is made evident through her scant book sales.

[mercifurious]

KS:
O'Reilly is correct in that there is alot of bulls**t on these blogs and alot of irresponsible editorializing by many who are adept at bloviating and lieing by omission or commission - that takes little talent.

Let me take this one, Joanie.

O'Reilly's big beef with Media Matters is that they make him eat his own words. Billo spits bile, they post bile, Billo attacks the messenger
(Sound familiar Duffman?)

Shall I post Herr Falafeloofa collection of bile & see if KS can defend him?

Well, let's at least go for his Greatest hits/misses:

Exhibit -B
Bill to San Fran: "You want to blow up the Coit Tower? Go ahead"

Exhibit-A
Bill - forgetting that he ever barfed the previous bile - grabs one post off one blog & uses it as paint for his broad brush-stroke...then KS buy's O'Reilly's BS and tries to sell it here
(both, of course, ignoring the angels & saints at FreeRepublic.com)

Exhibit-C
O'Reilly's high-lariously undocumented Soros conspiracy theory (aka "Bill's neato diagram")

Exhibit-D
"Paris Business Review"
(Best for last)
Bill pulls poo out of own butt, and calls it a source

[coiler]

Bingo.VG!

[SPECIAL DEL'Y FOR KLUELESS]

"FOX fires employees for refusing to lie about milk

A Florida appeals court ruled that Fox and the media in general have no obligation to tell the truth after Fox fired members of its investigative journalist team for exposing the truth."

And all the other deluded right-wing cretins on this blog.

[KS]

Love to see you get your shorts/panties in a wad about Bill OR It makes for humorous reading from the incessant whining and melodramatics and bu**s**t hitting the fan in retalliation to his pointed criticism at the left. Michael Savage is more pointed than O'Reilly toward the left - but of course he also calls Bush one of the worst Presidents ever, which you all agree with and by the way, so do I.

What this translates to is: Those rightwing ba*t**rds - how dare they criticize us righteous progressives who know best ! right ?
Media Matters is not a leftwing website is like saying Little Green Footballs is not a rightwing website. Show me some quotes with relevance and some credibility and I'll take your allegations seriously. Exhibits A-D don't cut it - considering the source - like you would believe Sound Politics. Show me something to that extent from Newsweek or the Christian Science Monitor or even Postman's blog and I'll look at it more seriously.

"Bill pulls poo out of own butt, and calls it a source"
It would seem that you speak from experience- merci, not that it really makes any difference.

[coiler]

Was the lie about army milk? The kind that gets dumped out when Major Rickets 'pours it down the drain'?

[KS]

That phony article title was about the alleged coverup in the death of Patrick Tillman. If you are looking for someone to believe you about the evildoings of the Fox News Channel, that is a STUPID way to go about it, but in the words of Forrest Gump "Stupid is as stupid does"

[nevets]

Mommy must be out for the night, Coiler is posting past his bedtime.

[coiler]

And nevets is still waiting for his army recruiter to call him up...but they already told him his wig won't fit under the helmet, ya know?

[PugetSound]

"Mommy must be out for the night, Coiler is posting past his bedtime."

That's the problem with Summer, mommy lets Coiler stay up later than on a school night. Well its better he posts his learned observations than run around 'tagging' property.

[PugetSound]

"Mommy must be out for the night, Coiler is posting past his bedtime."

That's the problem with Summer, mommy lets Coiler stay up later than on a school night. Well its better he posts his learned observations than run around 'tagging' property.

[nevets]

Coiler, I'm waiting is right, what a wig has to do with it I'm not sure but at least I'm not hiding behind mommy's skirt avoiding the recruiter at school. What was it mommy told you,

"when a recruiter comes near you, run like wild to mommy so I can protect you. You going to serve your country like all Coilers have done in the past, by working at McDonalds. Your Pappy worked there, Your great Pappy worked there, your aunts and uncles have all worked there, and sure enough you will work there to and there is no way I'm going to let a recruiter come and tell you there is more to the USA than the city of Seattle and working at a McDonalds."

You stick with it Coiler, mommy will always be there for you.

[PugetSound]

hey nevets,
the deal with the 'coilers' of this world is that the closest they will ever get to 'serving' their country is paying their FICA taxes and french fries to soldiers when they come in for lunch.

[sarge]

So, nevets, if signing up is so important to you, why are you waiting for them to come to you?

[Duffman]

(Sound familiar Duffman?)

True sign that someone has been soundly defeated is how they can't seem to get you off their mind; no matter what the topic or subject. As is done in this merci-pseudo-lawyer-wanna-be (with silly 'Exhibits' in out of alphabetical order format, etc), what a joke. Alas, but he did move things around on his web site...FINALLY and I'm sure that's being regarded by him as some sort of progress.
Dude: you really need to get a life, instead of trying play like you have one on (blog) TV. Haha