Seattle's No. 1 talk host Dori Monson (KIRO m-f, 12-3p) and Sytman & Boze (KTTH m-f,5-9a) told listeners Thursday the "far left haters" who dominate Seattle were making themselves and all of us look bad.
(Wow, we thought, that sounds terrible! Then we wondered why- if Dori is Seattle's No.1 talk host- does he hate Seattle so much?).
Seems when President Bush came to Bellevue for his fat cat/big bucks shakedown for the endangered Rep. Dave Reichert last week, Seahawks Matt Hasselbeck and Mack Strong presented the No.1 Lovable Fuck-up with Hawk jersey No.43 in a touching opportunity of the photographic kind.
It was the White House's idea, according to P-I sporting columnist Jim Moore. Hasselbeck and Strong were but fleshy decor who came with the charred tuna sushi in the pricey fête raising dough for the Sheriff and hoping to plump up Bush's 31% approval rating like a Ballpark frank.
Turns out the huge "national backlash" from all "the haters," which Dori ejaculated about so vociferously wasn't huge, and it wasn't national. Matter of fact, the tsunami of "haters" disgusting the nation and making Seattle look just awful were actually some commenters in the PI's Big Blog, on a story originally written about the jersey presentation in puff-release style.
The story was amped-up by Moore in Thursday's paper who quoted the perplexed Seahawks who were amazed at the reaction.
"Why would people care about what we do as far as going to see the president and giving him a Seahawks jersey?" asked Strong.
If you have to ask that, Mack, maybe it's because you only read the sports section, or listen to Dori Monson. In the rarified world of the athletic elite, folks might not have noticed the deep animus for this most despised president in 30 years. For you, a jersey may be just a jersey; and a presidential invitation is just a PR noogie, and photo op. But in the big world outside the special one you live in, some 70% of the country- not just Seattleites- are "haters" by Dori Monson standards who are really angry about the dilly of a pickle Bush has gotten us into.
Turns out, the story was just another talk radio topic: 
flatus in the windstorms of daily AM radio.
Despite the talk hosts' insincerity on the so-called issue, and that it was but an hour's worth of show biz, it graphically demonstrates how deep the anger is for Bush.
Even these football fans are pissed off. They're not the "far left" as neocon Bush flacks like Monson, Sytman & Boze, O'Reilly, and Limbaugh claim- these are regular Americans reacting to the disastrous deceit, arrogance, and incompetence with which this unsuitable president has governed.
(The visit backfired on Reichert. Even though he raised near half a million bucks at the high ticket affair, his opponent Darcy Burner used the occasion to raise an astonishing 120k in a few days from an impressive number of small donors via the Net. The drive essentially drove Sen. Rodney Tom, her primary opponent, out of the race. He withdrew Weds.)
From the look their faces when Hasselback and Strong met Bush I'm surprised they didn't drop to their knees and take turns.
Posted by: upton | September 07, 2007 at 08:30 PM
andrew sez
"Your historical fun fact has no relevance to the current issue. I'm hard pressed to find any relation whatsoever.
Posted by: Andrew | September 07, 2007 at 02:29 PM"
historical fun fact? where did you learn history? was it off a cereal box? direct analogy from recent history with circumstances similar to tooday. doesn't mean it will be the same, just something to consider and put your current views in perspective.
reality check: the only reason your hard pressed is because your mind is closed to receiving any information other than what is allowed in your closed minded Bush Derangement Syndrome Worldview.
Posted by: PugetSound | September 07, 2007 at 08:31 PM
From the look their faces when Hasselback and Strong met Bush I'm surprised they didn't drop to their knees and take turns.
Posted by: upton | September 07, 2007 at 08:31 PM
Dear joanie
We have had this exchange before. I believe that I have, many times in the past expressed my displeasure with the Republican congress spending like a bunch of drunken democrats. That has pissed me off to no end.
So what do you think pelosi and reid are going to do? Probably raise taxes and spend more.
The whole world became a target for terrorism long before Bush. The USS Cole, Iran hostage, The American Embassies in Africa, World Trade Center I, Etc. Bush 43 just happens to be the first POTUS that had the brass to fight back.
And Andy, I campaigned against the stadiums. Matter of fact, I liked the old King Dome. Twas warm inside. It was louder. And I didn't have to shell out 5 grand for "charter" seat licenses. But what the heck, I have not missed a home game for over twenty years.
Posted by: chucks | September 07, 2007 at 08:49 PM
So, chucks, if you don't like what the Publicans are doing, why don't you become a Dem? Isn't tax and spend a whole lot more honorable than borrow and spend?
Posted by: joanie | September 07, 2007 at 08:51 PM
I don't respect Bush's judgment and don't respect either Clintons' integrity. However, the dufusses that got pissed off at the two Seahawks who gave Bush a jersey are acting like spoiled 4-year olds. That is akin to calling American soldiers in the mid-East baby killers or terrorists - the rationality of the discussion disappears there. That is one reason why a progressive in office as president scares the bejeezus out of me as it should also scare other mentally balanced/sane people.
Bottom line: The whores of the tabloid media are on a mission - demonizes Republicans so that a Democrat gets to succeed Bush.
Posted by: KS | September 07, 2007 at 09:01 PM
How about I fight to get my party back on track. Lower taxes and piss away less money.
Like why spend a billion dollars to rebuild New Orleans when it is still below sea level? Why spend money on illegal aliens when we have Americans without stuff? Or why buy stuff for Americans who just do not wish to work? No, the cure for what ails this nation is not putting more big spenders in charge. The cure will be to install true conservatives who recognise what the role of guvment is constitutionally.
Posted by: chucks | September 07, 2007 at 09:03 PM
Joanie sez:
"why don't you become a Dem? Isn't tax and spend a whole lot more honorable than borrow and spend?"
It is, but better yet, no tax cuts without corresponding spending cuts. Very few Dems and Republicans in their mindset would ever do that. Wouldn't that be blasphemy for Democrats ?
Posted by: KS | September 07, 2007 at 09:05 PM
It seems little "Belligerence Boy" Monson just can't stand sharing the radio station with anyone who is funnier and has more onair presence than he does (Webb and Vinnie were both), and will do what he can to oust them, like some adolescent-voiced Iago, whispering intrigues and worse into the ears of KIRO suits.
Posted by: Tommy008 | September 07, 2007 at 09:10 PM
What would John Murtha do without pork? Maybe the bridge to nowhere could be canceled (yes, I know, R pork).
KS is right, tax cuts with spending cuts. Sounds like my house. No money, do without. What a novel concept. Let's just call Bank of America and cancel Uncle Sam's Visa and Master Card.
Posted by: chucks | September 07, 2007 at 09:13 PM
Tax cuts and spending cuts are not on the table apparently. So, given the two choices, you'd rather continue Reagan/Bush policies of borrow and spend rather than bite the bullet and vote for the party of integrity.
Seems like you're living in a fantasy world. The real world offers two choices. Instead of doing the honorable thing, instead of exercising some integrity, you choose fantasy.
Well, that certainly fits in with the Publican idea of a "Hollywood" president. But, doesn't sound very adult to me.
Posted by: joanie | September 07, 2007 at 09:28 PM
Bush is not like all other Publicans - there are still a few of them I could trust with tax cuts and spending cuts - not sure yet. I haven't heard it yet - Guilliani might do that.
On a sidebar: it sounded like OBL was presenting a number of Democrat party talking points in his latest tape (i.e. global warming, come on Democrats get the US out of Iraq, open the borders, etc.), but was rather incoherent -seemed like it was written by an associate. One thing he said that sounded Republican was talk about a flat tax or 2.5% taxes in the Islamic world. If you want the specifics, check out www://michaelsavage.com
Posted by: KS | September 07, 2007 at 09:41 PM
Bush is not like all other Publicans
Hmm. . . was Reagan - Mr. voodoo economics like other Publicans?
"Impeachment Panel Excerpt"
Bruce Fein voted for Bush in 2004, wrote the first article of impeachment against Cllinton, and now thinks Bush should be impeached. One might question his intelligence but not his integrity.
Posted by: joanie | September 08, 2007 at 12:31 AM
chucks: "here's two Republicans, Romero and Edwards, of the old school.
Take a few minutes of your time (about 15) and watch it. Then tell me what you think of them and their opinions?
If you watch the second part, you'll hear another Republican who served under Georege W. Bush. These Republicans will tell you the truth.
Oh, and then watch the third segment on mountantop mining: you might be especially interested in the "capitalism . . . is the survival of the most productive" mentality of the "killer" capitalist Blankenship. He seems to mimic your philosophy.
This isn't Hannity-Limbaugh but it does articulate the condition of our country much better than I can. Watch it.
Posted by: joanie | September 08, 2007 at 12:32 AM
PugetStupid, if a person is charged with DUI and DUI alone, they have not yet killed anyone, and likely never will. Of all the drunk drivers out there I assure you the vast majority are not murderers.
Buhs is the worst president ever. There is no comparison, at all, poll numbers or otherwise. He proved that yesterday in Australia. End of fucking story.
Posted by: Andrew | September 08, 2007 at 02:06 AM
hey andrew
if your answering blogs at 2 am let me clue you in: by default you are very very lonely which is no way to go through life.
you say "bush is the worst president ever. no comparison." i guess the "McDonald's restaurant history fun fact reader" might have skipped a few.
the fact that you make such sweeping statements and get mad when challenged tells me that -despite your lofty claims- your not really associating with such a diverse group of people in the first place. now get some sleep, we don't want you falling asleep and burning my french fries today. and remember, its no salt.
Posted by: PugetSound | September 08, 2007 at 07:31 AM
joanie sez:
"Seems like you're living in a fantasy world. The real world offers two choices. Instead of doing the honorable thing, instead of exercising some integrity, you choose fantasy."
fantasy world? this from the person that thinks the carbon offset program is legit.
Mrs. Pot meet Mr.Kettle.
Posted by: PugetSound | September 08, 2007 at 07:32 AM
joanie sez:
"Seems like you're living in a fantasy world. The real world offers two choices. Instead of doing the honorable thing, instead of exercising some integrity, you choose fantasy."
fantasy world? this from the person that thinks the carbon offset program is legit.
Mrs. Pot meet Mr.Kettle.
Posted by: PugetSound | September 08, 2007 at 07:33 AM
The intelligence community reported the Osama bin Laden was "shitting bricks" and actually writing his will, at the start of the U.S. assault on Afghanistan. He fully expected to die soon afterwards. Bush blew his chance to get him by outsourcing the job to local tribal fighters at Tora Bora and muffed his chance. He could probably still have gotten him after that, but he blew it. I don't necessarily blame the Iraq war for that, just Bush'es own incompetence ans stubbornness. In my opinion, this was Bush'es main job after 911, to get bin Laden, and he blew it out his ass. Now we have to listen to this vile, smirking, bearded devil mock us and taunt us on videotapes sent to the media. Intolerable.
Posted by: Tommy008 | September 08, 2007 at 08:28 AM
T008...no intolerable w/be having to listen to him on KIRO each day from noon -to- 3:00 p.m., ya know :o)
Posted by: Duffman | September 08, 2007 at 08:59 AM
hey duff
when we stop by andrew's 'restaurant' do you want him to hold the onions on the burger?
Posted by: PugetSound | September 08, 2007 at 09:59 AM
Indeed...and definitely 'hold' the BS.
Posted by: Duffman | September 08, 2007 at 10:03 AM
Well, dutsie and puffo, you're at your non-germaine attacking best, aren't you? Typical of right-wing hatemongers. Too bad you don't have something of substance to contribute to the debate.
Posted by: joanie | September 08, 2007 at 11:48 AM
Don't know if you were referring to me or not joanie but if you were -please take note that I only respond 'in kind' and I am trying to stay on topic and post substance; I would have hoped you had noticed.
Hope the new school year is treating you well.
Posted by: Duffman | September 08, 2007 at 12:05 PM
PS, your last baffling response having something to do with being up late and working at a restaurant was a 100% non-retort to the debate, thus you lose. * I WIN *, again.
* I WIN * for atleast making an effort to stay on topic, but you quickly become flustered and become another Duffman, and start posting the strangest, most lame insults anyone has ever heard.
By the way, going to bed early on a Friday night sounds very boring, and is no way to live. It must suck to be you.
Posted by: Andrew | September 08, 2007 at 12:37 PM
I have noticed that you have reduced and focused your comments and appreciate that effort.
I remember a time when putsie took me on for disrespecting Andrew and he got abusive then, too . . . now he's doing the same. Putsie craves attention. Reread the whole thread on Shark. It is obvious.
I'm sorry, duff, but you should step back and notice how rarely puts really responds with anything to think about. He gets very bullying and resorts to namecalling rather quickly. We all do it to some degree but he's defaulted to it almost routinely.
Step back, go back, and reread some his comments. You are kind of a follower . . . I'd like to read what you think honestly more than disingenuous comments and cute add-ons like the onion one above. Sometimes you guys sound like middle schoolers with nothing in your arsenals but sarcastic comments. None of us is immune to it but most of us don't specialize in such rhetoric. Chucks is a better model for honest debate. At least he tries to maintain civility.
Anyone who tries to debate putsie devolves into such rhetoric because he just can't stay on topic or follow a thread of argument. It gets frustrating.
BTW, did you watch my links above? I get tired of the talk-radio "talking points" responses. I'd be interested in knowing what you guys think of these Republicans who are on the record in their questioning of current policies. These people aren't the Mike Malloy/Rush Limbaugh mean-spirited hate-spewing radio hosts. These people are honest intellectuals who have been there and are responding from their heads and hearts.
BTW, Randi had a riveting show yesterday during which she took on almost half her callers for not being truly informed and she said that the onus to know the facts and be truthful is much greater for liberals than conservatives. She really read the riot act to a large percentage of her callers because they didn't have their facts and they were talking from am emotional rather than intellectual place. How many conservative hosts chance losing listeners by demanding that they get informed?
Posted by: joanie | September 08, 2007 at 12:41 PM
Wow, spot on Joanie! Why I haven't read a take down so accurate and damning since the Richard Belzer piece.
Posted by: Andrew | September 08, 2007 at 12:54 PM
andrew, has it come to this. seeking 'approval' from joanie.
to be responding to a blog at 2 am -especially my posting- is lame. sorry.
now joanie, first off you stated that you were not going to either read or respond to my postings.
who has the problem with seeking attention?
yet you go back and reread my postings.
if we were to go back and read through all your postings are you gonna tell me that they are all gems.
this so called bullying is code word for you not liking what happens when your arguments get challanged. name a specific example of bullying.
you can't do it. you can throw it out as a charge but lets see you back it up.
namecalling, lets see. your always crying about it yet engage in it as a matter of course.
the only ones you go after for 'namecalling' or 'bullying' are people that disagree with you. if i was to go the coiler or critter route you wouldn't have word one to say. when you start policing your own i'll start to listen to what you say.
this joanie you keep describing sure isn't the same one that posts on this message board.
you really are the pot calling the kettle black.
admit it, the reason you get so mad and upset is that deep down you know it is true.
which really must suck.
Posted by: PugetSound | September 08, 2007 at 03:56 PM
You're always behind the curve, putsie. We've all moved on. You might try it.
Posted by: joanie | September 08, 2007 at 03:58 PM
PS, I'm tired of intelectualy dominating you with such ease only to have you respond with such tired and obvious drivel. I'm done.
Posted by: Andrew | September 08, 2007 at 04:04 PM
sorry i was out enjoying the day instead of slaving to the blog. what a puts "i" was.
Posted by: PugetSound | September 08, 2007 at 04:08 PM
I'm seeing so many phrases that I've used herein come back to haunt us from most awkward sources. Please, AT LEAST try to be original.
Posted by: Duffman | September 08, 2007 at 04:19 PM
Bla'M...sending you a case of Blog Bleach.
Posted by: sparky | September 08, 2007 at 04:45 PM
I'm seeing so many phrases that I've used herein
Specifics, please, duff . . .
Posted by: joanie | September 08, 2007 at 04:54 PM
joanie sez
"I'm seeing so many phrases that I've used herein
Specifics, please, duff . . ."
joanie you demand specifics yet fail to produce yourself.
you cite 'bullying' but don't back it up.
how can you in good faith demand it of others when you won't follow it yourself.
hmm?
maybe cause you can't? ever wonder why people don't take your posts seriously.
Posted by: PugetSound | September 08, 2007 at 05:00 PM
Putsie, you have a failing memory. Only a few days ago you asked the same thing and I backed it up. How many time must I do that?
Duffo, are you a dummy whose mouth opens and closes but depends on putsie to do your talking?
Please.
Posted by: joanie | September 08, 2007 at 05:11 PM
I think Duffman has the hots for conservative guys. Not so careful observation reveals that he only frequents this blog to shower conservative debators with affection while doing no, absolutely no debating of his own. Duffman, you have friends. You don't need to tire our eyeballs.
Posted by: Andrew | September 08, 2007 at 05:59 PM
So just go ahead and say it; Buck Fush... now don't you all feel better now ? Time to stick a fork in this post.
Posted by: KS | September 08, 2007 at 06:12 PM
i want to see what your definition of 'bullying' is.
give some examples. you throw it out there, lets examine it. back it up.
Posted by: PugetSound | September 08, 2007 at 07:14 PM
joanie
you gave some examples of namecalling. (which goes without saying that you engage in on a regular basis)
i want to see what your definition of 'bullying' is.
give some examples. you throw it out there, lets examine it. back it up. if it happens on such a regular basis you should be able to come up with numerous examples. or CAN you.
Posted by: PugetSound | September 08, 2007 at 07:16 PM
Oh, putsie, don't you ever get tired of being tedious? If you want to know the definnition of a word, look it up. Mama can't do everything for you.
Posted by: joanie | September 09, 2007 at 01:40 AM
Of 44 Presidents, 17 have been subject to assasination plots (39%), 10 have been shot at (23%), and 4 have been killed (9%).
POTUS deserves our respect just like a soldier, cop, or firefighter who puts his or her life on the line. This includes W, Bill, and if she gets there, Hillary.
I bet a lot of Bush-haters will look back with embarassment at themselves, just as this Clinton-hater does.
Posted by: wutitiz | September 09, 2007 at 05:21 AM
see Joanie, you throw it out but won't or can't back it up.
IF you could back it up THEN you would have done so with a quick here, here, and here.
obviously you can't and were just talking out your tailpipe.
this is exactly why people don't take you seriously.
Posted by: PugetSound | September 09, 2007 at 08:03 AM
wutitiz, choosing a dangerous line of work doesn't give a guy carte blanche freedom to talk to God and then decide to send soldiers to their deaths. Your brain, it so small.
The difference between Bush and a firefighter is that Bush kills people and thinks he's the best man to run the most powerful country on earth. Fire fighters save people and have no intention of controling anything or anybody. Who do you think I should respect more?
Posted by: Andrew | September 09, 2007 at 11:32 AM
Well said, Andrew.
Keep trying, putsie. It's your time, not mine.
Posted by: joanie | September 09, 2007 at 11:35 AM
PS, you're one of those Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde types. You seem reasonable at first, but out of nowhere you turn into an asshole and betray the trust of everyone who was kind enough to give you the time of day. Aparently you can't decide if you come here to engage in debate or harass people. You seem to change motives on a whim. God help you if this behavior manifests itself in the rest of your life.
Posted by: Andrew | September 09, 2007 at 11:38 AM
i tried, god knows i tried.
Posted by: pugetsound' mother | September 09, 2007 at 03:35 PM
andrew, if you define as an a-hole someone who can disagree with you then yeah, sign me up.
when i agree with you i'll state it like i did earlier today. when i disagree i'll state it as i have done many other times. don't take it personal. if you and i listed a 100 issues we would probably be in agreement on 90 of them. all because i disagree with the other 10 or so is inconsequential.
the real deal with me is logical inconsistancy and being intellectually dishonest when it is pointed out aka joanie and the skeddadle routine.
i back up and regroup when someone points out a better argument. life is a process and we are all supposed to learn.
you also realize that on occassion people will post under the name of someone. kind of a highjack if you will.
it's a message board. don't take it too seriously.
Posted by: PugetSound | September 09, 2007 at 04:35 PM
I take it seriously in proportion to the effort I put into it and what I hope to get back out of it.
It realy miffs me to come near the conclusion of a debate only to have you devolve into off topic childish bullshit. You've done it twice now and I expect you always will.
Posted by: Andrew | September 09, 2007 at 05:31 PM
Andrew, you've got me laughing here. First you tell me my 'brain is so small' re my comments about assasinations. Then you act all offended by the remarks of PS. What's up Andy, can dish it but not take it?
Posted by: wutitiz | September 09, 2007 at 06:38 PM