Why aren't radio hosts commentators on the prestigious Sunday morning chat shows? Is it intra-medium loathing and envy that keeps Rush, and O'Reilly off the panels? Is it liberal bias?
There are plenty of conservatives on Meet the Press, This Week, etc. so the latter probably's not the reason. The quality of the arguments, the skeevy journalistic claims of the talk medium, and the harsh rhetoric keeps the networks from taking the radio blabber-jocks seriously.
Radio fish-wife Laura Ingraham (KVI m-f, 3-5p) demonstrated those shortcomings Sunday sitting in for stuffy harumpher Brit Hume on the austere, tedia-runs-to-boring Fox News Sunday.
She pushed her sharp elbows and talk radio manners into the usually amicable, decaffeinated duffer's Sunday morning political chat on the conservative channel.
This after a shameless cut & paste smear job on Al Gore Friday when she filled in for Billo.
Her morning appearance didn't shine bright in substance -- she was a movement conservative in a warm and cozy place for conservatives. But it was a dose of stool softener for the usually bound-up FNS crew, customarily a choir loft of tut-tuts, and gracious-me's. Rarely are exchanges of left-hooks or body fluids ever made.
(Host Chris Wallace can do a pretty good interview; he will ask direct questions and do follow-ups, but questions always have a conservative spin, and are sometimes pandering to right-wing conspiracies, and urban legends. Hume, longtime conservative activist (even as a Fox News anchor) speaks with the tenor of God, making morose and sarcastic pronouncements that bely journalistic impartiality. Sunny, neoconservative fool Bill Kristol, always granting the benefit of the doubt with a smile on his face, always predicting the direst of consequences for the actions of liberals; but, like Dick Morris, his predilections are always wrong, wrong, wrong. Mara Liasson is an establishmentarian, Washington NPR reporter who tries to hover above the fry of subjectivism, and offers little except in a general informational way that never gets anything on her. Juan Williams is the token lib, except he isn't really except in contrast to everyone else on this panel).
Ingraham, who obviously suffers something deeply, doesn't fit into this crowd -- she was ostensibly there to comment on the upcoming Supreme Court position. She might be being tried-out for a place on the panel, since Hume may be heading for the barn soon. Qualification for joining this auspicious group? She once clerked for dangerous originalist, Justice Clarence Thomas... and oh yeah she slept with Dinesh D'Souza.
Ingraham swept through her repertoire of prickly interrupting, snide remarking, verbal eye-rolling and disturbed head shaking with sarcasm and aplomb. Although her hair was clean, it was sprayed into a spinnaker of blonde materièl which moved at one with her face to catch the zephyrs kicked up by the restrained conversation.
(photo: Brit Hume, stuffy harumpher)
Juan Williams seemed already ruffled by her before the show started; There was a tension, precisely the atmospherics Ingraham seems to thrive in.
If body English could kill, the docile Laisson, and the non-violent Williams would be murderous co-conspirators.
Laisson kept her back to Ingraham, all twitchy and sputtering and aching to interrupt. Laura put to use a rude "debate" tactic (like Hannity) of starting to talk midway through an opponent's answer. She did this several times with Williams who was fuming and doing a little sputtering himself. It was all very talk radio, and it was out of place here on Sunday morning, and it was obvious Ingraham was offensive to everyone. (We loved it... but then again we love snuff films).
Crapping on Obama's listing of "empathy" as a qualifying characteristic, she summed-up her own emotional range: "Empathy," she asked, "for what? It's absurd."
That Ingraham and her talk radio brethren aren't asked to do real Sunday shows like Meet the Press or Face the Nation ain't just because she's a claw-hammer and scares people with her edgy anger, it's also because she's connected to Fox News, and the fraud of "fair & balanced."
On Friday, filling in for the Billo, she was party to Fox News' manipulation of videos that make it look like people are saying the opposite of what they're actually saying.
She showed clips of Al Gore's recent congressional testimony that suggested that Gore has profited from his environmental advocacy. In a hatcheting even extreme for Fox News, the clips had been blatantly edited to remove the parts where he said he donates all of the money he makes from climate-related work to a nonprofit organization.
It's dishonest and adds to the general dishonor and dubiousness of Fox News, Bill O'Reilly, and of course, Laura Ingraham. Watch a collection of Fox News creative editing:
Hey, Fox should have "Coulter and Ingraham show! It could feature a sarcasm meter at the bottom of the screen as Anne and Laura scathingly put us all in our places.
Posted by: sparky | May 07, 2009 at 05:56 AM
Or an ever better idea would be a "Joanie and Sparky" show on MSNBC's Olberman and have an ass-kissing meter at the bottom of the screen as both teachers croon the great one's remarks.
Posted by: HoChiMinh | May 07, 2009 at 06:02 AM
It's dishonest and adds to the general dishonor and dubiousness of Fox News
And it adds to the ignorance of the American electorate. I offer you ho ho ho as an example.
Posted by: joanie | May 07, 2009 at 08:01 AM
Hasn't school started yet?
btw: I think you owe chucks an apology.
Posted by: HoChiMinh | May 07, 2009 at 08:11 AM
chuckles? One of the uninformed and ignorant electorate?
I don't think so, chi chi.
Why don't you ask him to apologize for being an ignorant dumbass? You're more comfortable with dumbasses, aren't you?
Posted by: joanie | May 07, 2009 at 08:28 AM
HoChiMinh, you go gal!
Posted by: Duffman | May 07, 2009 at 08:40 AM
Doesn't school start at 08:15? Those skulls full of mush need your undivided attention. Make yourself useful, we are paying for it.
Posted by: HoChiMinh | May 07, 2009 at 08:52 AM
Gore LIED to congress, plain & simple, Ingraham was just trying to enlighten you fools.
Gore stated that "Every penny that I have made has gone to it (non-profit organization). Every penny from the movie, the book… uh… from any investments from renewable energy."
So if that's true then where did he get the $35 million that he's invested in hedge funds and other for-profit investments? When he left the white house he net worth was $2 million.
Nice way to confuse the idiot public Bla'm, attack the messenger to divert attention from the message.
Posted by: Brian | May 07, 2009 at 10:49 AM
Laura is kinda cute for an old broad. Her breast cancer is a sexual turnoff and she could stand to gain a few lbs. But all things considered; she aint bad.
Posted by: mrogi | May 07, 2009 at 12:04 PM
Arlen Spectre - new lows of sleaziness ...
In two national TV appearances Sunday, Sen. Arlen Specter plugged specterforthecure.com – a Web site he said he launched to “put more pressure on Congress” to increase funding for medical research.
What Specter didn’t say: The Web site is owned by his reelection committee, and contributions made there go straight to Specter’s 2010 reelection campaign.
www.specterforthecure.com
unbelievable sleaze bag
Posted by: I Like Dennis ... (Kucinich) | May 07, 2009 at 01:10 PM
Laura is kinda cute for an old broad.
you are a paternalistic, sexist, chauvinist neanderthal
Posted by: I Like Dennis ... (Kucinich) | May 07, 2009 at 01:11 PM
Duffman, I am beginning to think that Mrs. Duffman booted you out and you're bunking at the YMCA. You sure are grouchy.
Posted by: sparky | May 07, 2009 at 04:36 PM
Hey sparky, I still have not decided that it is Duffman.
(Should I respond to joanie?I'm kinda thinking not.)
Posted by: chucks | May 07, 2009 at 05:03 PM
chucks...you WERE pretty harsh back there...
What will make you believe Duffman is never far away?
Posted by: sparky | May 07, 2009 at 05:44 PM
I don't really know on Duffy. There are a lot of new folks around here that sound too much like old folks. You know, say the same old stuff the same old way. It's like people come up with arguments and then create people to agree with them. We all have had our id's hijacked on occasion as well. Oh well.
As for the other, ok, I'll ignore.
Posted by: chucks | May 07, 2009 at 06:07 PM
Sparky and chucks, since I believe your referring to me and that you think I'm duffman let me assure you that I am not. I believe it was said on another blog and here that duffman is out of the country and won't return 'till mid July.
Like I told sparky and joanie I'll be any one they want me to be but if you really think about it, it's absurd to even consider knowing one's identity on a blog like this. Who care's and what does it matter the name a person uses to post. Sometimes I feel honored to be called duffman as he apparently has played a significant role in the minds of many but let me assure you I'm not him or her or whatever. Instead of playing the game of thinking you are recognizing mannerisims if you simply took the post at face value it would probably be better for all. Much time is wasted trying to play games and accusing others when it just doesn't fricken matter. I'll be duffman if you want or joanie, or puget sound or whoever, IT SIMPLY DOESN'T MATTER, does it. Think about it!
Posted by: HoChiMinh | May 07, 2009 at 06:37 PM
over on sound politics awhile ago someone was pretending to be duffman and got called out on it.
chucks, you are right as rain. a lot of ph(J)oanie posters on this board.
anyone following that 'two americas' fellow, john edwards. his dear wife has a nice book out on him.
what a 'charmer' he is. and with all his millions he takes money from his own campaign contributors to pay her off. wow. looks like he'll be in some nice legal trouble. of course that pales to the karma crap cloud over his head right now for the way he treated his wife. just another phJ)oanie, for sure.
Posted by: Puget Sound | May 07, 2009 at 07:40 PM
Anyone with some discernment could figure it out that the Duffman signer here was an imposter. Leftists notoriously have a lack of perception of reality.
Meanwhile, Ph(J)oanie has lived up to her billings as a brown shirt and I don't think her rancid comments are from an imposter.
Posted by: KS | May 07, 2009 at 08:27 PM
Thank you, KS. I appreciate your support. I shall return full time very soon.
Posted by: Duffman | May 07, 2009 at 08:53 PM
Anyone with some discernment could figure it out that the Duffman is sick. Paranoid conservatives notoriously have a lack of perception of reality.
Meanwhile, KS has lived up to his billings as a brown noser and I don't think his rancid comments are from an imposter.
Posted by: BaBa Boey | May 07, 2009 at 09:01 PM
Fat Savage to get the Last Laugh as Embattled Brit Government Hit with Expense Claims Scandal
Fasto Savage - whom I detest but I join CAIR in protesting the violation of his Universal Declaration of Rights freedom of movement - is about to have the last laugh as Britain was today rocked by a scandal over expense claims of the unpopular Labour government. Claims included the Prime Minister reimbursing his brother - an energy lobbyist - $13,000 in government funds for maid service at his brother's apartment, write-offs in unpaid taxes, etc. The Labour government is currently polling 24%, the lowest of any UK government in history.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8039108.stm
I WISH that, when Labour is kicked out office in a few months, the Liberal-Democratic Party would win the majority but, sadly, I know the Conservative Party is set to succeed since the LDP hasn't managed a majority in 100 years. (Both the LDP and Conservative parties have denounced the Labour ban on fat Savage's travel and pledged to overturn it.)
Posted by: I Like Dennis ... (Kucinich) | May 07, 2009 at 09:27 PM
The lead headlines in today's morning papers on Fleet Street - the six largest dailies in the UK are 6-for-6 in leading with Expensegate:
The Daily Telegraph: How Brown and his Cabinet exploit expenses system
The Guardian: Brown hit by revelations over MPs' expenses
The Sun: Expense Files - The Truth is Out!
The Times of London: Ministers Under Fire Over Lavish Expense Claims
The Independent: Labour Rocked by Expense Revelations
The Daily Mail: Cabinet Engulfed by Expense Storm
Posted by: I Like Dennis ... (Kucinich) | May 07, 2009 at 09:37 PM
Savage gets a million dollars in free publicity plus the ban will get lifted. It's good to be Michael Savage.
Posted by: mrogi | May 07, 2009 at 09:39 PM
Breaking News - fascist Home Secretary Jacqui Smith, who banned Weiner, among those embroiled in embezzlement scandal - Smith caught with her middle-aged, fat fingers in the biscuit tin
Leaders of the Liberal-Democratic Party, Conservative Party, Scottish National Party and Plaid Cymru are joining in demanding the House of Commons be dissolved and early elections called.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/britain/8034257.stm
Posted by: I Like Dennis ... (Kucinich) | May 07, 2009 at 09:55 PM
News is coming too fast to keep up ... BBC World Service radio just had a top of the hour update that says "numerous" Labour back-benchers are considering joining the Tories and Lib-Dems in a no-confidence vote; if that happens the Queen may dissolve parliament as early as next month instead of 2010.
If Weiner expects to do his protest cruise to the UK he was talking about, he better leave like ... tomorrow or the ban will be lifted and everything blown over (I doubt they could stock the ship with enough food to feed his fat face in time, though).
Posted by: I Like Dennis ... (Kucinich) | May 07, 2009 at 10:04 PM
"And it adds to the ignorance of the American electorate. I offer you ho ho ho as an example."
3 more days.
Posted by: nevets | May 07, 2009 at 10:33 PM
Make yourself useful, we are paying for it.
C'mon chichi, welfare queens don't pay taxes.
(Should I respond to joanie?I'm kinda thinking not.)
Who cares?
And spotsie, still got a crush on me I see.
Klueless . . . still klueless.
Dennis, are you a Brit?
Sure a lot to talk about on this thread, huh?
Posted by: joanie | May 07, 2009 at 10:58 PM
my hubby was a brit so i guess you could say i'm an anglophile!!!!!!!
keep preachin' it sista'!
Posted by: I Like Dennis ... (Kucinich) | May 08, 2009 at 01:12 AM
baaa baaaa-rannnndddiiiii
glad to see you didn't freeze out in the pasture, ph(J)oanie.
soon you'll have the unamazing randi rants to fill that empty skull. baaaaaaa.
Posted by: Puget Sound | May 08, 2009 at 06:05 AM
hey
'I Like Dennis' how'd the gaffes from Pres Obama go over in England? Not much love shown towards are oldest-strongest allied tie, eh?
On the first visit, PM Brown gives Pres Obama a historically significant/thoughtful ornamental pen holder made from the timbers of the Victorian anti-slave ship HMS Gannet and the Obama staff breaks out with a set of DVDs -that don't even work on the English system.
Later on they slip an I-pod to the Queen.
Geez, is the Office of Protocol getting ideas from WalMart?
And then the misuse of the Churchill quote to cover Pres Obama's arse on Torture during the Press Conference. I'll bet any number of IRA members would be surprised to learn that the English didn't use torture to get information.
Posted by: Puget Sound | May 08, 2009 at 06:52 AM
There were no gaffes in England. The Britians seem to admire and respect Obama as much, if not more than we do. Any evidence that the DVDs presented to Brown were in the wrong format? If the Queen mum requests an iPod of the President's speeches, is it not proper to gift her with such? How was Churchill misquoted? Any evidence of systematic torture of IRA members? Why do these people need to make these kinds of things up out of thin air? If a person cannot justify their point of view without lying, is their point of view really justifiable?
Posted by: LucasFoxx | May 08, 2009 at 12:52 PM
Here you go for the protocol screw up:
I like the comments on what the First Lady pawned off the PM's children
Torture during Churchill's reign.
a place called The Cage just a short walk from Churchill's Office
And of the IRA prisoners and what happened when they stopped it: less information
Posted by: Puget Sound | May 08, 2009 at 02:47 PM
Now Lucas, since I put up the proof will you be good enough to acknowledge it or will you turn out to be yet another ph(J)oanie looking to pull the ol 'Seaaaattle?'
Posted by: Puget Sound | May 08, 2009 at 02:49 PM
and speaking of ph(J)oanies, looks like Speaker Pelosi has been shown to be a liar that she wasn't briefed on waterboarding...hmmm, Nancy Pelosi a liar? what a stretch. Next you'll be calling Senate Majority Leader Reid a defeatist...anyhooo Lucas, check it out.
"...the 2002 DNI report written up by ABC yesterday directly contradicts this nonsense. Quote:
The report details a Sept. 4, 2002 meeting between intelligence officials and Pelosi, then-House intelligence committee chairman Porter Goss, and two aides. At the time, Pelosi was the top Democrat on the House intelligence committee.
The meeting is described as a “Briefing on EITs including use of EITs on Abu Zubaydah, background on authorities, and a description of particular EITs that had been employed.”
Posted by: Puget Sound | May 08, 2009 at 02:54 PM
Your source is a tabloid magazine?
Posted by: LucasFoxx | May 08, 2009 at 03:22 PM
Puget Sound - as for Obama's gaffes they were nothing compared to Bush manhandling the Queen.
That said, it was a little outrageous in terms of the gifts given by Obama, etc., and was widely covered throughout the UK in both mainstream and tabloid press about how grossly inappropriate they were; this is common knowledge and anyone who tries to argue that they were well-received is a moron flack. They were an utter embarrassment.
But that's irrelevant --- what I WANT TO KNOW is why did Obama bend over backward to back Anders Fogh Rasmussen as NATO Secretary-General? Rasmussen is a well-know Danish neo-con who was Bush's lackey about Iraq, cutting taxes on the rich while he was Danish PM, gushing over Bush while Danish PM, harassing and rounding-up the Danish immigrant community, privatizing Danish healthcare, etc. On top of the appointment of Gates as Defense Secretary, Obama's warmongering in Afghanistan, his refusal for an immediate pullout from Iraq, his backing of warrantless wiretaps, his refusal to end military tribunals, etc., it just leaves me wondering - with regard to Obama - WHO IS RUNNING THE SHOW? It's certainly not Obama. One thing all liberals and progressives can agree upon is that Obama was a huge disappointment at least and an outright liar at worst. Anyone who thinks he's doing a good job is saying that because they're a right-wing thug and they like endless war, civil rights abuses, etc.
Posted by: I Like Dennis ... (Kucinich) | May 08, 2009 at 04:03 PM
and speaking of ph(J)oanies, looks like Speaker Pelosi has been shown to be a liar that she wasn't briefed on
Progressives knew she was a phony and a right-wing lackey already. Those of us who cared backed Cindy Sheehan in her race against Pelosi. Had Pelosi actually been willing to meet Sheehan to debate instead of running into her hidey hole, or, had Pelosi not gobbled up special interest campaign donations and met Sheehan on a $1-for-$1 footing, Sheehan would have won that election and replaced the pro-torture thug Pelosi.
Posted by: I Like Dennis ... (Kucinich) | May 08, 2009 at 04:06 PM
PELOSI MUST BE IMPEACHED
Posted by: I Like Dennis ... (Kucinich) | May 08, 2009 at 04:15 PM
I Like Dennis
I think that you will find Pres Obama to largely follow the Bush policies. Otherwise he wouldn't have kept Robert Gates, Gen Petraeus, etc on.
I will be willing to bet that Gitmo will remain open as well.
Paistan and Afghanistan will continue if not heat up even more.
While I disagree with you, I Like Dennis, I admire your intellectual honesty. You are not a ph(J)oanie!
Posted by: Puget Sound | May 08, 2009 at 05:05 PM
our source is a tabloid magazine?
Posted by: LucasFoxx | May 08, 2009 at 03:22 PM
Daily Telegraph and London Times among others.
I see you are pulling the Seaaatttle on the other items. What a ph(J)oanie.
Posted by: Puget Sound | May 08, 2009 at 05:06 PM
Come on Puts...the fake controversy over gift giving is sooooo last month. Get with the program--this week's Republican outrage is over Dijon Mustard. Try to keep up, 'k?
Posted by: sparky | May 08, 2009 at 05:35 PM
While I disagree with you, I Like Dennis, I admire your intellectual honesty.
your support for the criminal gangster Bush disgusts me and makes me want to violently puke even worse than the morally bankrupt who support the mini-me gangster-warmonger yes-man Obama and his criminal puppetmaster Nancy Pelosi
Posted by: I Like Dennis ... (Kucinich) | May 08, 2009 at 07:07 PM
I think that you will find Pres Obama to largely follow the Bush policies. Otherwise he wouldn't have kept Robert Gates, Gen Petraeus, etc on.
It's not a question of me "finding out", true progressives have known Obama was a Bush mini-me clone even before he was elected. Everything he's done since then: (1) opposed single-payer healthcare, (2) supported hawks to SecDef and NATO Sec-Gen, (3) expanded the war in Afghanistan, (4) vowed to keep military tribunals with a few cosmetic changes, (5) vowed to keep warrantless wiretapping, (5) vowed to keep the PATRIOT Act, (6) increased military involvement in Pakistan, etc. etc. etc. has only driven home the message for the handful of idealistic holdouts. Anyone who doesn't realize Obama was and is a complete charlatan at this point is either a right-wing knuckledragger or the world's biggest imbecile. OBAMA MUST BE IMPEACHED.
Posted by: I Like Dennis ... (Kucinich) | May 08, 2009 at 07:12 PM
ha ha I like Dennis---you got GG written all over you.
Sooo, let me get this straight. You are more angry at the 'gangster bush' who you have seen through from day 1 vs President Obama who fooled enough of your fellow travelers into voting for him.
too funny
Hate to break it to you but Kucinich is just the bright shiny object to keep your attention while Pres Obama completes phase two of the Cheney-Halibuton plan. Randi is the tool they use to keep your people distracted.
You are up to speed on that, right?
Posted by: Puget Sound | May 08, 2009 at 07:22 PM
Sparky
I just wanted to get the temp of someone with a connection in England.
It is last months news. Soon we'll have something else to guffaw about.
Posted by: Puget Sound | May 08, 2009 at 07:24 PM
GG went crazy, had to be detained for his own good.
Posted by: Coiler | May 08, 2009 at 07:31 PM
You know "Puget Sound" - it's really rude to play inside jokes here. If you have a point, make it; I don't care about your little old boys club with your initial-this and so-and-so that.
Hate to break it to you but Kucinich is just the bright shiny object to keep your attention while Pres Obama completes phase two of the Cheney-Halibuton plan.
You got half of that right. The second half.
Randi is the tool they use to keep your people distracted.
"Randi?" Is that Randi Rhodale? I respect her right to speak, like I respect Weiner's right to speak, but I don't listen to either of them.
Posted by: I Like Dennis ... (Kucinich) | May 08, 2009 at 07:55 PM
Hey Putz
How dare you state that Nancy Peelosi is a liar lieing. You must be able to accept that she is not in fact telling lies. What she is doing is adjusting the truth 180 degrees to meet the political needs of the moment. Truth adjusting for political expidiancy is just being one of the political elite.
Anyway, I am off to Arizona in he morning to greet my very first grandson, due to be born this comming Tuesday.
The ball is in your court. I expect to be back in about ten days and want to see a 153 points Putz 84 points liberals upon my return.
Have fun everybody.
Posted by: chucks | May 08, 2009 at 08:00 PM
take care, chucks.
have fun with the grandkid!
hey, if you got any of that WAMU loot left over you should start that kid off with a nice Education Fund.
Posted by: Puget Sound | May 08, 2009 at 08:51 PM
Randi Rhodale?
Nope, we call her
Randi Roadapple!
Although that will tick off Randi's faithful followers that listen for 'the word.'
baaaa baaaarannndiiiii!
Posted by: Puget Sound | May 08, 2009 at 08:53 PM