I am surprised that this topic has yet been opened so allow me to be the first.



This brief radio time has not only sparked Rhodes to apologize, but has prompted a Secret Service investigation. "Even joking about shooting the president is a crime, let alone doing it on national radio ... we are taking this very seriously."

Rhodes comment has been, "It was a lame attempt at humor. I apologize ... it was bad."

Obviously this was a joke, and there was no mention of Bush or the President, just a "spoiled child."

QUESTIONS:

1. Is this a form of censorship?
2. If the first Amendment was designed to allow for the freedom of political speech, could not the call to end an administration be determined as political speech? Or is this yelling 'fire' in a crowded movie theater?
3. Are there subjects that can not be discussed in a joking matter?

1. Is this a form of censorship?


Yes.

2. If the first Amendment was designed to allow for the freedom of political speech, could not the call to end an administration be determined as political speech? Or is this yelling 'fire' in a crowded movie theater?


He didn't call for an end to an administration, he called for an end to a man's life. That is skating the edge. It's logical to assume that this sort of joke could result in stern-faced people in suits arriving to have a little talk with you about how you meant the comment. If you can't cope with that possibility, don't make the joke.

3. Are there subjects that can not be discussed in a joking matter?

I will not try to force anyone to be silent, but after they have had their say on certain subjects, I will have mine.


My problem with this incident is that Michael Savage gets away with 'joking' that all liberals should be locked up in concentration camps, yet most Americans shrug it off as so much blather and do not, for example, boycott products advertised during his programming. Which is the proper way to deal with a commentator who is letting dangerous stupididity come out of his/her mouth on a regular basis. Of course, if there were a serious threat that people would listen to Savage, that's when he would need to be censored. Justifiably, as a clear and present danger.

I don't think the comments and sound effects in this instance are a clear and present danger. I also am annoyed with the media and the Democratic Party for giving rightwingers like Coulter a pass on similar comments. I had not heard she was investigated or boycotted over similar commentary:

Pardon the inflammatory wording, they are the author's, not mine:





A private individual who is obviously being humorous should never be investigated for these sorts of comments (although that individual must understand he/she runs the risk of someone taking him/her seriously). However, radio and television commentators aren't private individuals. Unfortunately, anti-Bush people/leftists will have to use the tactics of the right against the right in order to level the playing field. If a left-leaning personality cannot get away with what a right-leaning personality can, the disadvantage is obvious: less restrictions on speech for one side because the other does not deign to stoop to their opponent's level. In this instance, stooping is required.


Edited to add:

This statement is going too far:



If this is a crime, it has been very selectively enforced. Jokes should not be considered crime without a very good clear and present danger context (such as joking to someone you know might do it, or, as in the Savage example, 'joking' in a time when masses of people might do it).

1.Is this a form of censorship?
Yes. Although it is a very vile form of humor it is defiently not enough to garner a Secret Service investigation. It was obviously a joke not meant to be taken seriously. Once you begin to punish the media for humor and opinion you are infringing on freedom of speech.


2. If the first Amendment was designed to allow for the freedom of political speech, could not the call to end an administration be determined as political speech? Or is this yelling 'fire' in a crowded movie theater?

I agree that he want a bit far with his joke. It was likely found offensive by a great number of people. Joking about the killing of a man such as the president is simply uncalled for no matter what you think of the man. On the other hand, government action is quite rash for a situation like this. If we continue to let the goverment opinions, no matter how vile they may be, will only cause more and more censorship to occur.

3.Are there subjects that can not be discussed in a joking matter?
I agree there are many subjects that are simply morally wrong to discuss in joking matter. At the top of this list would be joking about someones life, let alone a world leader. This said, it is up an individual to control what they say or discuss. We cannot begin to supress thoughts just because they garner controversy.

Your observation is fine and dandy except for the fact that this boils down to something more than freedom of speech. The most powerful man on the planet has been mocked on the radio and in the mock story an instrument of death was used to further Air America's opinion in a negative fashion.

The fact that they have an opinion is American. The fact they are allowed to express their opinion is freedom of speech.

The fact they brought the president and a gun together in the same broadcast is a death threat. The fact that a death threat was made demands an investigation.


There is a saying that all good fiction has roots in good fact. Even if this is some kind of hoax it is obvious that their loyalties are not with the president and therefore there was an unfriendly motive- even if it were not a death threat it most certainly is viewed as such by the agency that manages a mans security.

Imagine if it were not on a national scale. A person I know has been issued a death threat indirectly. They find out about someone who wishes them dead because I randomly stumbled across their blog. They call the police and demand something be done to ensure they weren't in any real danger. The police find out it was just the ramblings of some over-zealous person with a grudge and not a real threat. The outcome: a person is more inclined to be able to sleep well at night.

It all boils down to a need for security; the investigation is not going to directly lead to the breakdown of freedom of speech or the press, I promise.

You have two arguments here. One seems perfectly reasonable: Threatening someone jokingly might still make the person afraid. This is dangerous humor, and can sometimes cross over the border between legal and illegal, I agree with you on that.


However, your loyalty comments are, in my opinion, far more dangerous than any humor, mockery, or joking threat against a public official. You seem to be insinuating that citizens cannot express disloyalty and unfriendly attitudes toward officials. This is censorship in its truest form: I despise Bush, I am highly unfriendly toward him, I consider him a war criminal who should be convicted and imprisoned as such, and it is my right to say it, and it would still be my right to say it if I had an audience of tens of millions. I would go over the line by stating that my audience should participate in a coup to overthrow him, if there was any chance this might be taken seriously, however. I personally think it's foolish to say something like, "I think he should be assassinated," and I would not say it.


I also see a difference between threatening a public official in a joking fashion and threatening a private person. The private person has more right to be free of that sort of humor, in part because a private person can't easily investigate the seriousness of the threat, unlike most public officials. In fact, if I were a judge, I'd suggest that the more resources a person has to investigate an issue of this sort, and the more public the figure, the less protection from obvious humor the person should have. But if the humor isn't obvious, or if the context in which the remark is made is analogous to shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, there should be repercussions. How severe, and whether criminal or civil, should depend upon the circumstances.

You've proven my point:


To have the opinion you hate him is fine. To proclaim that to the masses is fine. To make a death threat is a serious offense worthy of investigation.

The line between censorship and defense of human life is precious and is worthy of any inconvenience while trying to determine if it were indeed a prank or a real threat.

You say that the idea of an investigation is censorship in its truest form... how can it be? If a man were threatened he is certainly entitled to investigation and the party behind the threat is responsible for any violation of their rights as an American. We are allowed freedom of speech but the line between freedom of speech and a threat of death is very narrow and easy to cross. The fact you wouldn't threaten his life shows you respect the freedom of speech; the fact you wouldn't threaten his life protects you from being picked up and questioned.

VDemosthenes, Although i see were you are coming from and how you are offended by this joke, i must disagree with you. Taking this as a death threat is simply over exagerating something not meant to be taken seriously. It was a skit made by someone who disagrees with Bush to try to convey his opinion in a humorous way. Granted, I do not find a skit like this humorous, but taking it as a death threat is simply an excuse to suppress the opinions of American People. This is clearly censorship

You may disagree. Yet the opinion of an individual cannot overshadow the safety of a fellow human being. A comedy skit it may be, but the president of the United States receives more death threats from people on any given day than twenty other people. I consider it to be a bit alarming that people feel free they can threaten another person in public spectacle and hide behind the same document that is supposed to protect American life. How can people be such hypocrites as to say they support freedom of speech but hold life precious? Are both of these things not in the Declaration of Independence?

You can convey opinion in more fashionable and more tasteful ways than connecting a firearm and a global leader in the same "humorous" skit.

Yes, I agreed with part of your point. But within that reasonable point seemed to be the insinuation that it is disloyalty that should be punished. I ask you: If you were not implying this, why did you bring the issue of loyalty and dislike into your answer?


Now, as for what I would or would not say, I did not say I would want to stop someone from saying it. As long as it's not a clear and present danger situation, and as long as it's a very public figure (as opposed to a semi-public figure like a smalltown mayor), I am not against this sort of commentary, although, as I said before, the American people should not put up with commentators like Savage, Coulter, and their counterparts on the left who make these remarks. Boycotts are in order for anyone who is offended.

Arrest and prosecution are over the top in this instance, although I support the right of the secret service to do its job (within the limits of the US Constitution), in making certain that the remark was a joke, and in seeking, if they feel there is some danger it will be taken seriously and someone will attempt to carry it out, an injunction against the individual making future remarks of that nature. That is not the same as prosecuting someone for a joking remark.

Also, if there is a penalty in this instance, I think it should be a small fine against the station as well as against the speaker. However, this will have to be evenly applied. Recently, Rush Limbaugh called down a denial of service attack on a website. Ha ha. Joking. But he gloated when the site crashed. Denial of service attacks are illegal. A public admonishment and fines were in order. Coulter should have been fined, as should her publisher have been, for asking whether Clinton should be assassinated or impeached.


In other words, I am for investigating, admonishment, perhaps a civil penalty for jokes of this nature. But not criminal charges, and it must be evenly applied to opponents and supporters of the Bush regime.

You can find both items in the DoI and you don't have to be a hypocrite to support both.



I wonder how honest this statement is. If (God forbid) Coulter signed on with a syndicated radio show and made a gaff about shooting Canadian Prime Minister Chrétien for his aide's comment would you be as alarmed?

Is this a form of censorship?
I don't get this question. Is Air America off the air?

If the first Amendment was designed to allow for the freedom of political speech, could not the call to end an administration be determined as political speech? Or is this yelling 'fire' in a crowded movie theater?
I suppose a joke can be political speech. It's a bad joke, but if someone decides to shoot Bush it won't be on account of this, so the 'fire' comparison doesn't fit. I don't see it as one of the restricted forms of speech since it's the SS's job to look into "threats" as opposed to automatically shuting down businesses and charging individuals.

Are there subjects that can not be discussed in a joking matter?
IMO anything is funny in the right context, including murder, but chances are the more edgy the joke is fewer people with laugh with you.

Yes, it is, and it has been around for a while. The SS (interesting abbreviation in light of history, don't you think?) has the obligation to investigate any threats, implied or otherwise, toward the President.
Yes, it is political speech, and this in particular was designed to be political in a humorous way, with uneven results I'd say.

Think about it, though, had the subject been Arnold Schwarzenegger instead of G.W. Bush, would it have come across as threatening or real?

George W. Bush is insulated pretty well from crowds. Just check out any of the "town hall" gatherings where he has recently been promoting his Social Security "reform," er, partial privatization. Have you heard even one solitary voice of dissent from any participant in any crowd in any city? Nope. Any potential dissenters/protesters are screened out of the process. Bush is preaching to the choir at every stop Air Force One brings him to speak. This is no accident.

Yes, but I would not not consider AirAmerica's speech in that category.

We all probably know of at least one subject that would make us personally furious if someone were to ridicule or otherwise make light of it. I don't think I need to provide any examples.

Is this a form of censorship?
If the first Amendment was designed to allow for the freedom of political speech, could not the call to end an administration be determined as political speech? Or is this yelling 'fire' in a crowded movie theater?
Are there subjects that can not be discussed in a joking matter?




US Code Title 18 Chapter 41 Section 871 says the following.....



From The Secret Service website.....



So yeah, you make a comment or do something that could be interpreted as a threat against the life of the President, you're going to get a visit from the Secret Service. That's their job. An investigation is hardly "censorship", much as perhaps that pathetic attempt at radio programming that Air America is would like it to be. They could be a "victim" that way I suppose.

I happened to be listening to Rhodes when the bit was played and the following day when she apologized, plus she made quite a few challenges to right wing radio and print media types regarding their suggestions of bringing harm to President Clinton.

First off, there was nothing directly implying that shots were fired at President Bush in the pre-recorded bit. Second off, the right-wing reports of this were way over the top. Third off, there is no SS or FBI probe.

I remember when a local nut case actually went to Washington and shot at the White House due to the rantings of a local right-wing radio personality. That was when Clinton was in there. You didn't hear much response from the right wing on that one. Oh well.

Anyway, this is a non-event spun up to be something like an actual event worthy of comment. That indicates how very little the right wing spinners can dig up on the left wing personalities. I think that's more significant than the spinup.

The bit had to do about Bush's Social Security plan, by the way. It wasn't very funny due to the fact that the reality is funny enough. President Bush is living so tightly in his bubble these days, along with Congressional leadership, that if this were to be fiction, it'd be unbelievable.

I was wondering if this thing would hit AD. Well, here it is. Have fun debating something that never really happened.

You're right, the investigation itself is not censorship. But if you or I were to make threatening statements against the President in a public place, in a joking manner or not, and it was reported, we would end up being prosecuted for same and cooling our heels in prison.

That, my friend, is censorship.

Do you know of a source that will show a death threat made against Clinton through either radio or print media?

Very true. Nothing is directed, it is all implied that the shots are for Bush with such comments as "The AAARP — the American Association of Armed Retired People [sound of rifle being cocked]. Just try it, you little bastard." Pretty much the same as the 1920s when banks collected on debts owed by southern farmers. Most farmers cocked their guns and exclaimed "just try it." But there is no direct comment "I'm gonna kill the president."


Sounds like an investigation to me.

That might be why this is an issue. Inspired by rantings, which even Clinton blamed Rush for crazy militia groups and the Oklahoma City Bombing, people can act in crazy ways. Rhodes' comments could have inspired some 'nut case' to take action against Bush. Since it has happened before, what will stop it from happening again?

Let me preface my remark by saying that I was 21-years-old and a junior in college when President Kennedy was assassinated. It had a profound impact on me and took some time to get over. I don’t like jokes about threatening presidents, any president including George W. Bush, but …

There were two guests on Scarborough Country discussing this last night. The first guest thought it reflected badly on the “liberal cause,” whatever that may be.



The second guest, with whom I agree, saw it as satire. That doesn’t mean that the satire was in good taste, just that it is probably not an indictable offense.

However out of bounds Randi Rhodes may have been, one slip does not equal the vileness that has come from Rush Limbaugh (and others) for more than 15 years.

Nice try Mr. Harrison.

I suspect Scarborough and others will drag this story out until it become yet another attempt by the right at covering sensational diversionary news rather than real issues.

<snip>


This is not the first time someone has done a satire on assassination of a president. In 1971, Phillip Roth published Our Gang in which assassins got President Trick E. Dixon (a thinly veiled Richard Nixon) by sealing in a giant baggie. As I remember, Dixon complained, even as he was being suffocated, that his method of assassination was not as dignified as John F. Charisma’s (A character patterned after Kennedy).

BTW: This is a good thread with some valuable debate about freedom of speech and its limits. I am, however, mildly put off by the title: “Gunshots Fired in Bush’s Directions.” I didn’t realize until I opened the thread and started reading that it involved a joke and that nobody had actually shot at Bush. Nice National Inquirer type title yehoshua.

BoF beat me on the Watts case. This story is so overblown its not even funny (pun intended). Satire would most certainly qualify under the Watts standard and based on the commentary from the Secret Service nothing else will likely come of this.


No, Yehoshua, it sounds very much like they feel there is nothing to investigate. Which would be the truth. While I have no doubt the SS would take a threat seriously, I'm fairly certain this got written off pretty quickly.

I don't think even a glance by the SS would constitute censorship in this case. Their activities can be chilling on free speech at times but not in this instance. And yes, people should have some free reign when it comes to satirical speech. I won't defend what sketch said, as it was likely in poor taste, but that's pretty much it.

Someone asked for evidence that a rightwing pundit had suggested a President come to harm. Here it is:







If anything, this comment is more serious than the Air America comment. It flat out states that anyone who doesn't want to discuss impeachment should discuss assassination instead. Again, why wasn't Coulter prosecuted? Why didn't the media get word that stern-faced Secret Service agents had come to visit her?

If anything, this comment is more serious than the Air America comment. It flat out states that anyone who doesn't want to discuss impeachment should discuss assassination instead. Again, why wasn't Coulter prosecuted? Why didn't the media get word that stern-faced Secret Service agents had come to visit her?


ralou,

And, Coulter published the suggestion that Clinton be assassinated. Those were her words, filtered through her own editing and the editing of her publisher. There is absolutely no doubt that she favors the assassination of US presidents that don't follow her idea of what is supposed to be.

Anyone who has even a little bit of familiarity with Rhodes knows that she is non-violent. Her mission is to get Republicans into rehab and to help them stop voting against their own best interests. She apologized for the bit as being tasteless and stupid, and not funny. She refused to reair the bit for analysis, but apparently the right wing has found the analysis to be great fun. Ah well, being drunk on power is a sickness that needs rehab.

Another one that Rhodes brought up is the 1995 G. Gordon Liddy radio show where Liddy instructed his audience on how to shoot ATF agents wearing body armor. You shoot for the head. Lovely.

Let's face it, right wing radio advocates more violence than left wing radio. I've listened to both, and if anyone owes this country any apologies, they are all on the right wing side. The left wing understands when it has gone too far, and the apology is forthcoming.

Well, some think that Rhodes owes nothing to anybody because the bit wasn't advocating violence against anyone on any serious ground, whereas with Coulter and Liddy, there's serious doubt that they were just kidding. Meanwhile, Rhodes never advocates violence in her own words, kidding or not.

When the SS or FBI questions Rhodes, I'll agree that an investigation is going on. Otherwise, it's just hot air. She was broadcasting yesterday -- guess nothing has happened. Still working to rehab Republicans

Edited to add:

Just for AD's information, Alan Berg was a 1980s liberal talk show host who was machine gunned down by a wacko right wing extremist group:

Alan Berg's Assassination

So not only does liberal talk radio not advocate violence, it got the deadly attack. No right wing talk radio host has ever been gunned down, as far as I know. Conclusion? Rhodes has a lot of guts to do what she does, especially since she's broadcasting from Flordia where the law now allows people to shoot each other more easily.

A quote from fair.org without the entire context of the quote does not constitute proof, especially in a piece designed to attack Coulter rather then defend the Clinton's from an attack.

I believe you are wrong with what the quote is trying to say. Though the quote seems to be brief and entirely out of context, it implies that the discussion with regards to the Clinton's scandals should be whether we impeach or assassinate. Yes this is far worse then Rhodes little stunt to get media attention if it was written in this context. You see we have Rhodes in the entirety so we can make judgement against Rhodes, HOWEVER we do not have Coulter in her entirety. NOTE that the term "Clinton" is not even in the quote.

So let's just focus on the quote that fair.org thinks is fair. "whether to impeach or assassinate." Even by itself the quote is violent and attacking. The book was written in 1998 which would put Clinton still in office at the time, making the quote a threat against Clinton. However we are left with the same sort of laughable satire that Rhodes committed because there is no direct reference to Clinton.

And who knows, she may have been investigated for her book. But I think we need more proof then 5 words from a book of 538 pages.

I don't see a direct reference to Bush, either. That "spoiled little child" could arguably be any of 3 people. Bush, Cheney, Rove...

Yes, that's a reach, but so is your defense of Coulter in this context. Or maybe Coulter was overlooked because the "Diva of the Right" lands on the majority side of the political spectrum?



As opposed to a 15 second satirical skit within a 4 hour radio show? Again, what's the difference?

Doc

I'd have to agree with AM's comment here (and hopefully I am not confused by anyone on this board as a closet liberal ). Right-wing wackos know their market, and such talk caters to them. But lets not forget that that's all it is....talk. Why did Coulter make the statement quoted here? Was she really advocating assination? No. She was just riling up her target market. That's what talk show hosts do. Not that I'm supporting her statement, but let's treat these things (on both sides) as what they are---marketing events. Talk shows hosts say things for one reason, and one reason only...to get more people to listen. The more controversial, the better, generally. It's all a bunch of hot air, and shouldn't be taken any more seriously than that. I wouldn't want to get into a tit for tat thing here....there will be plenty of bad examples for both sides (anyone else here remember Baldwin advocating stoning Congressman Hyde on National TV during the Clinton impeachment?---I don't recall any apologizes or outrage from the left then). So, neither side has any reason to claim any moral high ground on this issue.

There has been numerous times which the line has been pretty murky- anybody remember Jesse Helms threatening Clinton? Telling him 1994 Jesse Helms, on the President's unpopularity in North Carolina: "Mr. Clinton better watch out if he comes down here. He'd better have a bodyguard."

http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/usa/jesse-helms/

That was a senator making MUCH more threatening comments towards the prez- where was the censure?

I also, though not toward the president, recall G Gordon Liddy saying "head shots, head shots, head shots" towards federal agents- no arrest his outright threatening of law enforcement officials carrying out thier legal duties, now is there?



Methinks the right doth stinketh of rank hypocrisy in this one....

There is more then three people. In fact, Rhodes was directing her satire towards anyone who wants to change social security.

Coulter was directing it towards...I don't know because the context of the quote is vague. It is in an incomplete sentence. Just because the word impeachment appears, doesn't mean it was directed at Clinton, but at any president. Could she be describing a quote? An attitude? Feelings od Democrats during Nixon's impeachment? Is the quote actually in the book? (I mean we are talking about fair.org) One thing is for sure, Coulter was not the "Diva of the Right" in 1998 when the book was released so she had no 'protection' because the "majority side of the political spectrum" was not right in 1998.

Exactly, How do we know Rhodes view on the world based upon a 15 second skit that she herself did not do? We can't. That is why the SS will investigate as thoroughly as they feel necessary. However the debate questions are about if this SS Investigation is necessary and constitutional. This has nothing to do with Rhodes or Coulter, but the SS.

And the difference was that Rhodes skit was complete in the context of the skit; the Coulter quote is not complete in the context of the quote.

I think your memory is a little short here. The Coulter book referenced was written in 1998, two years after the Clintons had compiled literally hundreds of FBI files open on their "enemies," primarily Republicans. Are you saying that the Clintons couldn't have retaliated against Coulter if they perceived some sort of threat?

Coulter is much much worse, than anything coming out of "Air America," not only has she directly threatened Bill Clinton's life, but as pointed out here:

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20020923&s=alterman



Coulter routinely crosses the line, in much more severe ways than the instance cited here. If we're going to clamor for an "investigation" for a poorly planned joke(I seriously question what exactly would be investigated), then we need to go back and seriously, seriously look at the long history of right-wing extremists establishing a precedent for this kind behavior in the period from 1992 - 2000.

And Yenoshua, a simple web search puts the quote in context:



Is she crossing the line? I think suggesting that assassination is a viable solution to the "problem" of the president, is just as bad, if not worse than your cited example of this topic. Does Coulter regret her statement? Of course not, to my knowledge, she's never retracted or apologized for anything she's ever stated publicly.

Meanwhile, we have lefties tripping over themselves to make it clear they recognized they made a mistake! Wow, imagine that from Coulter?!

I personally, don't want to be digging these examples out of the buried past. It's bad enough I get a 12 page article on Coulter in my latest issue of Time. But to suggest that some in the Right-Wing media was did not advocate violence during Clinton's tenure is... er I can't think of anything nice to say, so I won't.

*edited to remove profanity in my cited article *oops

Not short, just wrong I thought the quote was in reference to her 2002 book. Certainly her diva status wasn't in effect in 1998.


Excellent point, but the fact that they didn't also proves my point as to how baseless and unnecessary any investigation by the SS would have been even here. Additionally, I doubt the Clinton's would have wanted to give her hysterical rantings and more credit than it deserves by subjecting it to an investigation.


Every single person on this site knows exactly what Coulter is referring to. Give yourself and the rest of the members of this site a little more credit and at least fess up that this was just as bad (arguably worse since it lacked the satire of the Rhodes sketch) and just as pointless to investigate.


This is specifically addressing the "necessary" part of the debate. The SS filters out "noise" when it comes to presidential threats and that is exactly what this and Coulter's rantings amount to.

Every single person on this site knows exactly what Coulter is referring to. Give yourself and the rest of the members of this site a little more credit and at least fess up that this was just as bad (arguably worse since it lacked the satire of the Rhodes sketch) and just as pointless to investigate.

Agreed, Doc. However, one misperception is being carried through this apology thread (for both Coulter and Rhodes, although Liddy deserves no apology from anybody other than himself). This misperception is that the bit was Rhodes'. That's only true in that it aired during her show. She did not write it, produce it, edit it, or even know its content while it was aired. She does take responsibility for it though, since it was aired on her show, and freely admits that if a law was broken, she deserves the punishment -- even if it means jail time.

Was this a publicity stunt? Perhaps so, and perhaps the publicity that was targeted was that liberals take responsibility, while conservatives do not. And yes, buzz does get created as witnessed on this thread. Buzz is always good in show business, something that Rhodes never denies (that she is an entertainer, not a wonk). If buzz was the goal, then the right wing has played into the trick magnificently.

I don't think it was a trick though. Rhodes does not strike me as someone who is that cynical. She did have fun getting her audience to pad a Fox News poll about her apology. I had fun voting for her side too, as did about 6,000 listeners last I heard about it.

Heh, yeah, and then I think about how Franken's liar book got pushed to the best seller list. Maybe it was a trick . . . and it's working. More listeners for Rhodes (+1), less credibility on the right (-10). Like shooting fish in a barrel? I better watch out what imagery and allusion I use, might get a visit from the SS

I do not think she deserves an investigation for what she said.

Just a while ago, Jim Gibbons, a representative from Nevada, called liberals birken-stock wearing hippies. He also said we should have bought them tickets so they could have been human shields in Iraq. (Implying we should shoot them)

Noone went on this man's case from the media, and he is an elected official. Air America is just a radio show.

It's a given no one calls public officials on these things. Bush joked around about a dictatorship being easier, so long as he got to be the dictator. Ha ha. That's treason. If we're taking stupid cracks seriously, he should have been arrested immediately.

"You and about 6,000 listeners" is all Rhodes has. WLIB is down to a 1.2 in the latest NYC arbitrons, way back of (conservative) WOR and WABC. If liberal talk radio can't make it there, they can't make it anywhere (to coin a phrase). Look for more publicity stunts and subsequent spin pronto.

As far as Rhodes "not being cynical," she spent her first 3 months on the air going on and on about conspiracy theories about debunked myths surrounding 9/11 attacks, which seemed cynical enough to me. Thankfully, the Chicago station is back to "all salsa, all the time" so I don't have to put myself through that anymore - bad for my blood pressure