Randi Rhodes returns to air May 11th

18 posts / 0 new

Last post

Tue, 2009-04-28 00:14

howardbeale howardbeale's picture

Randi Rhodes returns to air May 11th

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7094

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/23/randi-rhodes-to-return-to_n_190850.htm

http://www.therandirhodesshow.com/

She got in a lot of hot water over some nasty things she said about Hillary during the primary race. On the other hand, she will sit down and read a phonebook sized document like the Patriot Act or the long version of the 9/11 report, and then go on the air, with about 100 citations, and eviscerate them. When she does a research piece it's mesmerizing.

Tue, 2009-04-28 00:44

Jingles

Randi Rhodes is awful. She is an typical American liberal: she's against wars they lose.

Her objection to the Rape of Iraq was that the troops didn't have the proper equipment to "do the job".

Tue, 2009-04-28 00:58

howardbeale howardbeale's picture

That's not right. She opposed the Iraq war from the beginning. Pointing out that the Bush administration couldn't care less about the safety of their own soldiers doesn't make her a hawk. Hundreds of hours of on-air commentary by her against the war exist. I wont be so rude as to ask for a citation proving she supports the war. That would be sending you on a fool's errand, since none exists.

Tue, 2009-04-28 01:20

Jingles

She opposed the conduct of the war, not the war itself.

I once heard her comment on the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beruit. Her problem wasn't that the marines were where they had no business being, it was that the Reagan administration didn't bomb enough people in response.

Quote:
Pointing out that the Bush administration couldn't care less about the safety of their own soldiers doesn't make her a hawk.

No, it means she misses the point entirely. Who gives a flying fuck about the safety of an invading army engaged in a brutal occupation and genocide? Did she ever spare a thought for the million+ dead Iraqis?

Tue, 2009-04-28 02:33

howardbeale howardbeale's picture

Your invective is groundless.

She did show after show after show on Iraq. She spent HOURS railing against the senselessness of the war, the civilian death toll, Abu Graib, atrocities carried out by mercenaries, torture carried out on Iraqi civilians, how Iraq is the manifestation of the PFANAC agenda, how the Bush administration was utterly negligent in protecting Baghdad's museum, how they faked intelligence in the run-up to the war, how they faked connections to 9/11, and on and on . Your statement is utterly incorrect. If you ever listened to her show you would know this. To suggest that she is a supporter of the war is absurd.

Here's an interview she conducted. It takes six minutes to listen to.

http://www.uslaboragainstwar.org/article.php?id=14780

so far I've only been able to find a cached contents page of her show from Feb 2007 where she spoke at length about the Johns Hopkins study estimating Iraqi civilian casualties, as of July 2006, at over 654,000.

http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg03591.html

Tue, 2009-04-28 11:26

Jingles

I have heard her show, and she approaches everything through the prism of American exceptionalism and supremecy. In this, she is no different from any other "liberal" American voice.

Aside from that, from a listening standpoint, her style is grating, annoying, and channel switching inducing.

Mike Malloy is a far better voice, whom has a better grasp on the pathology of American imperial culture.

Tue, 2009-04-28 12:05

No Yards

I agree with Jingles that Rhodes has a hard time seeing the US military for what it is (but she is afterall ex-military, si that's to be expeted, and as USians go, she's pretty far to the left and does do an incredible amount of research on the issues.)

As for her being "grating and annoying", yes, that's true, but what Radio talk show host isn't? And I really don't know how someone could find Rhodes grating but not Malloy? (I listen and enjoy them both, and will admit that it was easier to get used to Malloy than it was Rhodes, but only because Malloy is one of those rare USians that never get's trapped by traditional "American Exceptionialism" dogma. Rhodes on the other hand is far more versed in research and logic.)

Anyway, glad to hear Rhodes is back .. it will be interesting to see if she can overcome the "Obama mystique" and refrain from kissing ass too much.

Tue, 2009-04-28 17:27

thorin_bane

hey no yard LTNS. I also use to listen to randy and she is a hawk. But she does have good research. Malloy does take some getting use to. Peter Werbe from detroit is a decent host and isn't grating. He votes green. He isn't one of the left dems, he is an independant that thinks both major parties are corrupt. Interesting is Thom Hartmann he is always talking about capitalism this and capitalism that, but is very much to the left. He just has to make sure people don't confuse him with a socialist. But that is the show where I heard Bernie Sanders. Utube him. The guy is a great senator from vermont that is an independant.

Tue, 2009-04-28 18:04

No Yards

Hi TB YIBAW ... I agree with you abou tboth Werbe, and Hartmann ... I haven't heard Werbe for a while now (probably a year) but I did enjoy his show ... Hartmann I am a regular listener, and always try to catch "Friday Bruch with Bernie". Hartmann definitly is a capitalist, but in the old fashion "John Smith" .. true capitalism, and not the phoney capitalism that is actually corportism.

My favourite though is Malloy ... his anger is so cathartic.

Tue, 2009-04-28 23:10

#10

howardbeale howardbeale's picture

And hey. I aint in perfect agreement with Rhodes either. I wish she'd hammer the dems as hard as Malloy does, rather than taking the equivalent of the Canadian Liberal copout that "anything to the left of us is suicide." Malloy will side with the dems over the GOP, but will at least present the possibility of the anarchist alternative, however remote that may seem.

Wed, 2009-04-29 00:13

#11

Jingles

At least none of them are Ed Shultz. What a tool.

Wed, 2009-04-29 05:38

#12

Unbiased

I did a lot of driving in the US last year and I sort of got addicted to American talk radio. I liked Randi.

She amused the hell out of me.

At the time, the battle was on between Hillary and Barrak and her sometimes venomous put downs of Hilary made me smile. I also agreed with her. I was terrified that Hillary might take the nomination.

And hey Jingles, Ed is kinda cool too

Wed, 2009-04-29 12:16

#13

thorin_bane

Oh you mean Ed Limbaugh...that guy gives me fits. The canadian left (no not liberal) needs to do seomthing to get some progressive (even intenet) radio. 24/7 Putting out real facts and articles from The Guardian, The Nation, anything that is progressive. etc Then have a link or player on all the progressive sites...en masse, B&R orange room(it is partisan by you know) Tyee. ...Or does this already exist?

Wed, 2009-04-29 12:23

#14

No Yards

"Ed Limbaugh" LOL ... it's true, if they were just "reading from the phone book" there would be no way to tell them apart fro their voice.

Shultz is the lefts' equivilant of Limbaugh ... loud mouthed bully that doesn't bother to do any research at all, and is more interested in being "a star" than getting to any kind of truth ... his only saving grae is that he errs (and very frequently) on the side of the left ... other than that he's an embarrasement to the left. Why MSNBC gave him his own show is beyond me.

Wed, 2009-04-29 19:42

#15

thorin_bane

His appeal is to the monster truck crowd, not that there's anything wrong with that But Randi Thom, Peter, Mike they don't really appeal to the people in the midwest or Texas. I think they see ED as kind of the answer. He sounds like rush, so they don't have to adopt to hearing something different. Just the context is changed to suit the left. His services are valuable, but putting the rest of air america by the wayside for this guy was a huge mistake for the people on the coasts.

I listned a lot to AA a few years ago, but not so much these days. Harper debunking takes up a lot my time lately. Gotta make sure people understand facts, not just spin.

Wed, 2009-04-29 23:54

#16

howardbeale howardbeale's picture

No Yards wrote:

"Ed Limbaugh" LOL ... it's true, if they were just "reading from the phone book" there would be no way to tell them apart fro their voice.

Shultz is the lefts' equivilant of Limbaugh ... loud mouthed bully that doesn't bother to do any research at all ...Why MSNBC gave him his own show is beyond me.

I think you've just shown why. He aint going to uncover anything. I dont think he'd break a scandal if he was presented with a file cabinet full of documents. It might offend a sponsor. He got his gig for the same reason W. got his: He's a not-very-bright guy who'll do what he's told because he's grateful for the work.

Thu, 2009-04-30 00:04

#17

howardbeale howardbeale's picture

thorin_bane wrote:

The canadian left (no not liberal) needs to do seomthing to get some progressive (even intenet) radio. 24/7 Putting out real facts and articles from The Guardian, The Nation, anything that is progressive. etc Then have a link or player on all the progressive sites...en masse, B&R orange room(it is partisan by you know) Tyee. ...Or does this already exist?

Dunno if it does. But it would be a good launch pad. Dont even worry about any original content at first. Be an Utne Reader of Radio. I personally listen to the most radio when I'm waking up, going to bed or in the car. I wont surf declassified documents as I'm winding down or drinking my three cups trying to wake up, but I'd sure listen if someone did it for me.

And I'd sure read a bunch of articles every day to help find content for the same.

hmmmmmmmm....

Thu, 2009-04-30 09:08

#18

No Yards

Howardbeale, I agree that Ed is exactly as you describe, but somehow having him in the line up with Olbermann & Maddow that doesn't seem to add up (My guess is they are grooming him to be a Matthews replacement ... someone with the same "cheer lead for whomever is pulling the strings at the time" mentality but can ask a question in under 20 minutes and will actually shut the hell up for a second and let guest answer ... but when Olbermann and Maddow are the ones who get the best ratings of the Shult, Mathews, Olbermann, Maddow line up, one would think they'd stick with the formula of having a real fact based host not afraid to "gore their own ox" once in a while.)

I've wondered about why there is now Canadian progressive radio as well ... while mainstream Canadian rasio is a bit more to the centre than its US equivilant, by Canadian standards all there is is right wing radio, with the odd libertarian passed off as a progressive thrown in once in a while (John Moore on CFRB for instance. He's no progressive, but that's as far as CFRB will go when it comes to providing a platform for progressive opinions.)