Pesky facts: Savage told one guy to get AIDS and die, not every gay person.

Pasky facts II: Savage is annoying and a blight on AM1280.

The first is, indeed, a fact.

The second is an opinion - one that I agree with wholeheartledly.

Pesky fact: AWOL and Honorable Discharge, while not mutually exclusive, in this case don't go together.

What the moonbats don't seem to get is the more the media focuses on the, apparently made-up, bash on the president, the less anyone is listening to their guy. Though, Hmmmm, that may be there strategy....

We were robbed again, the biased media devoted all of it's time to covering meaningless trivia about the president's former ANG service and our guy didn't get equal coverage! (meanwhile as an aside they're thinking "whew, at least they didn't try to nail him (Kerry) down on any issues or his plans to resolve our countries problems!")

Nice rebuttal Mitch. I love the "They have officially made themselves trivial." line. If trivial means being interviewed by the LA Times, nationally syndicated radio shows, and local TV news stations, as well as being sited my major media sources all over the country, I guess the Power Line gents are the real kings of trivia.

You don't suppose Jake is just a wee bit jealous do you?

By the way, I wholeheartedly concur with Jerry's pesky fact II.

I don't get it. What's the problem with the truck?

And if the driver was arrested, what was he charged with?

In defense of savage, he frequently is very lucid, and provides interesting POVs. About as often as Rush Limbaugh shows his humble side.

On view he brought up, that I agree, is that Israel has no ( innate ) right to exist. If they, Israel, want to continue, they need to prove it by surviving. I believe the same is true for the US, if our country deserves to survive the islamofascists, the best way to make the case is to beat back the bastards. If KEdwards decide rolling over and referring the issue to the courts is the appropriate strategy, there wouldn't be much left to save.

All these people visiting my site, but so few leaving comments so that I can respond.

First, take note that I never said that the truck was at the booth. I said that there was a petition at their booth sponsored by the very same organization that owns the truck.

I welcome any debate on the issue of gay marriage. Unfortunately most of the debate I have seen is of the same sort as this truck.

Criticize that statement if you want. I have been called "fag" or have been "damned to hell" enough to know that this issue is not for moderates.

As for Savage... I am glad to hear I am not alone in my dislike for him.

But I am sick to death of the GOP and conservatives labeling Democrats "angry", "mentally ill", "crazy", or "deranged". And I think that the MNGOP website is a good example of how this is getting out of hand.

As for Coleman being on the program... I don't think it is unfair to expect a US Senator to avoid Salem broadcasting considering they continue broadcast Michael Savage to his constituents. I have no problem with Coleman appearing on "conservative talk shows." My problem in this instance is that Coleman promised to change the tone. As long as Savage is on the line up... I can't see how that fits.

I wouldn't have any problems with Salem just broadcasting Hugh, Medved (except for his movie reviews... just terrible), or Prager. But they are making money from Savage and that infuriates me. If you think I am wrong... fine. Maybe I just have high standards, but I wouldn't want to work for a station that broadcasts that garbage 5 days a week.

As for the Bush National Guard Service... he missed a physical. He was grounded. He did not attend all the training drills he was required to. And all of this is in the records HE RELEASED! http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/040920/usnews/20guard.htm

The solution to the pesky problem #2 is the Mitch Berg Show. Seriously. I would listen. The 8-10 hour is probably the least listened to time slot on 1280. Of course they, might have to pay you........

Come on Mitch...you know you want to!

Carson, Mitch?

I still don't get it. What's offensive about the truck?

On what charge would someone be arrested for driving the truck?

MWB- Go to my page and on the posting there is a link to a story that ran in the Star Tribune. It provides more detailed information about the incident.

Elder-

Wow, you have been "interviewed by the LA Times, nationally syndicated radio shows, and local TV news stations, as well as being sited my major media sources all over the country".

And Britney Spears is one of the best selling music artists in the country...

but that doesn't mean she sing.

Carson,

My reading comprehension must be different then yours. Mitch is not saying that the truck was not at the 1280 booth, he is saying that he never saw anyone at the booth from the organization in his 4 days of observation. No one there would equal no petition signature collection.

Loren

One question floating I can answer--the truck was impounded after the driver got into an altercation with a police officer, rolling up the window on the officer's hand and injuring him.

That is cause to arrest the driver. The ad itself--moronic though it is--is not. But then again, I've always been a First Amendment absolutist.

As for Savage--he recently opined that Clinton lived through his heart problems because Hell was full. You can't defend Savage. He's another level beyond the Coulters and the Moores of the world--a man consumed with hatred. Dead air would be more persuasive than him--and more interesting.

Finally, as for interblog wars--I'm looking forward to the end of this election. I think many of us feel we need to be polarized right now. Whatever the outcome after November, we'll be able to get back to some sort of equilibrium. I hope.

Loren- If you take a look at the comment Mitch left on my post at my blog, notice that he specifically cites that the truck was no where near the booth. That comment led me to believe that Mitch is discussing the truck and the driver... not the petition. According to mnmarriage.com/events , they had a petition at the Patriot booth and were encouraging people to visit and sign.

Jeff- while I agree with most of what you said, I think that this election is important because it has forced many people who are traditionally non-political (or should I say non-confrontational?) to examine current events and critically think about how they effect their lives.

While I can't wait for the election to be over, I am worried that once it is over... most of the country will revert back to the "Why are you always talking about politics?" mentality.

OK, read the story and saw Jeff Fecke's comment, both of which help clear up the arrest part.

But why is this an obvious "gotcha"?

Carson seems to be saying, "How dare they!" How dare they...what? Display an image of two men kissing? Say that Democrats generally favor gay marriage more than Republicans?

MWB- They are equating gay marriage to just two men kissing. Instead of debating the merits of equal rights for all citizens, they are focusing on sex.

Here is one big thing about our country...

While many people are tolerant of homosexuals, they are not tolerant of homosexuals being homosexual. It is fine for them to be funny asexual caricatures on prime-time sitcoms, but not real people with real sex lives.

Even some of my best friends who love and adore me cringe when I kiss my partner... and that is why this truck infuriates me.

The truck says forget about about gay couples raising children, and forget about hospital visitation rights. Remember gay sex.

How far do you think the organization would get using a picture of two men taking their adopted daughter to a museum.

I tried to respond earlier - it apparently got eaten.

I wasn't aware of any group working the AM1280 booth. There may have been a petition. I don't see the harm in that; "objectionable to me" doesn't equal "harm".

"I welcome any debate on the issue of gay marriage. Unfortunately most of the debate I have seen is of the same sort as this truck."

Let's be honest - most of the debate on both sides is on that level. The truck was a scare tactic; so are the left's imprecations about gay marriage opponents - "they're big bad redneck bigots", "they're clogged with hate", yadda yadda.

"Criticize that statement if you want. I have been called "fag" or have been "damned to hell" enough to know that this issue is not for moderates."

Which is a problem gay marriage proponents need to address. Americans oppose gay marriage by nearly 2-1; there is no way you can call 2/3 of the American public "extremist". The moderate position *is* against gay marriage.

"But I am sick to death of the GOP and conservatives labeling Democrats "angry", "mentally ill", "crazy", or "deranged". And I think that the MNGOP website is a good example of how this is getting out of hand. "

I don't see the problem with the MNGOP site.

But since you're sick of name-calling - does that mean you repudiate MoveOn.org, Democrats.com, Democrat Underground...?

"As for Coleman being on the program... I don't think it is unfair to expect a US Senator to avoid Salem broadcasting considering they continue broadcast Michael Savage to his constituents."

That's ludicrous, and certainly selective. Even IF Savage is genuinely hateful (and although he's unlistenable, I dispute that), he's 1/8 of the station's lineup. 7/8 of the lineup is other hosts like Medved, Hewitt and Prager; in the meantime, I'm sure you have a problem with the likes of Mark Dayton appearing on Air America, which is in fact every bit as blinkered and hateful as the worst stereotypes of Savage.

" I have no problem with Coleman appearing on "conservative talk shows." My problem in this instance is that Coleman promised to change the tone. As long as Savage is on the line up... I can't see how that fits."

So are liberal politicians personally responsible for the "tone" of, say, Marc Maron? Michael Moore? Ted Rall? For avoiding even the most tangential association with any of those vile specimens? If you answer "no", there's a disconnect...

"As for the Bush National Guard Service... he missed a physical. He was grounded. He did not attend all the training drills he was required to. And all of this is in the records HE RELEASED!"

And none of it is, or was, especially unusual for an Air Guard officer assigned to an obsolete plane at the end of his hitch during a glut in pilots.

Not getting to the end of his tour in full flight status does not equal AWOL, especially given that he spent two FULL YEARS on active duty at the beginning of his hitch.

Carson-

No, I have not been in the media spotlight that I mentioned. The gents from Power Line have. I guess I have a difficult time understanding how being heavily involved in what is turning out to be a critical story in one of the most important presidential campaigns in history renders one trivial? Perhaps forging documents to damage the reputation of the POTUS is a trivial matter to you, but most of us are taking it quite seriously.

And while you are entitled to your opinion about her music, you cannot say that Britney Spears is "trivial" when it comes to her impact on the music industry. Whether you like it or not, she matters. Your analogy is without merit.

I believe that they have become trivial because Bush's National Guard service is put in question with or without the "forged" memos. There is plenty of evidence in just the documents that Bush released. http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/040920/usnews/20guard.htm

As for Britney, it doesn't matter if she made an impact or not. She made music, made money, got attention, and will eventually dissappear... and the music industry will continue on... forgetting about her and her music.

And this is how the debate about the Bush Guard record will go. Memos or no memos... Bush missed a required medical examination. Bush was grounded. Bush did not attend all his required training drills. No "forged" memo will change that.

Missing those training drills should have sent him directly to Vietnam. But it didn't. I wonder how many other Guard members were sent because the missed training drills?

You must be listening to a different Air America than myself. I would say it is quite similar to Hewitt and Medved, but far from the likes of Savage.

Also, I would repudiate democraticunderground.com if it was run by one of my states political parties, but it is not. I have searched all over the MN DFL website, unforunately I can't find any cartoons of donkeys kicking elephants or "HIT OF THE WEEKS" or "ANGRY REPUGS" photo galleries.

As for politician being responsible for the opinions of Michael Moore and the like... I can't remember him saying he hoped a political opponent would get a disease and die, but if he does... feel free to criticize any Democrats that appear in his productions.

As for the 2/3 of the public being opposed to gay marriage, 2/3 of the public don't believe that the constitution should be amended either. Most of the people in this country don't want to talk about this issue at all.

I don't believe that all who are against gay marriage are extremists. But I do believe that the organization that owns the "truth truck" is extremist.

"I believe that they have become trivial because Bush's National Guard service is put in question with or without the "forged" memos."

And I believe that, to the likes of Mr. Carson and Jeff Fecke, the President's national guard service is in question with or without any evidence at all.

Ditto the Halliburton connections, the effects of the tax cuts, the Saudi airliner and every other liberal conspiracy theory.

And if less than half of gays who want to get married aren't doing it to "stick it to..." someone - their parents, the church, Pat Robertson, the GOP - I'll kiss a girl on the side of a truck.

Hey Alison-

Sorry to inform you, but there are thousands of gay couples that have civil unions every year. That would be a marriage, without any of the legal benefits.

It has very little to do with Robertson, the GOP, parents or the church. As hard as it is for you to believe, there are same sex couples that love each other and want to spend their lives together. Sometimes that even means adopting children.

There are churches that support us and family members who love us.

But you go ahead and believe we are doing it just to piss YOU off. Cause your discomfort means that much to us. Give me a break.

Carson,

Spare us the drama. I support the idea of gay marriage. I thought it was just us baad conservative breeders that had stereotypes?

It's just that I've seen way too many gays who mock the notion of "marriage" as the straight world understands it.

Okay Allison, I will spare the dramatics and answer your valid point (although derived from stereotypes).

There are plenty of straight couples who choose to never get married as well, but so what?

I guess I don't understand where you are going. What does it matter if anyone thinks marriage is a relic of the past and chooses to "live in sin" (as you conservative breeders call it)?

I just can't understand the extreme measures people go to in order to demonstrate their opposition to gay marriage. If you haven't seen the literature that groups like MN Family Council distributes in communities with legislators that vote for pro-gay measures... you would be disgusted. It is one thing to lobby against a political opponent. It is another to distribute flyers likening politicians who support homosexuals as supporting beastiality, child molestation, etc.

Alison- sorry... one last comment...

Don't you think that ridicule aimed at marriage might have existed only due to the fact that it is a right not allowed to them.

Not sure I'll touch on every point but...

"You must be listening to a different Air America than myself. I would say it is quite similar to Hewitt and Medved, but far from the likes of Savage."

Oh. My. God.

No. Franken is probably the closest to airworthy of the bunch. The show reminds me of a liberal Soucheray; smug, all insider-stuff, preaching to a well-developed choir, dull dull dull. Lizzzz Winstead and Marc Maron regularly attack religion, conservative dissent and their opponents in a way that only the most Phelpsian anti-gay activist (to pick one constituency) would. Garofalo? Just as hateful as the WORST of Savage, without either the entertainment value or (I feel qualified to say this) the talent.

Ed Schultz? With him, it's personal.

" I have searched all over the MN DFL website, unforunately I can't find any cartoons of donkeys kicking elephants or "HIT OF THE WEEKS" or "ANGRY REPUGS" photo galleries."

That's because they got a bloody nose trying to get cute a couple of years ago, IIRC.

"As for politician being responsible for the opinions of Michael Moore and the like... I can't remember him saying he hoped a political opponent would get a disease and die, but if he does... feel free to criticize any Democrats that appear in his productions."

He lies - and lies in a way that is caustic to democracy itself. Which is his right, but he's still a fucking lying pig.

"As for the 2/3 of the public being opposed to gay marriage, 2/3 of the public don't believe that the constitution should be amended either."

And 2/3 of the population want me to nail Kate Beckinsale - but that's not the point. You said that there was no moderate position - and I"m saying that if you want to *win* this issue, ever, you'll need to pull your collective feet out of the clouds and learn one.

"Most of the people in this country don't want to talk about this issue at all."

Probably very true.

"I don't believe that all who are against gay marriage are extremists. But I do believe that the organization that owns the "truth truck" is extremist."

I doubt I'd argue with that. While I oppose gay marriage (but would give some ground on civil union), I thought the message of the truck was cheap and manipulative.

Mitch,

Of course I was joking about the "pesky fact II," but it's still good to see people can tell between fact and opinion.

re: Air America. When I heard their morning team suggest Bush knew 9/11 was going to happen and did nothing so that he and Cheney could profit, I stopped hoping for a serious discussion from the network.

I missed the boat. Did Coleman appear on Savage? If not, then why the guilt-by-association game?

Here's the connection:

1) Coleman appeared on the NARN.
2) NARN appears on AM1280
3) AM1280 broadcasts Savage
4) Savage once told an ostensibly gay heckler
to catch AIDS and die.
Ergo, Coleman hates gays. That's the guilt by association game.

I always get a kick out of gay activist's desperate attempts to disconnect their sexual habits from the discussion.

Sex is the single defining characteristic of a homosexual relationship.

Men can and do love one another, women can and do love one another but it doesn't become a homosexual relationship until a sexual act occurs.

The reason that Carson and his ilk are soooo upset with "the truck" is that it puts the issue out on the public's plate without any catchup and onions to cover the nasty flavor.

And when kids are brought into the picture all bets are off. Do what you want, but leave the kids ALONE!

Carson,

Mitch asked "are liberal politicians personally responsible for the "tone" of, say, Marc Maron? Michael Moore? Ted Rall?"

You responded "I can't remember him [Moore] saying he hoped a political opponent would get a disease and die, but if he does... feel free to criticize any Democrats that appear in his productions."

Moore's many outright, outrageous lies - which create an "atmosphere of hate" against conservatives - are one thing. But I see you dodged Ted Rall, who exudes more hate than all of talk radio put together. He's a mainstream figure.

No answer?

Cortez- You and Mitch are entitled to call into question Ted Rall and anyone else who's opinion you oppose. I am entitled to do the same. If you want to criticize media that have ties to Rall, you have every right. The same as I have every right to disagree with Coleman appearing on 1280 The Patriot. It is up to those politicians and the public to decide the merits of our arguements. We both disagree with each others opinion as to the extent of vitrial spewed by each others political parties and figures. So what? That does not make my opinion of Savage and any station that plays him less valid.

Hey swiftee-
Are you married? I only ask because if you are... is your marriage based on sex and sex alone? If so, that is kind of a sad.

Because your argument basically comes down to marriage=heterosexual sex. But many heterosexual couples don't have sex (those who are unable or those that choose). Should they not be allowed to marry? What about couples that are not able to produce children? Should they be forbidden to marry?

Your arguement is basically... gay sex is bad. But as you will notice... it is unconstitutional to ban gay sex (so says Lawrence vs. Texas). So if marriage is only about sex- and gay sex is legal- why is it illegal for gays to marry?

As for your "leave the kids alone" comment... I would ask you to do the same. Leave the children that have found loving homes with same sex couples alone. And quit trying to deny them the same protections given to the children of heterosexuals. I don't know what makes you think you are so much of a better parent than any of the same-sex parents out there. But you continue to have your hetero sex. I am sure it will make your children far superior to any I adopt in the future.

"You and Mitch are entitled to call into question Ted Rall and anyone else who's opinion you oppose. I am entitled to do the same. If you want to criticize media that have ties to Rall, you have every right. The same as I have every right to disagree with Coleman appearing on 1280 The Patriot."

My point wasn't criticizing media with ties to Rall, Moore, and the FrankenNet crew (although I do): my point is the absurdity of tarring Coleman for appearing on a program on a station that also happens to broadcast Savage, and the, er, inconsistency inherent in failing to apply the same standard to politicians of the left in dealing with the left's large, well-developed, over-funded hate media.

I believe you conservatives do well enough criticizing those on the left. You don't need my help. I certainly don't expect you to criticize your sides voices (although I was pleasantly surprised to find out I wasn't the only one to dislike Savage). Now if you can find me arguing it is unfair to criticize figures on the left, let me know. THAT would be hypocrisy.

Not trying to make you criticize the left (although it'd be fun to see more lefties break ranks on the likes of Moore, Rall, Garofalo, Maron and the like).

I *am* saying that it is myopic, mistaken and wrong to criticize Coleman for appearing on a program that has *no* organizational, financial or content connection with Michael Savage.

Going back to the truck...

Carson, it seems odd to complain on the one hand that gay couples are never portrayed as real sexual people and then to cry "cheap shot" when they are.

I would not be surprised if the group behind the truck is extreme. I just don't think the truck, by itself, makes them so.

To explain the conflict...

When straight couples were first starting to be shown kissing, the getting physically intimate with each other on television... there was a backlash. Eventually people became more and more desensitized to seeing hetero sex in public places, even though many thought it to be obscene.

Same goes for this situation. Nobody ever sees it... so they are shocked by it. 10 years down the road... I would doubt anyone would be shocked by this. But right now the public is not at that point. So I think it is sad the public acts so adversly to these types of images, when it is hetero sex is so completely rampant in public settings. But to resort to the "shock" tactics to play politics is really cheap and pathetic.

I hope that better explains my perspective.