Maybe They Mean No
By Mitch Berg
I, along with King, Michael, Ed, Brian, Chad and John, have been doing the Northern Alliance for almost four years.
The downside? We don’t get paid (regularly, anyway – we get the occasional talent fee for appearances and such).
The upside? We don’t get paid. We don’t depend on radio for a living. Of course, none of the other guys ever actually have depended on radio for a living.
I did, for many miserable years. Radio is a funky dichotomy; doing radio in any of its many forms – music, talk, sports, whatever – is just about the most fun thing in the world. But the business itself is just about the skeeziest, most dysfunctional industry there is. The stories I could tell. In fact, I told one: I wrote this about radio, back in 2004:
The industry is a breeding ground for dysfunctional people. It’s no wonder; people usually start in the business at a very impressionable age (late teens, early twenties), when so much of one’s adult personality is formed. It’s a crappy field for people who want to have a life like everyone around them You almost never quit a job; you get fired, for every kind of reason. If you stink on the air, sure, but if your boss is replaced, you can count on the new boss bringing in a clutch of their own people; if your station is sold and the format changes, or just sold, or (these days) goes from being a live to a satellite operation, it’s back to the trades, looking for that next job. As competitive as the field is, it requires monastic dedication not only to advance, but to stay employed. And it draws that dedication – you could call it an addiction, because being on the air is truly addictive. It’s not a recipe for well-rounded human beings.
And I was one of them.
So to sum it up so far – radio is kind of a crazy, ugly, scummy business.
———-
I’ve noted it a million times; when I started in talk radio, in 1985 during the final years of the “Fairness” doctrine of passive-aggressive censorship, talk radio was a fringe player and a very different beast than it is today. After Limbaugh, talk radio went from being an also-ran aimed at bluehairs to a cash cow; when I worked for Hubbard Broadcasting, the AM station was the poor cousin, a property Hubbard tried for 10 years but failed to sell off. When I came back – in 2003, for a one-night fill-in for Bob Davis – the AM station was carrying KS95 and Channel Five, with plenty of money left over.
But for all of that, the business isn’t for everyone. And I’m not just talking about talk show hosts, here.
Some radio stations’ management are distinctly uncomfortable with the flak they take by taking a political stance (even one that is as remunerative as conservative talk). In some cases, management figures “if we can land half of the audience by pissing the other half off, just think of how many would listen to us if we pissed nobody off”. Others just don’t like conservative politics. And for others, criticism stings. For some stations (and the consultants to make a living out of telling stations to try one thing, and then another, and then another, for years and years), it’s just too much; for all that conservative talk pays them, they’re looking for an out.
And when you dip into politics, the audience always yields a bumper crop of criticism – some of it justified, some of it dimwitted and irrational.
———-
Speaking of dimwitted and irrational, some people think I didn’t “fact-check” my story the other day about the firing of Andy Barnett, the morning host at KNSI radio in Saint Cloud (although taking the unvarnished, spin-driven word of a city council candidate does qualify as a “fact”, apparently). They are wrong, as usual. It’s just that there are precious few “facts” to check.
But King Banaian – who knows many of the people involved, whether on the Barnett Show, KNSI’s management, and in Saint Cloud civic politics, knows a thing or two. And here’s the big question:
One is compelled then to ask, did KNSI change its format under duress? What are its intentions to its listeners (of which I am one)?
Duress is a real thing for people who manage small radio stations. KNSI is a tiny station – 1000 watts, high up the dial at 1450 AM. They’re duking it out for the small Saint Cloud/central Minnesota drive-through land audience with WJON, which is sort of the WCCO of Saint Cloud (and is 5000 watts at the much clearer 1240 AM frequency), a station that tries to be all things to all people and, within the context of Saint Cloud, largely succeeded for many years. It’s the sort of thing that, before 1987, would have left KNSI as radio roadkill, broadcasting polkas and community billboards and, with satellite and computer technology becoming ubiquitous and relatively reliable, have led to the station becoming – like so many smaller stations around the country, including my own alma mater – “computer in a closet” stations.
But conservative talk – Rush Limbaugh and Laura Ingraham and Joe Soucheray – have made KNSI a legitimate player and money-maker in Saint Cloud, as well as an audience. And money. Things that precious few 1000 watt stations in metro areas – and Saint Cloud qualifies – have these days.
But as King notes, KNSI’s owner – Leighton Broadcasting – has been uncomfortable with the label that goes along with the format:
- In April, Pscymeistr reported on the newspaper’s criticism of Steve Gottwalt, in which the local newspaper referred to KNSI as “KGOP.” (The article is down, as is the comment stream, but Leo has captured most of what’s written.)
- In July, state Senator Tarryl Clark stops by the station and inter alia informs talk show host Andy Barnett that she is not interviewing on his show any more because “is not comfortable doing opinion based entertainment talk shows.”
- Over the summer, according to sources, the station has been advised by a consultant, and the talk show — the only weekday local programming on the station — underwent several changes at the behest of management. When I guest-hosted on the show in October I saw the new “clock” or hourly chart you follow to know when to do sports, news, commercials, etc. It was very different from what I had seen before. “Why?” I asked Andy. He indicated this was management-inspired.
- There has been criticism of Barnett’s parodies, and those had created some criticism from mostly liberals.
Politicians throwing their weight around.
Consultants with background in the controversy-averse music radio business (i.e. – not the faintest clue about how talk radio works) trying to turn the station into a music station without the music.
The signs, according to King, were there.
Which doesn’t mean Barnett didn’t screw up…:
This should not be construed that I think the station had no right to fire Barnett. It can do what it wants as long as it’s not agreed to not censor Barnett through its contract with him; I agree with most that I do not think I would have fired someone for asking those questions (you can hear what was said by listening to this audio on Andy’s site and decide for yourself.)
Indeed, the question that sent Langjoen into her sullen tantrum was pretty standard talk radio fare; perhaps not really literally germane to a Saint Cloud City Council election, but also the kind of “litmus test” question that will matter to a large chunk of KSNI’s listening audience who – lest you’ve forgotten – come to the station largely for conservative opinion.
Stations have the right to do whatever they want with their format and staff (subject to the contracts they sign); having been fired at four different stations – never for cause, always due to the vicissitudes of management – I’m here to testify. I wish Barnett well.
The interesting remaining question; is Leighton Broadcasting losing its stomach for being a conservative lightning rod, and duking it out with intellectual thugs like Taryll Clark? Time will tell.
But it’d be a shame.
November 5th, 2007 at 11:15 am
Boy, you blast me for taking 100 words to say what could have been said in 10….
Let me summarize –
1. Talk Radio has goofballs – uh, yeah, we got that.
2. Barnett stuffed his foot in his mouth (THAT never happens with conservative talk radio I’m sure) – but hey, what conservative kook doesn’t right?
3. Some locals decided that they’d had enough and because of the pent-up frustration, despite profits, the station canned him.
4. Mitch decided to give the guy political cover for his mouth and try to, yet again, blame the OTHER guy for neo-kookeyness hate-speech leading to oh, let’s call them ‘consequences.’
Does that about sum it up? BTW, you weren’t prolific here, you were, as I often do, explaining why the situation is complex.. funny how you should be given that license, but others shouldn’t. Even funnier, is that you used it as a vehicle to explain why someone should be seen as ostensibly ‘a victim’ in the topsey-turvey world of radio – when the fact is, the guy WAS profitable and yet STILL was canned, a rarity in radio – especially now. The fact is that you have to cross the line pretty damned far, if you are profitable, as Don Imus proved beyond a doubt. Maybe the better question is, why Mitch, why do you feel the need to cover for this guy? It’s something your readership ought to ask itself when they examine your motives. Maybe it’s not very much about the viccitudes, and maybe it’s more about the fear, the fear that just like your spin of topics into hatred of everything not conservative, that such spin, on the air, will and is becoming less and less acceptable to the public at large, because it’s so destructive, so unforgiving, and for that matter unchristian (in my opinion). Maybe, just maybe, you’re trying to excusify ugly speech, ugly conduct – after all, it’s a ‘conservative audience’, so anything’s fair game, as long as it calls liberals traitors, idiots, and people who should be held in utter contempt and hated. As long as it says they’re ‘limousine liberals’, as long as it creates fictional strawmen – it’s all game. All liberal politicians are corrupt, NONE of them want anything good, and if some liberal politician takes offense at being called a criminal, and takes action, well, it THEIR FAULT, not Barnett’s, he’s not responsible for his words. It’s THEIR FAULT for speaking out against his kind of ugliness, YOUR kind of ugliness, it makes THEM intelellectual thugs.. btw, would you define that a bit, I mean, what, they used LOGIC to win an argument, or they rely on facts – intellectualism – rather than emotionalism? So you find it gauling, that someone would speak out, and actually hold you and your’s accountable (talk radio being the ‘yours’) – tough bananas, perhaps it’s your mouth (or his) that’s the problem, perhaps it’s your obsession with NOT being accountable for facts that’s the problem, not the justifiable reaction to your wilful disregard for anything that doesn’t meet your ‘vision’ of the world.
Let me give you a small example. I was at Jeff Blodgett’s house on Friday – the guy who leads Wellstone Action. Sec of State Mark Ritchie was there. Now Mark, he’s not a great public speaker, but I’ll tell you, unlike and in contrast to your BS, Mark is actually working to enable people to vote, including people who most likely, will primarily vote Republican (absentee Military voters). His key initiative at this point is working that with the Pentagon and the Governor. His position is that he wants to e-mail absentee ballots to soldiers overseas because, oh, gosh, the primary complaint of absentee voting soldiers was that their ballots didn’t arive in time under SecState Kiffmeyer (GOSH NO FREAKIN WAY, A CONSERVATIVE WAS INEPT??!!! No way???!!!!). So Ritchie, who is simply a hard-working straightforward guy, proposed this solution – they’d print out the ballots, fill them out, and mail them back. Since most soldiers (according to you and others) vote Republican, and clearly Ritchie would know this, Why would this corrupt, stupid, moronic liberal Democrat EVER do anything good, where it would help the Republicans? Answer, because he actually CARES about doing the job right, regardless of the party the voter might vote for. See, in contrast to you conservatives, you integrity, self-responsibility conservatives who blame liberals for EVERY ill, Ritchie isn’t using the SecState office for the gain of the Party as his primary motivation oh, like say Attny Gen Gonzalez did when he forced investigations of non-existent voter fraud down the throats of US Attorneys, and fired those who complained. No, Ritchie actually is trying to help soldiers. Pawlenty vetoed the bill, and frankly, unlike you, I’m going to assume that Pawlenty (whom I don’t like) had decent reasons, because you know what RITCHIE SAID HE DID. That’s right, Ritchie defended Pawlenty, in this room full of liberal democrats, and is focused on finding a reasonable solution. One other point, Mitch, there were three parts to the bill vetoed, and the third had to do with giving the minor children of soldiers (and civil servants) who are overseas, who come of age while the soldier is overseas, the right to declare themselves residents of a state – in this case Minnesota. Now MN is one of only a handful of states that don’t do this, and the Pentagon was STRONGLY backing this bill, but Pawlenty vetoed that part too. It made the Pentagon unhappy (obviously), but again Ritchie didn’t toss Pawlenty under the bus. Ritchie was TRYING to help soldiers… and wants to find a solution, working with Pawlenty, rather than, oh, I don’t know, using vile, invective laden speech to blast Pawlenty, or use his office as a pulpit for fraud (which you recently accused him and Ellison of). I wonder who should be looking to his own house for accountability here Mitch, Barnett? You? You irresponsibly accused a decent, hard-working guy of purposeful fraud – should you be held accountable?
Well, it appears not, at least in your opinion. But hey, that’s just my opinion.
And by the way, NO ONE arrived in a limousine. Not one, and way more than half were oh, white males.. gosh.. and Jeff’s house.. is a pretty standard two story in St. Paul near Como park, a nice house, that he’s put LOTS of work into, but hardly a palace.. gosh… and Jim Hightower was there, and he, didn’t take NOT ONE shot at conservatives, and took one very OBLIQUE shot at Bush – and only one – and instead focused on the fact that we need to learn to be more decent, more civil, and to work together… funny, huh?
So Mitch, should the community at large NOT hold this guy accountable for his rants when they cross the line? Or is that you feel that because it makes money, pretty much anything should be fair game, after all, it’s conservative radio, you should know what you’re getting yourself into?
If you don’t like the length of the reply…I would argue that ANY topic has more legs than 10 words, and color me stupid, I actually think you might want to someday have a civil discussion – or – at a minimum, some of your readers deserve to know that you DON’T want such, but instead want to portray liberals in as condescending a way as possible – so as to NOT have a discussion, NOT achieve a comprimise that works for everyone. No, it’s about simplistic demonizing of decent, good people, so that you can WIN, win at all costs. Lie about WMD data, lie about Mark Ritchie.
Well you know what, sometimes, those lies should be pointed out as lies – Mark Ritchie’s working his butt off for good reasons, e.g. to help soldiers vote – and just maybe sometimes, the liars should be held accountable – and if so, my reaction is ‘personal accoutability.’
November 5th, 2007 at 11:28 am
Question: What is the right number of words to make a point?
Answer: as many as it takes to do it clearly, and no more.
Boy, you blast me for taking 100 words to say what could have been said in 10….
No. I chide you for taking 1,340 words (yes, I checked – that is, by the way, exactly 45 fewer words than my original post) that meander among confusing tangents and near-stream-of-consciousness wanderings and occasional jarring changes of subject to make a point that might have been compelling, or at least worth reading, at any length – were it decipherable.
November 5th, 2007 at 11:31 am
So Mitch, should the community at large NOT hold this guy accountable for his rants when they cross the line?
Just curious – what was his “rant”?
Or is that you feel that because it makes money, pretty much anything should be fair game, after all, it’s conservative radio, you should know what you’re getting yourself into?
Yet another statement based on “facts” nowhere in evidence.
Irrelevant!
November 5th, 2007 at 11:33 am
but instead want to portray liberals in as condescending a way as possible – so as to NOT have a discussion
Wrong!
NOT achieve a comprimise that works for everyone.
The purpose of this blog is NOT to “achieve a comprimise (sic)” at all. To the extent that this blog has a (political) purpose, it is to try to push the inevitable compromise as far to the side of freedom, liberty and sanity as is in my power to accomplish. The compromise will not be made here; but when and where it is, it’ll be as a result of people acting upon all of the voices that are pushing the debate. I’m merely one of them.
You seem to have a problem understanding that.
November 5th, 2007 at 11:40 am
Boy, you blast me for taking 100 words to say what could have been said in 10….
Again – I write about WHAT I want, HOW I want to. If people don’t like what OR how I write something, there are about 10,000,000 other blogs to read. Everyone is free to avail themself of them.
2,000 people a day read this one, and most of ’em seem to like it just fine. Take it up with them.
November 5th, 2007 at 11:52 am
Honest to God, Peev. . . GET HELP. You’re sick. Seriously. Bona-fide, OCD. You’ve gone from slightly annoying to deeply disturbing. Check yourself, man. Good Lord.
November 5th, 2007 at 12:49 pm
And by the way, NO ONE arrived in a limousine. Not one, and way more than half were oh, white males.. gosh.. and Jeff’s house.. is a pretty standard two story in St. Paul near Como park, a nice house, that he’s put LOTS of work into, but hardly a palace.. gosh… and Jim Hightower was there, and he, didn’t take NOT ONE shot at conservatives, and took one very OBLIQUE shot at Bush – and only one – and instead focused on the fact that we need to learn to be more decent, more civil, and to work together… funny, huh?
No.
Irrelevant and boring!
November 5th, 2007 at 12:51 pm
Pawlenty vetoed that part too…Ritchie didn’t toss Pawlenty under the bus.
Do you have the number of that bill?
Because I suspect you’re talking about an omnibus bill; that knowledge would help the casual observer judge exactly what this story means.
November 5th, 2007 at 1:31 pm
“So Mitch, should the community at large NOT hold this guy accountable for his rants when they cross the line?”
Just curious – what was his “rant”?
I suspect peev thinks that any time anyone who is not on the payroll of (and/or blathering the boilerplate and talking points of) the DNC, MoveOn.org or other leftist organizations opens their mouth, that qualifies as a “rant”
2. Barnett stuffed his foot in his mouth (THAT never happens with conservative talk radio I’m sure) – but hey, what conservative kook doesn’t right?
“Stuffing his foot in his mouth” apparently equals “asking a POLITICIAN (you know, public figures who get paid BY TAX DOLLARS COLLECTED AT GUNPOINT to work towards furthering the agenda that supports their opinions) about a controversial opinion that person might hold? Oh the shame!
Oh that poor little donkeycrat Terryll Clark. Go bawling home to Mommy and QUIT WHINING
Be careful where you swing those blinders that are plasma welded to your temples, peev. You might knock someone unconscious.
November 5th, 2007 at 4:00 pm
Wow, the whole droogs gallery. You let Peevish comment, and you link back to Eva the obese delusional pig.
Big day!
November 5th, 2007 at 6:15 pm
Funny:
“Boy, you blast me for taking 100 words to say what could have been said in 10….”
and the “blah blah blah” for another more than 1300 words.
I just scanned it and said “mostly off topic”, and the “on topic or close” part was stuffed into one huge paragraph. Not even remotely interested in reading it. You really should not insult the writing of other people, peevish.
November 5th, 2007 at 8:11 pm
Peev’s comment, if he posted it using IM-
BOY U BLAST ME FOR TAKNG 10 WORDS 2 SAY WUT CUD HAEV B3N SADE IN 10…
L3T!!1!11!! OMG LOL ME SUMARIEZ –
1!1111!!1 WTF TOK RADIO HAS GOFBALS – UH YEAH WE GOT TAHT
2!!1111 OMG LOL BARNAT STUF3D HIS FOT IN HIS MOUTH (TAHT NAVER HAP3NS WIT CONSARVATIEV TOK RADIO I’M SUR3) – BUT HEY WUT CONS3RVATIEV KOK DOESN’T RIGHT
3?!?!!?! OMG WTF SOM3 LOCALS DACIEDD TAHT THEY’D HAD ENOUGH AND B/C OF DA PANT-UP FRUSTRATION DASPIET PROFITS DA STATION CAN3D HIM
4!111!!1 OMG MITCH D3CIEDD 2 GIEV DA GUY POLITICAL COVER FOR HIS MOUTH AND TRY 2 YET AGANE BLMA DA OTHAR GUY FOR N3O-KOKAYNAS HAET-SPECH L3ADNG 2 O LET’S CAL THAM ‘CONSEQUENCAS’
DOES!11!11! WTF TAHT ABOUT SUM IT UP?!?!??! OMG LOL BTW U WEREN’T PROLIFIC HARA U WERE AS I OFTEN DO EXPLANENG Y TEH SITUATION SI COMPLEX.!!11!111!11 OMG WTF FUNY HOW U SHUD B GIEVN TAHT LIECNSA BUT OTHERS SHUDN’T!!!1!1! OMG WTF 3VAN FUNEIR SI TAHT U UESD IT AS A V3HICL3 2 AXPLANE Y SOM3ON3 SHUD B SEN AS OST3NSIBLEY ‘A VICTIM’ IN DA 2PSEY-TURVEY WORLD OF RADIO – WH3N DA FACT IS TEH GUY WAS PROFITABLE AND YET STIL WAS CAN3D A RARITY IN RADIO – ESPECIALY NOW!!1!111 WTF LOL TEH FACT SI TAHT U HAEV 2 CROS TEH LIEN PRETY DMNAD FAR IF U R PROFITABLA AS DON IMUS PROV3D BYOND A DOUBT!11!!!11! LOL MAYB DA BT3R QU3STION IS Y MITCH Y DO U FEL TEH NED 2 COVAR FOR THES GUY?!?!??!? IT’S SOMETHNG UR R3AEDRSHIP OUGHT 2 ASK ITSELF WHEN THEY EXMIEN UR MOTIEVS!!11!!11! WTF LOL MAYB IT’S NOT VERY MUCH ABOUT TEH VICITUD3S AND MAYB IT’S MORA ABOUT DA FAAR TEH FEAR TAHT JUST LIEK UR SPIN OF 2PIS IN2 HATR3D OF EV3RYTHNG NOT CONSERVATIEV TAHT SUCH SPIN ON DA ARE WIL AND SI BCOMNG LAS AND LAS ACAPTABLE 2 DA PUBLIC AT LARGE B/C IT’S SO DESTRUCTIEV SO UNFORGIVNG AND FOR TAHT MATER UNCHRISTIAN (IN MAH OPINION)!1!!!!11! OMG WTF LOL MAYB JUST MAYB U TRYNG 2 AXCUSIFY UGLEY SPECH UGLEY CONDUCT – AFTER AL IT’S A ‘CONS3RVATIEV AUDEINCE’ SO ANYTHNG’S FARE GME AS LONG AS IT CALS LIEBRALS TRATEORS IDIOTS AND P3OPLA WHO SHUD B HELD IN UT3R CONT3MPT AND HAETD!111! OMG LOL AS LONG AS IT SAYS THEY’R3 ‘LIMOSIEN LIEBRALS’ AS LONG AS IT CREAETS FICTIONAL STRAWM3N – IT’S AL GME!111!!!! OMG WTF LOL AL LIEBRAL POLITICIANS R CORUPT NON3 OF THAM WANT ANYTHNG GOD AND IF SOM3 LIEBRAL POLITICIAN TAEKS OFENSE AT BNG CALED A CRIMINAL AND TAEKS ACTION WEL IT THERE FAULT NOT BARNAT’S HE’S NOT RESPONSIBL3 FOR HIS WORDS!11!11!1 IT’S THEYRE FAULT FOR SPAAKNG OUT AGANEST HIS KIND OF UGLIENS UR KIND OF UGLIENS IT MAEKS TH3M INT3LELACTUAL THUGS.!1!!!11!!!11!!! OMG LOL BTW WUD U D3FIEN TAHT A BIT I MEAN WUT THAY UESD LOGIC 2 WIN AN ARGUM3NT OR TH3Y RELEY ON FACTS – INT3L3CTUALISM – RATHER THAN 3MOTIONALISM?!!!!!! SO U FIND IT GAULNG TAHT SOM3ONE WUD SPAAK OUT AND ACTUALY HOLD U AND U ACOUNTABL3 (TOK RADIO BNG DA U – 2UGH BANANAS PERHAPS IT’S UR MOUTH (OR HIS) TAHT’S DA PROBLEM PERHAPS IT’S UR OBSESION WIT NOT BNG ACOUNTABL3 FOR FACTS TAHT’S DA PROBL3M NOT TEH JUSTIFIABLE RAACTION 2 UR WILFUL DISR3GARD FOR ANYTHNG TAHT DOESN’T MET UR ‘VISION’ OF DA WORLD
L3T!1!1! OMG WTF ME GIEV U A SMAL EXMPL3!!1!! OMG LOL I WAS AT JEF BLODGET’S HOUES ON FRIDAY – DA GUY WHO LEADS W3LS2N3 ACTION!11111 WTF SAC OF STAET MARK RITCHEI WAS THAR3!111!!1!1 LOL NOW MARK HA’S NOT A GRAAT PUBLIC SP3AEKR BUT I’L T3L U UNLIEK AND IN CONTRAST 2 UR BS MARK SI ACTUALY WORKNG 2 ANABLE P3OPLA 2 VOTE INCLUDNG PEOPLE WHO MOST LIEKLEY WIL PRIMARILEY VOT3 R3PUBLICAN (ABSANTE MILITARY VOT3RS)!11!!! LOL HIS KEY INITIATIEV AT THES POINT SI WORKNG TAHT WIT TEH PENTAGON AND TEH GOVERNOR!!!1!!1!1 OMG HIS POSITION SI TAHT H3 WANTS 2 3-MALE ABS3NTE BALOTS 2 SOLDEIRS OVARS3AS B/C O GOSH DA PRIMARY COMPLANET OF ABS3NTE VOTNG SOLDEIRS WAS TAHT THERE BALOTS DIDN’T ARIEV IN TIEM UNDER S3STAET KIFMEYER (GOSH NO FREAKIN WAY A CONS3RVATIEV WAS IENPT?!?!??!??!?!1!!!!!!!1!11!111!! NO WAY?!!)?!!!???????????!???11!!1!!!11!11!!111!!!!!1111 LOL SO RITCHEI WHO SI SIMPLEY A HARD-WORKNG STRAGEHTFORWARD GUY PROPOSED THES SOLUTION – THEY’D PRINT OUT DA BALOTS FIL THEM OUT AND MALE TH3M BAK!!!!! LOL SINC3 MOST SOLDEIRS (ACORDNG 2 U AND OTHERS) VOTE R3PUBLICAN AND CLEARLEY RITCHEI WUD KNOW THIS Y WUD THES CORUPT STUPID MORONIC LIEBRAL DAMOCRAT EVER DO ANYTHNG GOD WH3RE IT WUD HALP DA R3PUBLICANS????!? LOL ANSWAR B/C HE ACTUALY CAERS ABOUT DONG DA JOB RIGHT REGARDLES OF DA PARTY DA VOTER MIGHT VOTE FOR!11!!1 OMG WTF LOL SE IN CONTRAST 2 U CONSERVATIEVS U INT3GRITY SELF-RESPONSIBILITY CONSARVATIEVS WHO BLME LIEBRALS FOR EVARY IL RITCHEI ISN’T USNG TEH SESTAET OFIEC FOR DA GANE OF DA PARTY AS HIS PRIMARY MOTIVATION O LIEK SAY ATNY GEN GONZAELZ DID WHAN HE FORCED INVESTIGATIONS OF NON-3XISTENT VOT3R FRAUD DOWN TEH THROATS OF US ATORN3YS AND FIERD THOSA WHO COMPLANEED!111!1!11 OMG NO RITCHEI ACTUALY SI TRYNG 2 HALP SOLDEIRS!!1!11 LOL PAWLENTY VE2ED TEH BIL AND FRANKLEY UNLIEK U I’M GONG 2 ASUM3 TAHT PAWL3NTY (WHOM I DON’T LIEK) HAD D3CANT R3ASONS B/C U KNOW WUT RITCHEI SADE H3 DID!1!1!11!! OMG TAHT’S RIGHT RITCHEI D3FEND3D PAWLENTY IN THES ROM FUL OF LIEBRAL DEMOCRATS AND SI FOCUESD ON FINDNG A REASONABL3 SOLUTION!1!1!111 WTF ON3 OTHAR POINT MITCH THEYRE W3RA THRE PARTS 2 TEH BIL VE2AD AND DA THIRD HAD 2 DO WIT GIVNG DA MINOR CHILDRAN OF SOLDEIRS (AND CIVIL SARVANTS) WHO R OVARS3AS WHO COME OF AEG WHIEL DA SOLDEIR SI OVERSAAS DA RIGHT 2 R TH3MS3LVES R3SIEDNTS OF A STAET – IN THES CAES MINASOTA!!1!1!!11 WTF NOW MN SI ONA OF ONLEY A HANDFUL OF STAETS TAHT DON’T DO THIS AND TEH P3NTAGON WAS STRONGLEY BAKNG THES BIL BUT PAWLANTY V32AD TAHT PART 2!!!1!!111 WTF IT MAED TEH PANTAGON UNHAPY (OBVIOSLY) BUT AGANE RITCHEI DIDN’T 2S PAWL3NTY UNDER TEH BUS!!!!1!1 OMG WTF RITCHEI WAS TRYNG 2 H3LP SOLDEIRS… AND WANTS 2 FIND A SOLUTION WORKNG WIT PAWLENTY RATHAR THAN O I DON’T KNOW USNG VIEL INV3CTIEV LAEDN SPECH 2 BLAST PAWLENTY OR UES HIS OFIEC AS A PULPIT FOR FRAUD (WHICH U R3CENTLEY ACUESD HIM AND ELISON OF)!11!!1! OMG LOL I WONDER WHO SHUD B LOKNG 2 HIS OWN HOUES FOR ACOUNTABILITY HERE MITCH BARNAT??!?!!?!? OMG WTF U??!!?!!!! OMG U IRASPONSIBLEY ACUESD A D3C3NT HARD-WORKNG GUY OF PURPOSEFUL FRAUD – SHUD U B HELD ACOUNTABL3
WEL?!!????! OMG WTF IT APAARS NOT AT L3AST IN UR OPINION!!!!!11! OMG WTF LOL BUT HAY TAHT’S JUST MAH OPINION
AND!!!11!!! WTF LOL BY DA WAY NO ONE ARIEVD IN A LIMOSIEN!!111!1! OMG WTF NOT ON3 AND WAY MORE THAN HALF WARE O WHIET MAELS.!1!11!!1111! OMG WTF GOSH.!1!111!11!1 OMG WTF LOL AND JAF’S HOUES.!111!!!1!1! OMG WTF LOL SI A PRETY STANDARD TWO S2RY IN ST!!11!! LOL PAUL NEAR COMO PARK A NIEC HOUES TAHT HE’S PUT LOTS OF WORK IN2 BUT HARDLEY A PALAEC.!!!!1!11!!!1!!11 OMG GOSH… AND JIM HIGH2WER WAS THERA AND HE DIDN’T TAEK NOT ON3 SHOT AT CONSERVATIEVS AND 2K ONE VERY OBLIQU3 SHOT AT BUSH – AND ONLEY ONE – AND INSTAAD FOCUESD ON DA FACT TAHT WE NED 2 L3ARN 2 B MOR3 DEC3NT MOR3 CIVIL AND 2 WORK 2GATH3R… FUNY HUH
SO?!?!???! MITCH SHUD DA COMUNITY AT LARGA NOT HOLD THES GUY ACOUNTABL3 FOR HIS RANTS WHAN TH3Y CROS DA LIEN??!!?!??! OR SI TAHT U FEL TAHT B/C IT MAEKS MONEY PRETY MUCH ANYTHNG SHUD B FARE GMA AFTAR AL IT’S CONSERVATIEV RADIO U SHUD KNOW WUT U GETNG U IN2
IF??!?!? U DON’T LIEK TEH LANGTH OF DA REPLY…I WUD ARGUE TAHT ANY 2PIC HAS MORA LEGS THAN 10 WORDS AND COLOR M3 STUPID I ACTUALY THINK U MIGHT WANT 2 SOM3DAY HAEV A CIVIL DISCUSION – OR – AT A MINIMUM SOME OF UR RAAEDRS DASARV3 2 KNOW TAHT U DON’T WANT SUCH BUT INST3AD WANT 2 PORTRAY LIEBRALS IN AS CONDESCENDNG A WAY AS POSIBLA – SO AS 2 NOT HAEV A DISCUSION NOT ACHEIV3 A COMPRIMIES TAHT WORKS FOR AVERYONA!1!!! WTF LOL NO IT’S ABOUT SIMPLISTIC DEMONIZNG OF DECANT GOD P3OPLE SO TAHT U CAN WIN WIN AT AL COSTS!!1!11 WTF LEI ABOUT WMD DATA LEI ABOUT MARK RITCHEI
WEL!111!1 OMG WTF LOL U KNOW WUT SOMATIEMS THOSA LEIS SHUD B POINTED OUT AS LEIS – MARK RITCHEI’S WORKNG HIS BUT OF FOR GOD R3ASONS EG!1111!1! LOL 2 H3LP SOLDEIRS VOT3 – AND JUST MAYB SOMETIEMS DA LIARS SHUD B H3LD ACOUNTABL3 – AND IF SO MAH RAACTION SI ‘PERSONAL ACOUTABILITY’!1!1! LOL
November 6th, 2007 at 1:57 am
Terry, Posting PB’s comment that way increases the probability it’ll be read by 1100%!
Of course, 0*1100% is still 0.
November 6th, 2007 at 3:56 am
You mean !!00%! LOL OMG