Randi Rhodes: IS she going to rant all day on this one topic?

[indianablue]

[Darknyte7]

1. I hope so... eom

[indianablue]

2. Why?

The GOP is bent on carving up Social Security and all she can talk about is this smear?

[Darknyte7]

4. In the words of Tony Kornheiser...

There are two great things about having your own radio show:
Getting good tables at restaurants, and being able to hurt your enemies.

What she's talking about today is important.

[LSparkle]

3. I am sick of it

She's showing too much self-centeredness ... kinda reminds me of The Three-Hour Hatemonger (oops, sorry!). Considering SOTU is tonight, she ought to be concentrating more on that, or even the Gannon story.

[indianablue]

6. I agree..yes its a smear but what does she expect.

Social Security, Iraq and all the other crap on the table and all she is doing is ranting about something in my opinion is not that big of deal. People are going to believe whatever they want to no need to go non and on about this.

[tridim]

15. She's on for 20 hours a week

She has time to talk about this smear job.. Especially since it implicates several Dem Senators as well. It's a perfect way to keep the Armstrong Williams story in the forefront.

Honestly, I'm glad she's not talking about the SOTU now. Everyone already knows it's going to be a big load of BS. What else is there to say?

[NewInNewJ.]

5. I missed it.

Who smeared her about what?

[indianablue]

7. The GOP lovers say she is a paid pundit for the Dem's.

[NewInNewJ.]

8. Oh thanks.

She better get over it, the more popular she gets the worse they are going to do to her.

[LSparkle]

9. "Methinks she doth protesteth (sp?) too much"

She ought to just dismiss this as a politically-motivated lie and move on; the more she goes on and on about it, the more she keeps the whole topic alive.

[Darknyte7]

10. She upset about this article on Newsmax from the other day.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/1/29/125846.shtml

[NewInNewJ.]

12. To me

there is a big difference, we the taxpayers were the ones paying Armstrong Williams, Gallager and the other guy. So what if the Dems. started this station. Am I being to closed minded about this?

[Darknyte7]

16. And that is part of Randi's point...

What this clown wrote about Randi is damn near to libelous.

[DURHAM D]

18. No, you are not closed minded but you are apparently unaware

that you have only gotten half of the problem. Williams was paid with taxpaper money (big wrong) but AAR was not started by dems. She is angry about false reporting on both issues, apparently with obvious reason since you are probably a dem and missed the second point.

[unpossibles]

13. isn't it different though?

setting up a station versus paying to have a specific agenda pushed and pretending it is news?

by the way, the ads on that site are hilarious!





sad, sad, sad.... it's all how to fight, how to pick up women and how to make money... I guess they figure if someone is a sucker enough to read their garbage, maybe they're dumb enough to fall for the ads.

[SHRED]

11. She also wondered(the other day)

Why Ed Schultz is so mean. Boo hoo.

She should stick with the big topics to educate the casual listener. Her personal shit is boring.

[bigtree]

14. The point is that conservatives want to distract from their prez's scandal

by insinuating that Dem's do it also. She is hammering home the point that the White House and their minions are engaging in illegal acts by paying for propaganda while the enterprises that Liberal radio are operating are perfectly legal and proper.

I like it when she challenges her critics to get their own highly listened to show and operate it for as long as she has and then criticize how she runs hers.

[0rganism]

17. Ed Schultz is covering Social Security today

although I suspect Randi will be hitting it pretty hard too, after the SOTU