Idiots on the Airwaves

I wish there were a nicer way to put it, but I think Idiot is the most exact.
I love to listen to talk radio. I listen for different reasons. First, for entertainment, and second, in hopes of hearing someone discussing something educational or of great interest to me. Naturally, I enjoy political discussions and am grateful that we still have some small trace of our first amendment rights, so we can hear opinions from all points of the political spectrum.
lately, it has gotten very difficult to find a station with anyone willing to speak out against the current administration or to even hint at how our basic rights are being trampled. Some of the biggest puppets (or members of the Bush kiss-ass club) out there that I have heard are Rush, O'Reilly, Hannity, and Ingram. Some of the more amusing and more educated include Savage, Drudge, and Boortz, with Boortz being my favorite syndicated host. One of the most annoying hosts to me however, is Michael Medved. I have a difficult time even listening to him, but every now and then, I tune in when no other talk shows are available.

Of course, the hosts aren't the only idiots on the airways. Some of the callers are as bad or worse. I often wonder if some of the chronic callers have any idea how bad their calls sound to the average listener. In Utah where I live, we have some callers whose thinking is so mixed up that you almost feel sorry for them. For those of you who are regular callers or who are considering calling in or appearing as a guest on a talk show, I'd like to provide the following suggestions.

1. KNOW the subject that you are discussing. This may sound obvious, but I am always surprised at the number of people who call in and have no facts about what they are discussing.
2. Know what you are calling to say. Write down your key points before you call the station.
3. Speak clearly and directly. Don't ramble. Keep a smile on your face. Try to use humor, but do so subtly...don't force it.
4. Unless you have permission or authority to represent a group, or organization, clarify that you are only giving YOUR opinion and this is NOT the official position of the group your host may have linked you to in your introduction.
5. Allow the host to complete their questions without interrupting them. Then, pause before answering to consider if they have set a trap to make you look like a fool. If they have, simply state that you are not sure that the question is relevant or if you can answer such a question. If the host continues to try to make you look like an idiot, let him know that you are not interested in continuing the call and excuse yourself. A good host can make you look like an idiot if that is his goal, so be careful who you accept invitations from.

Below is a link from a fellow who was bragging about how well he did on his recent interview on The Michael Medved Show. I listened to the show in utter disbelief. I could not comprehend how he could actually believe that the interview had gone well. Following are several of our email exchanges.
_____
"The libertarian lawyer Rex Curry trounced Michael Medved on nationwide radio
Tuesday. Here is some audio http://rexcurry.net/RexCurry.mp3 "

_____
Rex,
I commend you and any Libertarian who can stomach Medved enough to speak to him for an hour.
However, after listening to the entire torturous hour, I fail to see where you "trounced" him. It appeared to me that he had you on the program for the sole purpose of furthering his argument that Libertarians are kooks. What's more is that Medved and his callers seemed to be mocking you and went away with the understanding that your "pledge of allegiance" cause is the cause of all Libertarians. They didn't sound to me as thought they thought that you were "trouncing" Medved either. You seemed to willingly step into every trap he set for you. Your appearance seemed to me to be nothing more that an opportunity for you to get as many free plugs for your website as possible in 60 minutes. It seemed to me that you did not do well at answering callers questions and in my opinion, it didn't sound to me like you changed a single listeners mind about the "pledge".

Sorry, but I fail see how you can consider that interview as a success. How could you actually believe that Medved's closing statement was indicative a successful interview? Thanks to you, a million conservative listeners heard one of their favorite talk show hosts end his nationally syndicated radio program with the words: "Rex Kerry I appreciate your coming on the show; You have performed a great public service in helping to illustrate to people just how marginal, pathetic, and truly disgraceful the Libertarian Party has become."

Rex, next time you want to promote the philosophy of the Libertarian Party, you might want to reconsider. As state chair of the LP Utah, I can honestly say that I would have preferred that you didn't mention your political affiliation.

Anyone Libertarian who is invited on Medved's program can rest assured that if Medved thinks that there is any possible chance that he can NOT make you look like a kook, a wacko, or a lunatic, that there is NO chance of you getting on his program.

Fran

______________
Thanks for your comments Fran, I would be happy to meet with you and Utah
libertarians in person in late March in Utah in Park City. More comments
are below.

>Here is audio of me trouncing Michael Medved for an hour on nationwide
radio (Tuesday)- http://rexcurry.net/RexCurry.mp3

Rex,
>I commend you and any Libertarian who can stomach Medved enough to
>speak to him for an hour.

You got that part right. thanks.

>However, after listening to the entire torturous hour, I fail to see
>where you "trounced" him.

Have you ever done talk radio? I trounced him. Oh, and I LOVED IT. It was
cathartic, too. He said what I expected him to say pretty much, and I said
what I had intended to say in response. In that sense, there weren't a lot
of surprises.

Of course, you could call his show 1-800-955-1776 and "correct all my
errors" and show us how libertarianism is properly explicated. Try to
actually mention that you want to end government schools, as I did
repeatedly, as that is the actual position of libertarianism and it is the
real issue when discussing the pledge. Heck, if you say what you said here,
he might have you on for a whole show. Try not to leave him and his
listeners with the impression that libertarians are the same as he and his
listeners and support government schools, want to perpetuate the social
security scam and expand it to nationalize the entire economy and they
support a government that is twice as socialistic as was Clinton's (in
social spending alone). Otherwise Libertarians might attract so many
republican-socialists and democrat-socialists that we could actually elect a
president who would outspend Clinton by double while we pretend that we hate
government.

>It appeared to me that he had you on the program for the
>sole purpose of furthering his argument that Libertarians are kooks.

No sh$t? (that's facetious) remember your comment if you ever do a similar
interview.

>What's more is that Medved and his callers seemed to be mocking you

Yes, that is why I mocked back.

> and went away
>with the understanding that your "pledge of allegiance" cause is the
>cause of all Libertarians.

It certainly should be, and of course the bigger point that he (and you?)
disagree with or miss: ending government schools (is that not a cause of all
libertarians, but the pledge is?). And remember that I made it perfectly
clear that the actual position and solution was ending government
involvement in education. You haven't mentioned that trouncing part.

> They didn't sound to me as thought they thought that
>you were "trouncing" Medved either.

No kidding? And is that because they like the pledge, like government
schools, want to perpetuate the social security scam and expand it to
nationalize the entire economy and they support a government that is twice
as socialistic as was Clinton (in social spending alone)?
Oh, they did think I was trouncing Medved and that is why they called in to
be cheerleaders for socialism.

>You seemed to willingly step into every trap he set for you. Your
>appearance seemed to me to be nothing more that an opportunity for you
>to get as many free plugs for your website as possible in 60 minutes.

BINGO. As a libertarian, when you talk to any twit like Medved, you are not
doing a good job if he doesn't tell you to stop mentioning your website.
Now you are starting to understand one of the things you do with
republican-socialists and democrat-socialists in the process of trouncing
them. You apparently do not understand that.

>It seemed to me that you did not do well at answering callers questions
>and in my opinion, it didn't sound to me like you changed a single
>listeners mind about the "pledge".

Again, you sort of give yourself away by showing that you miss the point
yourself: ending government schools. It is clear that you would NEVER have
even mentioned the ultimate proper, ethical (libertarian) position if you
had done the show.

>Sorry, but I fail see how you can consider that interview as a success.

I am very sorry that I can not consider your comments a success for liberty.
You haven't mentioned the actual libertarian position yet.

> How could you actually believe that Medved's closing statement was
> indicative a
>successful interview? Thanks to you, a million conservative listeners heard
>one of their favorite talk show hosts end his nationally syndicated radio
>program with the words: "Rex Kerry I appreciate your coming on the show;
>You
>have performed a great public service in helping to illustrate to people
>just how marginal, pathetic, and truly disgraceful the Libertarian Party
>has
>become."

You completely miss the point. Medved doesn't like libertarians. See the
Libertarian Medved Response Team http://www.exordia.net/medvedrt/

Because of his past his callers are not libertarians and they share his
hatred of libertarianism. I do not control what he says at the end. He has
"off" buttons. What in the world do you think he should have said for you
at the end of the interview and how much more would you have SOLD OUT
liberty in order for you to have acheived what you would consider pleasant
comments from Medved at the close? You have already shown that you would
never have even mentioned the REAL ethical proper (libertarian) point of the
whole issue. How much worse would you have been? would you have left his
listeners believing that libertarians are actually socialists just like he
and his listeners are who like government schools, want to perpetuate the
social security scam and expand it to nationalize the entire economy and
they support a government that is twice as socialistic as was Clinton (in
social spending alone)?

>Rex, next time you want to promote the philosophy of the Libertarian
>Party, you might want to reconsider. As state chair of the LP Utah, I
>can honestly say that I would have preferred that you didn't mention
>your political affiliation.

Fran, next time you want to promote the philosophy of the Libertarian Party, you might want to reconsider. As state chair of the LP Utah, you never even
mentioned the proper ethical (libertarian) position on the topic. I can
honestly say that I would prefer that you didn't mention your political
affiliation.

>Anyone Libertarian who is invited on Medved's program can rest assured
>that if Medved thinks that there is any possible chance that he can NOT
>make you look like a kook, a wacko, or a lunatic, that there is NO
>chance of you getting on his program.

And you demonstrate that you will apparently never be on his show and that
if you ever are on it will be because you will never mention the actual
libertarian position on anything, and that you will compromise and bend over
so much that he will love you and his listeners will believe that
libertarians
are actually socialists just like he and his listeners are, and that
libertarians support government schools, love pledging allegiance in
government schools, and want to perpetuate the social security scam and
expand it to nationalize the entire economy and they support a government
that is twice as socialistic as was Clinton (in social spending alone)? And
eventually the party would attract so many republican-socialists and
democrat-socialists that we could actually elect a president who would
outspend Clinton by double while we pretend that we were libertarians who
hate government.

And every "conservative" who listened did not think the way you do. I was
talking to THEM. I hear from people like that all the time. That is why I
have a website. And the "interview" as it were, is not over yet either. It
was a vehicle for further action.

Including my offer to meet with you and Utah libertarians in person in late
March. I can talk about the pledge or whatever you wish.

_______________

>Rex droned:
>Have you ever done talk radio? I trounced him.

Yes, I have done talk radio. I was a producer and a I was a co-host for 8 months. You didn't trounce him. If you still believe you did after my comments, you are either dillusional or completely incapable of an honest self-evaluation. But the next time you get air time, please don't present yourself as representative of the Libertarian Party.

> Oh, and I LOVED IT. It was cathartic, too. He said what I expected
> him to
say pretty much, and I said what I had intended to say in response. In
that sense, there weren't a lot of surprises.

Then you are even worse off than I imagined.

>Of course, you could call his show 1-800-955-1776 and "correct all my
errors" and show us how libertarianism is properly explicated.

I have no intention of debating you. If you want to find out if I can
effectively present Libertarian ideas, do a google search for "fran tully".

>remember your comment if you ever do a similar interview.

I am on the radio several times a week. Believe me, there are very few
similarities to your interview. The calls that follow my interviews all
embrace my ideas.

>>with the understanding that your "pledge of allegiance" cause is the cause
>>of all Libertarians.

>It certainly should be,

I suggest that you take that up with the LNP Before you go on national radio
and create more problems for the LP. The appropriate thing for you to have
done would to state, "this is MY cause and NOT the OFFICIAL position of the
LP. I am NOT AUTHORIZED to speak on their behalf."

>... and of course the bigger point that he (and you?)
disagree with or miss: ending government schools (is that not a cause of all

libertarians, but the pledge is?). And remember that I made it perfectly
clear that the actual position and solution was ending government
involvement in education.

Yes, I share that goal, but you were very ineffective in presenting the
idea.

>> They didn't sound to me as thought they thought that
>>you were "trouncing" Medved either.

>No kidding? And is that because they like the pledge, like government
schools, want to perpetuate the social security scam and expand it to
nationalize the entire economy and they support a government that is twice
as socialistic as was Clinton (in social spending alone)?

No... it was because you were not convincing.

>Oh, they did think I was trouncing Medved and that is why they called in to

be cheerleaders for socialism.

I think you need to be more objective. Why not set up a poll for all those
who you sent the link to. Many of us share many of your beliefs. In the
poll, ask on a scale of 1 - 10 how many folks believed you "trounced him". I
would ask for a recount if you got a higher average than 3.

>> How could you actually believe that Medved's closing statement was
>> indicative a successful interview? Thanks to you, a million conservative
listeners heard >one of their favorite talk show hosts end his nationally
syndicated radio >program with the words: "Rex Kerry I appreciate your
coming on the show; >You have performed a great public service in helping
to illustrate to people just how marginal, pathetic, and truly disgraceful
the Libertarian Party has become."

>You completely miss the point. Medved doesn't like libertarians. See the
Libertarian Medved Response Team
http://www.exordia.net/medvedrt/

No Rex, YOU missed the point. He has you on to make you and the LP look
foolish. With your help, he was very effective.

>And you demonstrate that you will apparently never be on his show and that
if you ever are on it will be because you will never mention the actual
libertarian position on anything...

I would not put myself in a position of doing more harm than good to the LP.
As I suggested earlier, "google me" and determine for yourself if I am an
effective presenter of the LP philosophy.

>Including my offer to meet with you and Utah libertarians in person in late

March. I can talk about the pledge and the pics at
http://rexcurry.net/pledge2.html or whatever you wish.

Thanks, but no thanks. Most of us in Utah are well aware of the roots behind
the pledge and many of us do not participate. Besides, I'm pretty sure I
will be "washing my hair" or something when you are in Utah.
I rarely "filter out" fellow libertarians, Rex, but if I don't respond to
your future posts, it is only because I see no point in trying to convince
you too use logic and reason. Therefore, there is very little point in our
continuing to discuss this with each other.

F
_______________

Then here was an exchange with another who commented on our thread:

kira sent:
>I am here in Killinois wondering why you two kiddies cannot play nice!
Fran--for many of us, the LP does not represent libertarianism, so I
think it is rather arrogant of you to tell Rex (and no, I did not hear
the show) that HE is not speaking for the LP....who decides?

The LP decides. Medved announced him as a "capital L, libertarian". As such, Rex knows that he is not permitted to speak on behalf of the party. However, we are all entitled to our opinions. All I pointed out was that in the future, Rex should remember to point out that it is HIS opinion and not the OFFICIAL position of the party.

>If he is a card-carrying LP-er, then why should he not speak for the LP
>as much as the next guy?

No. If he wants to state the LP's official position, he can. If he wants to present his position or opinion as that of the LP, he can't.

> And if you strenuously disagree, call in when he is on air
and say your piece.

I didn't hear the show live, Rex sent us a link to a pre-recorded file.

>This bickering is childish and unproductive versus talk about morals and ethics and the general futility of POLITICKING versus exactly what Rex did--getting air time--bad press is better than no press.

In some cases, you may be right. However, in the case of representing the largest 3rd party in the US, who is plagued with the reputation of having a bunch of nit wits, odd balls, and wackos, bad publicity is FAR worse than no publicity. The LP has been trying very hard to UNDUE all the bad publicity that has damaged and marginalized the party for so long. When clowns like Rex fly off on their own tangent, it is detrimental to the party as a whole.

>Once upon a time when I believed in
politics for a few days, I supported Russ Means for LP Presidential
candidate--why--because he would have the 3-ring media circus in full
tilt as a native american...who cared if he misrepresented some fine
point of the platform? with all that press and all those folks clamoring
to know more, someone could have gotten a chance to clear things up and
a zillion new people would have had the word libertarian on their
tongues!

As the LP Presidential candidate, all libertarians should care if he "misrepresented" the party platform. But the difference is that if he was an LP Presidential candidate, he is permitted to discuss our platform with the media. Rex isn't permitted to invent platforms and present them as LP positions.

>Fran--chill out!

I am chilled out. But just as Rex is entitled to his opinion -"I trounced him" - I am entitled to mine - "he sucked and was damaging to the LP."

>And yes, I am thoroughly cured of politics--registered to vote only
once, worked an LP election only once--both experiences taught me that
politics and libertarianism are contradictions.

I too have had my fill of politics. However, I will make the distinction that while " politics and libertarianism are contradictions" politics and the Libertarian Party are married. I would have avoided the reference to the LP if Rex had not made an issue of it on his interview. Perhaps if you had followed the original link Rex had provided to the recorded interview, you would have more appreciation of the discussion.

>(forgive this it-and-run note--I am heading out of town for the next few
days--if reply is needed, be back in a week or so)

No need to reply. I am sick of this thread and am quite sure everyone else is too.

FT