If you live in the Albany, NY area, you may or may not have had the "pleasure" of hearing Andrew Wilkow's radio show on 810 WGY-AM (the local Clear Channel right wing AM outlet) from 5-7PM on weeknights:
http://www.wgy.com/wilkow.html
He also does a show on WABC in New York City on Saturday's from 6-8PM: http://www.wabcradio.com/showdj.asp?DJID=19528
I tune into this neandercon once in a while while driving home from work, just to hear him lie and misrepresent facts. It's something I can only take in small doses, but he always comes up with quotable quotes that just astound me. When talking about the shooting in the Hudson, NY mall last weekend, he said "It's not an assault rifle until you assault someone with it". Yeah....this is the logic this guy has. But that's not what this is about.
If you live in the Albany, NY area, you may or may not have had the "pleasure" of hearing Andrew Wilkow's radio show on 810 WGY-AM (the local Clear Channel right wing AM outlet) from 5-7PM on weeknights:
http://www.wgy.com/wilkow.html
He also does a show on WABC in New York City on Saturday's from 6-8PM:http://www.wabcradio.com/showdj.asp?DJID=19528
I tune into this neandercon once in a while while driving home from work, just to hear him lie and misrepresent facts. It's something I can only take in small doses, but he always comes up with quotable quotes that just astound me. When talking about the shooting in the Hudson, NY mall last weekend, he said "It's not an assault rifle until you assault someone with it". Yeah....this is the logic this guy has. But that's not what this is about.
If you haven't heard him, he's you typical knuckle-dragging Republican with a microphone, except that he's about 30-ish, is a college dropout (by his own admission), ex-fratboy who fancies himself as a rock-n-roll Republican. He first caught my attention last year while on the air, when he graphically described his desire to grab a pro-choice advocate by the throat and forcibly drag her to an abortion clinic and force her to watch the procedure.
Two weeks ago while going on a rant about Ward Churchill (the University of Colorado professor who's under fire from the SCLM for comments he wrote 3 years ago regarding 9/11), Wilkow said: "I don't know if you've seen this Ward Churchill guy, but clubbing him to death like a baby seal would be a good start." Mind you, all this coming from a guy who claims to be "pro-life" and says that liberals want to stamp out free speech and are intolerant. You know, one of these types that waves the flag and goes on about the right to free speech, but if you actually use that right and they don't like what you say, they want to kill you.
On his Tuesday 2.15.05 show, I just turned the radio on just as he was starting on some tangent about Target (the department store chain) being owned by the French. He's one of these "hate the French" clowns, and I don't know what the topic was, but he was all fired up saying Target was owned by the French. As I tuned in, he was just coming back from a commercial break saying that he had done an Internet search (to confirm he was right) and "every site how went to" confirmed that Target was owned by the French. Me being me, thought, "OK....I'm going to fact check this when I get home. If he's wrong, I'll email him...just for kicks". No sooner had I thought that, then he had a caller who worked at Target (but didn't say in what capacity). This caller refuted his claim of Target's French Connection saying it was NOT owned by the French and that it was all an urban legend. Rather than offer the caller the "proof" he found by directing her the websites that supported his claims, he derided her for just being flat out wrong, saying "I don't care what you think, they are owned by the French". He came right out and said that he would take what he found on the internet, over what an employee of a company was saying. OK......
So, when I got home I looked it up. No, Target is NOT owned by the French. It took be about 1 minute to find verifiable information to confirm this. This made me wonder where it was that he was getting his information from. So I decided to ask him. I wrote up an email, framing it in the exact tone and manner of how he represents himself on the air when talking to the damn liberals that have the nerve to call and disagree with him.
I'd like to share the subsequent series or correspondence between Andrew and I. It's kind of amusing. I'm the type of person that likes to provide facts to support my argument, and explain details to support my positions. It's painfully obvious that Andrew Wilkow either chooses not to form thoughts in this manner, or just isn't capable of it. His email responses to me comprise a grand total of 14 sentences (15 if you include a one word response as a sentence). My emails are considerably longer. Here's the fist email form me:
On your Feb. 15 show, I once again had the pleasure of hearing you play the role you do so well: the role of Class A hypocrite. Time and time again, I have heard you deride the media for being lazy, not fact checking and only presenting half of the story. In this observation, you and I would agree. Yet, every time I listen to your "radio show" you perform in the exact same manner, telling half truths, spewing out incredible amounts of misleading information, misrepresenting what people say and taking them out of context and doing a terrible job of presenting facts.
Your latest gem was when I heard you insist that the Target Corporation was in some manner owned by French interests. Your performance tonight shows that you did absolutely ZERO fact checking to support your position...and no, a 30 second web search during a commercial break to support something that you present as fact on a radio show does NOT qualify as fact checking or research. Not once did you cite your sources for this information. You NEVER cite your sources....saying you "read an article" or "read something on the Internet" and not providing information on WHERE you got the information from, nor telling your listeners where they can go and find the information for themselves really speaks loudly for the low level of professionalism you exhibit. You do the EXACT same things that you attack the media for. Um.....hypocrisy much?
For God sakes, Andrew! How about posting the links to your "sources" on your website! Unless of course WGY is too cheap or technologically challenged to provide you with such resources. In that case, check out Blogger.com. You can set up a free blog in 10 minutes, where you can post links to information you present on your show. It would be a great service to those of us who don't believe every word you say, so we can go and find out for ourselves if in fact, there is any truth to what you ramble about every night, or if you are just pulling facts out of your butt. The likes of Hannity, Limbaugh and O'Reilly already have an amazing talent for extracting "facts" that are tantamount to lies from their anal areas......I would expect more from you since you claim to be so different from all the rest.
In trying to confirm your claims about Target, you did what appeared to be a superficial search "out there on the Internets", and claimed that "every site" you went to proved that Target was somehow "owned by the French". You even had the incredible wisdom and foresight to deride the information provided by a Target employee which went counter your claims. In any reasonable venue, someone who is an employee of a corporation is a far more qualified source of information than a talk show host who can't even bother to give out the URLs of the website he claims to find that support his position. It would have been great if you could have told the caller who worked for Target to go to one of the sites where you claimed to have found the info supporting your claim and given out the URL so your listeners could investigate for themselves. But no, you just had to ridicule her for questioning your infinite wisdom. True to form for a Republican, God forbid nagging little things like FACTS get in the way of your preconceived agenda.
If you had bothered to do ANY amount of research on the subject, you would have found that NO, Target is NOT owned by any French interests nor have they ever been. The information is "out there on the Internets" if you had bothered to actually DO YOUR JOB and PRACTICE WHAT YOU PREACH. But no, hypocrisy is a prerequisite for being a Republican these days....just ask Jeff "Bulldog" Gannon.
Here is some information AND SOURCES that if you might have found had you bothered to look....
Being in the media, I'm sure you have access to LexusNexus. I'm not in the media and I have access to it. I've done a LexusNexus search for Target, France, French, own, owned, ownership, stock...and came up with NOTHING. I used the same keywords in a Google search, and the only sites that came up were those that DEBUNKED your claims of Target's French Connection. So tell me, Andrew...what did you search for and what sites did you find that proved your position?
Snopes.com is very good at debunking or confirming urban legends, and other things you "might hear around the water cooler". They blow your notion of French ownership out of the water: http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/target.asp
They have a very detailed explanation of how this urban legend (yes, I hate to break it to you, but that's all it is) got started.
In addition Hoovers, a business profile website give some financial information on Target:
http://www.hoovers.com/target/--ID__10440--/free-co-factsheet.xhtml
They show Target being based in Minneapolis, MN. Hardly the French Riviera. The profile on Hoover.com lists Target Corportation as #23 in the Fortune 500.
A quick check of Fortune.com shows how Fortune 500 companies are determined:
http://www.fortune.com/fortune/fortune500/articles/0,15114,602153,00.html
Note that one of the main qualifying factors: "
All companies on the list must publish financial data and must report part or all of their figures to a government agency. Private companies and cooperatives that produce a 10-K are, therefore, included; subsidiaries of foreign companies incorporated in the U.S. are excluded."
Note the last part of that: "subsidiaries of foreign companies incorporated in the U.S. are excluded". If Target were owned by any French interests, would they be listed in the Fortune 500? Methinks not.
As a last check, I actually went to the Target Corporation website.....didja think of that at all? They have all their Annual Reports from 1999-2003. I checked the 2002 and 2003 annual reports, and could fine NO mention of any foreign connections....French or otherwise. I dunno.....I would think that if a company had ANY ties to foreign capital that they might mention it in, gee, I don't know......the annual corporate report that gets sent out to the stockholders, perhaps?
So the question begs, Andrew.....just what Internets DO you have at WGY? I found all this information in about the time it takes for one of your commercial breaks. It definitely conflicts with what you claim to have found. PLEASE share your findings. If you can provide some sort of financial information that supports your claims about a Target French Connection, I'd LOVE to see it.
But even if Target is in bed with the Frogs, all is not lost. According to Center for Responsive Politics' Guide to Money in US Elections, Target has a long and glorious history of giving an overwhelming amount of their political donations to Republicans....about 70% anyway.
And if that's not bad enough, the VFW has some very nice things to say about Target's contributions to their cause:
http://www.vfw.org/news/target.htm
So, if Target IS owned by the French, giving many thousands of dollars in political contributions to Republican candidates and thousands more in causes that support our nation's veterans, then it is truly another notch on the bedpost of Republican hypocrisy.
Have a sparklin' day......
I was amazed to wake up the next morning and was pleasantly surprised to find he had written me back. But don't plan on spending too long analyzing his response.:
Calm down partner. I'm up answering my e-mail. I am going to retract the Target bit. WGY is not too cheap. I am human. Did you bombard Dan Rather this hard. It was just a bit that spun into Target and this is what you got on me?
-Andrew
WTF? I can understand being up late reading email and not wanting to formulate a lengthy response. I'll give him that. But not a single question went answered.. No surprise there.
Did you bombard Dan Rather this hard.
WTF does Dan Rather have to do with this? Nice use of interrogative punctuation, there, Andrew.
So, the next day, to his credit, he stayed true to his word and made the retraction. However, he tried to write if off as a "prank" saying he was "having fun with the topic", and whining that the people that wrote him and vilifying him for making a "human mistake" are the same one "who supported Dan Rather". Again with the Dan Rather. He really tried to weasel his way out of it, more or less saying: I was wrong, but it was just a joke and I can't always be prepared and have all my information on a moments notice. WTF????
He seemed convinced that his little Target boo-boo was "all that people could get on him". Uh-huh. Soon afterwards, he want ton to talk about North Korea and their announcement of having nuclear weapons. No shit, he came right out and said that BIll Clinton is the reason that North Koreas has the bomb, and what if Al-Qeada gets a bomb from North Korea...then some how it would be Clinton's fault. What was that Andrew said about Target being "all I got on him"? So, I wrote him back:
Andrew-
Thanks for taking the time to respond to my email. I know it was late when you wrote me back, and I'm sure you were tired, so I'll assume that's why you didn't address any of my questions regarding your sources of information.
It was great to hear your retraction RE: Target on the air today. Not many people these days have the cajones to admit they were wrong, and I was impressed that you took that step. Granted, you did your best to try and extract yourself from being caught in, let's just call it an "inaccuracy". But I do think you missed the point of my email. You claim that you were "having fun with the subject" and that you were not serious about the way you treated your Target caller. Uh-huh.
You sounded as if people were pointing the finger at you because you were bad mouthing Target. The topic of Target was not the issue. They are pointing the finger at you because you were doing exactly what the So Called Liberal Media in this country does: spouting out information with no thought to if it's accurate, verifiable or complete, and without citing where it was you got the information from. THAT is why you got the response you did. If you had not had the wisdom to retract your statements, there would undoubtedly be members of your listening audience who wouldn't have the foresight to look for themselves into what you said that night, and who would as a result buy into what amounts to a gross misrepresentation of facts...OK, I'll say it...a lie. Yes, you are human. But you are also someone with a responsibility to your listeners. If you don't care enough about them to present information that you know to be factual and true, you are just screwing them. Trying to brush it off as a prank, or not being prepared, or "having fun with the subject" when it was painfully obvious that you truly didn't care weather it was the truth or not, again, says it all
"Calm down partner."
I'm sorry if my email wasn't calm enough for you, but I tried to write it in a tone you would understand, since it was framed based upon how you sound on the other end of the radio with of course, the exception of having verifiable, factual information included. You should listen to your own shows more often and you might see what I mean.
"WGY is not too cheap."
Glad to hear it. When can we expect to see your sources posted on your website, or some other public venue?
"Did you bombard Dan Rather this hard."
Hmmmmm...I have to say I'm impressed. You held out playing the Rather card until the sixth sentence of a seven sentence email. But you still never answered my questions on your sources. But, OK. I'll play the game.
The fact that for some reason (God only knows) you think you have to bring the accusations against Dan Rather into this discussion tells me I struck a nerve. The fact that you had to expand on it on your show tells me I hit a BIG nerve. I'll answer your Rather question, if you answer mine: have you "bombarded" Brit Hume for his complete distortion and outright lying regarding quotes made by FDR on Social Security?
http://mediamatters.org/static/video/cd-200502160003.wmv
(It's a video file of a segment from MSNBC. The transcript is on Fox News' website just in case you think the video was doctored by communist lefties.)
I haven't heard you mention Hume's intentional distortion of the truth. You had a great opportunity tonight, while complaining about the "people who supported Dan Rather" are the ones attacking you. But I heard nothing about Hume. Have you talked about the White House payola to Armstrong Williams or Maggie Gallagher? I have yet to hear you even utter a whimper about our newest (and I mean this in the most LITERAL of ways) media whore, Jeff "Me Love You Long Time" Gannon/Guckert.
Somehow obsessing about the kerning on "th"s from a 30+ year old document (that has yet to be conclusively proven real OR false) is NO comparison to a news anchor who purposely rearranges complete sentences to distort the true meaning of a quote from a U.S. President; is NO comparison to U.S. taxpayer dollars being paid to journalists to promote the White House agenda, and is REAAALLLLY no comparison to a prostitute with absolutely no journalistic background being granted passes to the the press room of the Family Values White House, and having access to the Family Values President. So, before you start waving the Rather card around, take a look at the hypocrisy of bringing it up in the first place.
"It was just a bit that spun into Target and this is what you got on me?"
Do you really want to go there? Look...I can make a very involved hobby out of debunking you. But to be honest, I don't have THAT much free time. Nor interest. Suffice it to say listening to you tonight, I didn't have to wait long to hear something to "get on you". Shall we start?
To be fair, I'm not a huge Clinton fan. But the things you try to pin in him are utterly amazing. You were REALLY reaching tonight when you insinuated that Bill Clinton was some how responsible for North Korea getting nuclear weapons. Um....howzabout some sources of information on that? Truth be told, if Kim Jong Krazee wanted the bomb, he'd be damn well able to get what he needed to make one (or six, or ten) no matter WHO was the sitting US president. After all, it's on George Bush's watch that they announced having the bomb, right? But I digress.
You never gave any sources of information where people could go to follow up on what you were implying, RE: Clinton being responsible for North Korea getting the bomb. This seems to be habit with you. So, I went to the Internets and did several searches: Clinton, North Korea, nuclear and other variants of those keywords were what I used. Funny, but the only things that I could find that even hinted at supporting what you were suggesting were Newsmax, the Washington Times, and FrontPageMag .com. Hardly what I would call "objective", let alone "reliable" sources of information. But to each his own.
I did find something that would have been a GREAT addition to your Clinton/North Korea connection angle that I had forgotten about:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/korea/article/0,2763,952289,00.html
It seems that none other than our own Donald Rumsfeld was on the board of ABB, the Swiss engineering firm who sold North Korea the Light Water Reactors outlined in the 1994 Agreed Framework Treaty. Rumsfeld working with those damn Europeans? Yep. Selling nuclear reactors to North Korea? Yep. But, since Rummy gave a big ole hearty handshake to Saddam Hussein AFTER Hussein had gassed his own people, should we be surprised?
http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/
But, neither Rumsfeld NOR Clinton can be blamed for "giving" North Korea the bomb, or selling them the missile technology to blow us out of the water. But, if you can provide sources of information to that respect I'd be happy to read them.
You see, the Agreed Framework stated that the US would coordinate the purchase and construction of two Light Water Reactors to replace graphite-moderated reactors the Koreans had been using. Here's the text of the treaty...not good before bedtime reading, but it spells it all out:
http://www.ceip.org/files/projects/npp/resources/koreaaf.htm
I know what you're saying; "SEE? Clinton sold them what they need to make nukes!"
Bzzzzzz.....thanks for playing. Wrong answer. You see, Light Water Reactors, CAN NOT be used to make weapons grade plutonium. At least, not without complex reprocessing plants. At the time, North Korea did not have the capability to reprocess REACTOR GRADE plutonium, which is what the LWR plants sold to the North Koreans under the Agreed Framework produced. The graphite-moderated reactors they would replace COULD make weapons grade plutonium, hence the motivation to close them down.
Do I agree with selling them nuke plants? No. But that's not the issue here. Your lack of accurate information IS.
In 1993, in response to some rather flagrant distortions of the facts by Christopher Cox, a (surprise) Republican Congressman from California, the Institute for Science and International Security published a report to set the record straight. Congressman Cox referenced a previous ISIS report, but...OOPS...heh-heh.....changed some of the wording to suit his agenda (blocking the treaty), so it sounded as if selling the North Koreans the LWRs would magically turn them into a nuclear power.
http://www.isis-online.org/publications/dprk/final_cox.html
Cox's distortions would be also funny, if the subject matter wasn't so serious. Could this be where the meme that Clinton gave the Koreans the bomb started? Please share your findings with me on this if you have something solid that counters what I have presented.
Bottom line is that Bill Clinton did not hand North Korea the bomb as you made it sound. They did just fine with it on their own. Throwing Al-Qaeda into the mix with Clinton and the Koreans really made you sound desperate. It doesn't work for you.
And for the record, in 2002 Clinton made public plans that had been discussed to attack North Korea's nuclear reactors.
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/east/12/15/nkorea.us/
So, Andrew.....once again, you don't have all the information to make the claims you put forth on your show.
In addition to presenting positions as facts but not having the facts to back you up, you have some very conflicting, OK, hypocritical standpoints:
- You whine about how liberals are the ones who want to stifle free speech and are not tolerant, yet you think that college professors (Ward Churchill) who say inflammatory things you do not agree with "should be clubbed to death like baby seals." (The quote from your 2.2.05 show was: "I don't know if you've seen this Ward Churchill guy, but clubbing him to death like a baby seal would be a good start.") An opinion? Yes, but contrary to what you profess to believe.
- You claim to be "pro-life" yet you support pre-emptive war (and the killing of unborn children that ensues), and clubbing college professors to death like baby seals.
- You justify the 2006 Bush budget by saying Bush is making good choices in cutting programs that "don't work". You know, like food stamps (so liberal art students can't get them). But what about other programs that "don't work"? Shouldn't THEY be cut too? Like Abstinence-only sex education programs, which are due to have INCREASED Budgets...even though all evidence suggests kids are having MORE sex: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=19531
Like missile defense systems that can't even be launched:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0215/dailyUpdate.html
Like funding to contractors in Iraq who have stolen untold amounts of US Taxpayer money: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24468-2005Feb14.html
Didn't the president say something about cutting funding for unproductive programs? Whuddyathink?
- Why do you claim to support our troops when you support an administration that continually tries to screw them by cutting their benefits?
http://tinyurl.com/5r5qu
Let's get one thing straight. The asinine comment you made about no one on the left willing to give their lives for your beliefs was just about as unintelligent as your "it's not an assault rifle until you assault someone with it" remark a few nights ago. You see, I AM on the left, and I DID wear the uniform of the US Army, so that even people I didn't agree with, people like you, would have their rights and freedoms protected from all enemies, foreign and domestic. You and the rest of the WGY line up have this great talent for telling other people what is right and what is wrong, but you don't live up to the diatribe you present.
You may be completely different in your private life, but on the air, you do a great job of coming off as a total hypocrite. Saying that you believe in free speech rights and then wanting to club someone to death like a baby seal when they actually try to use those rights makes you a hypocrite. Foaming at the mouth about the media not checking their facts and doing the same thing yourself makes you a hypocrite. Presenting false or misleading information to your listeners while pointing the finger at the damn liberals for doing the same thing makes you a hypocrite.
I actually agree with some of what you say on the air, especially where the media is concerned. But you really need to take a look at your glass house before you start throwing stones.
You keep putting forth the atrocities, and I'll keep documenting them.......
And surprise, surprise, I got another seven sentence email back from him:
I get a ton of e-mail between WABC and WGY. I do not have the time to get into every aspect of every e-mail. I reply and I know no one else that does. The Target thing was a B.S. issue. I didn't claim to break a story. It wasn't a "topic" to be debated. There a huge difference between waiting for an excuse to destroy a candidate and being quick with a caller on a lame tangent.
-Andrew
OK.....in his first email he said WGY wasn't "too cheap". So, if that's the case, maybe they can hire him some help so he has time to break the seven sentence limit in his emails. He must REALLY be busy if he doesn't even have time to defend himself from a liberal who attacks him with facts. And I thought WE were supposed to the the ones who slunk away when attacked with facts.....Oy. He fails to see the point of all this. It has nothing to do with Target, and everything to do with lying, misinformation and hypocrisy.
So I wrote him back again:
"I get a ton of e-mail between WABC and WGY"
Well, if "WGY is not too cheap" as you say, then perhaps they could hire you a research person, or at least someone to help you out when it comes to reading emails that debunk what you say on the air. Perhaps then you'd have time to break the apparent seven sentence limit on your emails.
"I do not have the time to get into every aspect of every e-mail."
Hmmmm.....not even to respond to someone who asks legitimate questions that can easily be answered? Like, where do you get you information from? Not to respond to someone who questions your integrity and professionalism? Not to respond to someone who twice presents factual information that shows what is said on your show to be, willful or not, completely inaccurate but presented as fact? I can understand being busy. You must REALLY be busy if you don't even have time to defend yourself from a liberal who attacks you with facts. And I thought WE were supposed to the the ones who slunk away when attacked in this way.
"I reply and I know no one else that does."
So what exactly does that mean? I honestly do appreciate you taking the time to respond, but what do you mean "no one else does"? Who would "no one else" be? If you're trying to imply that you're special in some way because you respond to listeners, think again.
"The Target thing was a B.S. issue. I didn't claim to break a story. It wasn't a "topic" to be debated."
You still don't get it do you? This is not about Target. I've presented two different cases where you more or less pulled facts out of your butt, and gave you solid, verifiable facts that refuted everything you said during your show. This is not about Target and certainly not about Dan Rather, since you seem to have some strange obsession with him and keep bringing him up. This is about hypocrisy and misrepresentation of facts: something you deride those damn socialist liberals for on a regular basis. The fact that you have failed to address any of the points I have set forth tells me that you either refuse to accept them, or are incapable of understanding them. So, which is it?
"There a huge difference between waiting for an excuse to destroy a candidate and being quick with a caller on a lame tangent."
Meaning what? OK, "waiting for an excuse to destroy a candidate"? You might want to talk to Max Cleland. I think he knows a thing or two about the subject. Why do you keep trying to equate your hypocrisy and misleading your audience with anything Dan Rather has been accused of? If you get caught doing something wrong, you don't try and get out of it by saying "Look at him...look what HE did!". And that is what you are trying to so. Look, I give you alot of credit for admitting you were wrong on the Target thing. But you keep on doing the same exact thing! I've gone out of my way not to call you a liar, because I have no idea if you give bad information on purpose. Maybe you, maybe you don't. Only you know for sure. But, true to form for the right, when you get caught with your hand in the cookie jar, you try and point the finger at someone else. "But what about Dan Rather???? Whaaaaa!!!!" Please. That's your defense? What about the notion personal responsibility you are always harping about? And please don't say "But I retracted the Target bit!" As you seem incapable of understanding, this is not about Target.
The Target bit was one thing, even though you seem think that's what this is all about. But after getting slapped on the wrist with some cold hard facts, you went right back to pulling "facts" out of your butt with your Clinton/North Korea tirade. If anything, it shows that you simply do not care about doing the right thing for your audience...if you can keep spewing out disinformation and misleading them, who cares as long as the ratings are high, right? If that were not the case, then I would have expected you would have mounted some sort of defense in the face of all the factual information I threw at you last night. But, eh.......I really wasn't expecting the facts to have any effect on you.
This has been fun. It's kind of hard to formulate a debate from the 14 sentences of sheer eloquence that I got in response, but hey...you take what you can get. I like a challenge. I'd like to call your show someday, when I hear that tell-tale sound of "facts" being pulled from that special place. If I can get past your screener, that is. It would be fun to debate you on the air.
Alas, it seems Andrew doesn't want to play anymore. This is what I got back today:
Enough.
That's it. That's the best he could do. Sigh.....and I was hoping for at least an eight sentence breakthrough.
I know, why waste my time on this blockhead? Well, I don' have a good answer other than it really pisses me off that idiots like this get away with getting paid to lie on a daily basis.
Since I can't get Mr. Wilkow to address my points via email, I'd like to try and confront him on his show, in front of his flock of sheep. Provided, of course, I can get past his screener.
My idea is to collect a few weeks worth of lies and misinformation from this tool, debunk it and confront him with it on the air. So far I have documented:
Undetermined date (approx 10/10/04): Andrew states that he does not rely on Fox News, Drudge or RNC talking points for what he talks about on his shows.
Days later, (approx 10/20/04) in response to Teresa Heinz-Kerry's comments about Laura Bush never having a "real job", Karen Hughes appears on CNN, says "she left out the very important real job of a mother. Clearly she knows Laura Bush was a mother ... who chose to stay home and rear her family." Hughes appears on other cable news channels saying the exact same words. At about this time, Andrew recites nearly verbatim what Karen Hughes says on television.
=====
Feb. 15, 2005: Claimed Target owned by French.
=====
Feb. 16, 2005: Suggested that Bill Clinton was responsible for North Korea obtaining nuclear weapons. Gave no facts to back claim. Tried to suggest that if North Korea gave terrorists a nuke, Clinton would be responsible.
======
Feb. 18, 2005: In discussing The Count Every Vote Act of 2005, suggested that the provision for allowing felons to vote applied to convicted felons currently serving in prison. All published language of bill actually refers to ex-felons, who have served their time and are not in prison.
Have other occasions I have heard, but without solid quotes or dates I don't want to include them.
What I would REALLY like to find is written essays or columns published in the public realm where he has lied. The only thing I've been able to find was something he published on ConservativePunk.com:
http://www.conservativepunk.com/ColumnItem.asp?reviewId=9
No real lies in this that I can find, but it's still worth a read to get an idea of this guy's lunacy.
If anyone can forward documented cases of Andrew Wilkow pulling facts out of his ass, I would truly appreciate it.
