Aug
23

A Flash of Irish Anger at a Tea Party Talker

By

Off the YouTube machine via Upworthy:

YouTube Preview Image

“From May 2010, an exchange between Michael D Higgins (who was elected President of Ireland last year) and Tea Party-loving radio guy Michael Graham on Irish radio.”

Karoli dug into the origins of this event in an Irish pub:

[Radio talker] Graham was going down the usual neocon astroturf Tea Party road, and President Higgins served him a hefty helping of humility with applause included. This clip starts in the middle of the interview, where Graham has evidently labeled some people — I’m not sure who — as antiSemitic, which causes Higgins’ Irish temper to boil over and explode on the air. Graham had no idea what hit him.

The funniest part is that Higgins does to Graham what Graham was hoping to do to Higgins. The crowd was stirred, all right, but not in Graham’s direction. As he moves from health care to tea party racism to foreign policy and back again, all Graham can do is sputter.

You’re welcome.


Comments

  1. Davyne Dial says:

    Epic smackdown!

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 4

  2. Pete Kaliner says:

    For folks who want to hear the entire 21 minute debate….

    Michael Graham actually spoke during this debate.

    The 4:21 clip you’ve got linked up here edits out all of Graham’s comments. I’m sure it was inadvertant.

    http://media.newstalk.ie/extra/1602/popup

    You’re welcome.
    :)

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 2

  3. Jason Bugg says:

    Pete, I’ve listened to your show.

    You might be the dumbest human being ever.

    With that being said, enjoy the buffet.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 4

  4. Andrew Dahm says:

    Michael Graham is a truly ignorant individual who began his working life as a standup comedian and should have stayed there.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 3

  5. Pete Kaliner says:

    Jason,
    Thanks for taking the time to write such insight and for listening to the program.
    -Pete

    PS: I noticed two people (Jason and… who else?) gave my original post a negative rating. It’s quite a testament to the politcal blinders with which some folks automatically adorn themselves. The blogger posts an edited clip and bills it as a takedown of tea party guy. I post the entire clip with nary a mention of political viewpoint and… two negative ratings.
    LOL
    Classic.

    Thumb up 2

  6. shadmarsh says:

    You’re complaining about getting two anonymous negative ratings, and somehow inferring what now?

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 2

  7. I downloaded the Moffitt show and found it to be the most unlistenable thing I have heard in some time. I don’t know why.

    Maybe it was the completely uncritical questioning. I don’t know.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 5

  8. Davyne Dial says:

    Frankly I have no interest in listening to Michael Graham, so I appreciate he was edited out. So..thanks, but no thanks to your demand we listen.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 2

  9. Davyne Dial says:

    “Maybe it was the completely uncritical questioning. I don’t know.”

    That would make for a milquetoast-ey type of interview.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 2

  10. Jason Bugg says:

    Dear Pete –

    I’m sorry, I didn’t really want to devote the time to someone who gives Chad Nesbitt a soapbox. I didn’t want to devote the time to someone who still does the “you didn’t build that” talking point. I didn’t want to devote the time to someone who claims to be an independent but still carries all of the right wing talking points’ water any chance that he gets. I didn’t want to devote the time to someone who practically fellated the guys from Capital at Play magazine. If you were someone worth my time, I’d write a 5,000 word take down of everything stupid you’ve said in the past week, but I’m a busy guy and you’re too stupid to really understand it.

    As for my personal political blinders or whatever you call them — they really don’t exist. If you knew anything about me (and 20 minutes of Googling would tell you a lot), you’d know that I’m a pretty liberal guy, but in the past I’ve supported conservative candidates (in fact, I wrote an endorsement for Mike Fryar in the comment section of this very site). Also, I’m no friend of the liberal establishment that frequents this site. My votes constantly get shouted down, and I’m okay with that because I’m not the sort of person who gets bothered over that.

    So, tons of fun, before you make any assertions about who I am or what I can bring to the conversation, make sure to drop your woe is me, I’m a victim political open mindedness means that you are a conservative card. It’ll help.

    But then again, you’re so stupid that I doubt that an open mind is possible. Enjoy the buffet, and here’s to you being fired in Asheville like you were fired in Charlotte.

    Thumb up 5

  11. Pete Kaliner says:

    shad wrote:
    “You’re complaining about getting two anonymous negative ratings, and somehow inferring what now?”

    It wasn’t a complaint.
    Just pointing out how offering an unedited version of the discussion elicited more negative ratings than positive (or neutral).

    Contrary to what Davyne, wrote, I wasn’t “demanding” anyone listen to it either. I offered it (as I stated) “For folks who want to hear the entire 21 minute debate….”

    To Mat’s criticism of my interviewing style, for starters – the phone lines and e-mail were all open, so you could have asked whatever question you wanted. Further, over the years as a reporter I found that it’s not necessary to be combative in an interview just to be combative. I’ve also found some people prefer a nastier style of debate.
    If you were listen to the interivews I’ve done with Barry Summers, Cecil Bothwell, and Patsy Keever, you’ll hear the same style.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 2

  12. Pete Kaliner says:

    Jason,
    Why are you responding to the dumbest human being ever?
    Why are you wasting your time? I’m the dumbest person in history, remember?

    If it doesn’t tax your superior intellect, allow the dumbest person ever to offer you some feedback.

    You wrote:
    “I’m sorry, I didn’t really want to devote the time to someone who gives Chad Nesbitt a soapbox.”

    I gave Chad Nesbitt time on the show to talk about his counter-protest plan. Sorry, but that’s newsworthy. Just as it was newsworthy to talk about the topless protest, too. I offered Jeff Johnson the opportunity to come on the air, as well.

    You wrote:
    “I didn’t want to devote the time to someone who still does the “you didn’t build that” talking point.”

    I’m not sure you’re talking about me. Besides, when I did talk about the President’s comment (the day after he said it), I actually played the entire clip AND said he was likely referring to infrastructure when he said “that” (although it creates a grammaticall incorrect sentence when he did).
    I know, I know – dumb.
    Just as dumb as pointing out that President’s comments open a larger debate over the role government spending plays in small business development.

    You wrote:
    “I didn’t want to devote the time to someone who claims to be an independent but still carries all of the right wing talking points’ water any chance that he gets.”
    Hilarious! Even the dumbest guy in history gets THAT joke! LOL! This would come as news to the conservatives who call and write – labeling me a liberal because of my views on social issues. But I got the joke. That’s what matters.

    You wrote:
    “I didn’t want to devote the time to someone who practically fellated the guys from Capital at Play magazine.”
    Could you use smaller words, please? The dumbest man in world history doesn’t understand it when you get all intellectual on me. Are you saying you want me to tear into festival organizers and Red Cross officials when we talk about community interest stuff, too?

    You wrote:
    “If you were someone worth my time, I’d write a 5,000 word take down of everything stupid you’ve said in the past week, but I’m a busy guy and you’re too stupid to really understand it.”

    Wow! Five thousand words sounds like a lot!
    Do you write them all at once or do you have to space out the writing so you don’t overload your brain? My brain would probably seize up. Also, how do you count the 5,000 words without help from lots of people who can provide you extra fingers and toes? I’d lose track without fingers and toes. Lots of them.

    You wrote:
    “As for my personal political blinders or whatever you call them — they really don’t exist. If you knew anything about me (and 20 minutes of Googling would tell you a lot), you’d know that I’m a pretty liberal guy, but in the past I’ve supported conservative candidates (in fact, I wrote an endorsement for Mike Fryar in the comment section of this very site). Also, I’m no friend of the liberal establishment that frequents this site. My votes constantly get shouted down, and I’m okay with that because I’m not the sort of person who gets bothered over that.”

    Fantastic for you. Thanks for the insight. Perhaps had you done the same for me you might have been a bit better informed, too.

    You wrote:
    So, tons of fun, before you make any assertions about who I am or what I can bring to the conversation, make sure to drop your woe is me, I’m a victim political open mindedness means that you are a conservative card. It’ll help.”

    Who said “woe is me”? Wait! is this you being funny again?!
    If you take it personally that I pointed how people voted “thumbs down” on a simple post of the entire unedited debate… well… nothing I can say to assuage your hurt feelings over that. No woe is me (or complaint).
    I just found it funny how offering the full debate was rated negatively. In other words, people didn’t want to hear the whole clip. Why else rate the clip down?
    it sorta reminds me of that whole “you didn’t build that” thing.

    You wrote:
    “But then again, you’re so stupid that I doubt that an open mind is possible. Enjoy the buffet, and here’s to you being fired in Asheville like you were fired in Charlotte.”
    I know, right?!
    You must really be amazed at how someone as stupid as I am can actually ever get hired in the first place!
    But your comment betrays a bit of a nasty personality, to say the least. It also indicates you really have little insight in how radio works or what happened in Charlotte.
    So, you should probably focus all of your highly-developed intellect on just the personal attacks. It makes it easier for the dumb people to understand.

    Thanks for spending so much time writing me. I’m sure it must have been difficult for you to do.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 4

  13. shadmarsh says:

    Just pointing out how offering an unedited version of the discussion elicited more negative ratings than positive (or neutral).

    Just a guess, but I think it is entirely possible that the downward suggesting thumbs were aimed at something besides your providing a link that was in the original post.

    Welcome to the playground, make sure to bring your big-boy pants.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 1

  14. Jason Bugg says:

    Shad, Pete shops in the husky section.

    His belt doesn’t buckle, but his chairs do.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 2

  15. Pete Kaliner says:

    Shad,
    LOL
    That’s actually an even sadder explanation than the first offerring.
    Take it easy.
    -Pete

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 2

  16. Pete Kaliner says:

    There you go Jason!
    Personal attacks make dumb people really happy. You’re doing fantastic!

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 3

  17. shadmarsh says:

    LOL
    That’s actually an even sadder explanation than the first offerring.
    Take it easy.

    I guess I fail to see how either are “sad” considering they were both guesses, the latter being based on factual information that you seemed to disregard in making your original comment, which would lead some to think that you perhaps didn’t actually read the post. I really don’t care either way. I was just seeking a little clarity. On a personal level I know I’ll thumb down anything with a “LOL” in it.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 1

  18. Shad, I just thumbed you down because you put “LOL” in a post….

    oh. damn.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 4

  19. TJ says:

    Back at ya’ mat. ;-)

    Is this Tim P.’s long lost relative?

    “Thanks for spending so much time writing me. I’m sure it must have been difficult for you to do”

    **But your comment betrays a bit of a nasty personality, to say the least.**

    And, YOUR response elevates this thread HOW?

    Actually, it helped me realize conciseness is valuable.

    Back to our regularly scheduled programming?

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 1

  20. shadmarsh says:

    I just found it funny how offering the full debate was rated negatively. In other words, people didn’t want to hear the whole clip. Why else rate the clip down?
    it sorta reminds me of that whole “you didn’t build that” thing.

    First off, the ENTIRE debate is linked in the post…you just have to read it. Secondly, your post received 4 negative votes, with nearly 1,000 views on average per day that comes in at about 0.4% (note the decimal) of readers, or a statically insignificant amount. Thirdly, how are those two things even remotely like one another? If you could provide an answer free of Teabot talking points and lolspeak, I’d appreciate it.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 2

  21. RHS says:

    “Thirdly, how are those two things even remotely like one another?”

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ect-kgxBb4M

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 1

  22. Pete Kaliner says:

    Shad,

    You wrote:
    “First off, the ENTIRE debate is linked in the post…you just have to read it.”

    The 21 minute debate audio is linked… through the linked post.
    I wonder how many SH readers went through to C&L and then on to the original source.
    Just as Korali put the full interview link into his post, I offered the same full interview link for folks here. Perhaps, the full interview link should’ve been provided in the SH post.
    Also, Korali’s statement “… Graham has evidently labeled some people — I’m not sure who — as antiSemitic …” leads me to wonder whether listened to the full interview, because it’s clear in the debate to whom Graham was referring.
    Perhaps the question you should be asking is why there is no reference in the SH post about this being an edited audio clip, or why there is no link to the original source clip.
    In the grand scheme of things, it’s not a huge oversight. The reaction to my post has intrigued me, though.

    You wrote:
    “Secondly, your post received 4 negative votes, with nearly 1,000 views on average per day that comes in at about 0.4% (note the decimal) of readers, or a statically insignificant amount. Thirdly, how are those two things even remotely like one another?”

    Are those uniques? Or just views? Views shouldn’t be considered separate readers.
    Regardless, you’re making a conclusion based on questions I didn’t offer. I wondered why people would “thumbs down” a link to the full interview.
    After reading this blog for about 6 months, my assumption was that more information was usually sought, rather than rejected. Further, my assumption was that the rating of the posts seemed to indicate a judgment of the value of the post. Obviously, I was mistaken. Call it an over-estimation.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 2

  23. ChadEkre says:

    “Call it an over-estimation.”

    Over-estimation…reactionary…hyperbolic…stereotyping…persecution-complex laden…odd…

    I could probably call your posts any of those.

    If it makes any difference, I had listened to the entire interview before you linked it, pete. This audio is being posted on many of other blogs. Graham doesn’t come off any better in the full length tape either. Thanks for assuming that folks can’t figure out that this is a clip from a longer conversation.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0