Jay Severin – Rightwing Radio’s Scandal Figure du Jour

Today’s Talkers’ Scandals Are Reminiscent of the 1980’s Televangelist Sleazefest

Oh, the mendacity: Another day, another new controversy about a rightwing talk show host. This time it’s Jay Severin III, a former GOP operative who worked on the presidential campaigns of George I and Pat Buchanan, among others, and who hosts a radio show in Boston that is (was?) set to go national.

While it’s too early to gloat over the demise of rightwing talk radio, its utility as an echo chamber for the Right appears to be diminishing. Recent ratings show declines for Rush and O’Reilly in key markets.

Severin has been exposed for lying about his achievements, including claiming several times on the record that he had won a Pulitzer Prize. He has also been the target recently of allegations of behavior unbecoming of a married man and father that cast a new light on statements he made in the 1990’s about the moral fitness of others.

The revelations of extreme resume padding came on the same day that Infinity Broadcasting announced they had signed a deal with Severin to host a nationally syndicated talk show. Oops!

Severin’s Troubles

According to Media Matters, Severin – whose real name is Jimmy Severino – operated a political consulting firm, Severin Aviles Associates, whose clients included George H.W. Bush’s 1980 presidential campaign and his political action committee (Fund for America’s Future); Pat Buchanan’s 1996 presidential campaign; the Republican National Committee; and the Reagan White House.

He caused a stir in April 2004, when, on the air, he said about Moslems: “You think we should befriend them; I think we should kill them.” (He later said he meant that only extremists should be killed.) He also had a brief, ill-fated run sitting in as the conservative pundit who provided balance on conservative Tucker Carlson’s MSNBC show, “The Situation.”

(And it may come as a surprise to his fans in Boston that Severin doesn’t broadcast from Boston, but rather from a studio close to his home in Sag Harbor, N.Y.)

Severin brought his current woes onto himself last Friday, Sept. 16, 2005, when he claimed to have won the Pulitzer Prize. That claim brought scrutiny from a reporter, Scot Lehigh at the Boston Globe.

First, here’s what Severin said on the air:

”But since journalism began, and up until the time at least that I took my master’s degree at Boston University — and may I add without being obnoxious, up till and including the time that I received a Pulitzer Prize for my columns for excellence in online journalism from the Columbia School of Journalism, the highest possible award for writing on the Web — right up to and including that in 1998, you still had to practice journalism to be a journalist.”

So Scot Lehigh called the Pulitzer’s world headquarters, and guess what?

”We looked at the records and there is no record of him winning a Pulitzer Prize,” says Sig Gissler, administrator of the Pulitzers. Nor is there a Pulitzer for excellence in online journalism.

Wait! There’s more:

Interesting, a Google search turns up two mentions of Severin winning a Pulitzer for online journalism. They come in student newspaper articles covering a November 2003 appearance at Boston College. ”Currently, Severin is a featured columnist on MSNBC.com, for which he has won the Pulitzer Prize for online journalism,” The Heights reported. Severin ”was the first recipient of Columbia University’s Pulitzer Prize for online journalism,” the Observer wrote. Both accounts also call him a graduate of Harvard Law School. He is not, Harvard says.

There’s also a hint of seamier goings-on in Severin’s past. Although he was reportedly fired from the Tucker Carlson show on MSNBC earlier this year, he told a New York newspaper that he quit because he didn’t like the commute from Sag Harbor to the channel’s studios in Secaucus, N.J. However, an insider at MSNBC said that the suggestion that Severin left voluntarily is a “complete absolute lie”:

In fact, he’s been banned from the network: “You won’t see him on MSNBC again,” the source says. (And based on Severin’s actions in Secaucus, “we were shocked to read in Page Six that he has a wife and daughter,” the insider adds…)

This from the man who famously said:

On whether a woman in a sexual harassment test case video had said “no”: “That’s not the big ‘no.’ And our job as guys is to convert a succession of ‘nos’ into one ‘yes.’ And to try and be as persuasive as possible in making that happen. The fact is my job, my right, my duty as a guy is to persuade girls to say yes.” [NBC's Dateline, 10/24/97]

Which brings us to our first introduction to Jay Severin. During the Monica Lewinsky scandal, he was one of a horde of rightwing pundits who appeared daily on MSNBC to excoriate President Clinton’s morality.

Oh, the hypocrisy!

63 Responses »

  1. Stuart Coyle September 19, 2005 @ 9:23 pm

    This is just disgusting………how is it that these morally bankrupt slimeballs continue to set the political agenda for your country? What will it take for the “real” moral majority to stand up and take control. Please America I know at heart most of your citizens are sensible,loving, friendly people. You are being horribly represented by these hate mongering, hypocrites doctoring the resumes and cheating on their wives and children.

    Stu from Australia

  2. shimmer September 19, 2005 @ 10:57 pm

    Religion is really the opium of the people – and these pushers are just as bad as those “others” in the same trade & the people addicted to this mallarky ! – it’s astounding!Please Read the Dalai Lama who offers us a route out of this madness & manipulation of the feebleminded and back to the path of spirituality,truth & wisdom.

  3. Jay Diamond September 20, 2005 @ 5:18 am

    Please keep in mind one important fact about the moronic, evil, and pathetically low-brow talk radio.

    The Right-Wing hacks do not put Themselves on the radio.

    Managers do.

    If management were better people, broadcasters would be too.

  4. Kelly September 20, 2005 @ 6:43 am

    This story is a bunch of fluff to try and destroy Jay Severin. Bill O’Reilly is a bore. Tucker Carlson is a pompous boring asshole. His show is so boring and he thinks he’s so important. There are other stupid shows that are intolerable to watch because they insult my intelligence by trying to get me to believe their ineffective spiels and insulting their guests. They are puppets for the phonies in the Bush administration.
    This article writes that Jay Severin had conduct unbecoming of a married man!! OMG with all that GWBush has done to this country with his phoney axis of evil, and demolishing the WTC and blaming it on others, obliterating the constitution, mass murder even in our own country (NYC and NOLA). . . The article tries to sway Jay’s devoted listeners and polute his name to the masses. It’s a joke. Jay’s listeners won’t be swayed. The writer or creators of this smear article insult all American’s intelligence with their fluff. Do they really think that we are all so gullible and stupid? Apparently so, but they are wrong. What’s going on with our government and our country is the beginnings of a revolution. Jay Severin pulls no punches. He’s very intelligent, he does not lie to the American people. Bostonians are a tough crowd and Jay has given them straight talk and they love him. I love his show and I’m trying to get reception since I moved. The censored news and personalities devoted to Bush who report the news, don’t want straight talk to the American people. They want to carry on the Bush censorship charade. Jay Severin is almost mainstream but the liars who wrote this article want to squash him like a bug. If Jay said he won a pulitzer prize, then, he must have said it in sarcasm. Jay is a lawyer which is more qualifications than alot of the censored news flunkees who just spin whatever they are told to. Geraldo Rivera is a lawyer and every effort was made to ruin his career by flunkees who were afraid he would be more sucessful. This is the case with this article trying to smear Jay. Don’t even tell me that Jay lies to his audience. His audience is not dim and that’s why he calls us the best and brightest. He honors his audience with truth and respect. We don’t care if he doesn’t broadcast out of Boston every time. But the article is wrong saying he doesn’t broadcast out of Boston. Jay takes his show LIVE! to local spots way outside of Boston as well as Boston. He goes out and spends the evening with the people. Don’t tell me I didn’t see him at Ken’s Steak House in Framingham, MA!
    We love Jay. From blue-collar workers on up, we all get into Jay’s honest take on the censorship news of the day. We love you Jay! We will do what we can to get Jay national and maybe Sirius Radio, because I for one, can’t live without his broadcast. JAY WILL PREVAIL!! Sore losers should step aside. The American public is sick and tired of this crap being dolled out to us by censored news network personalities. The sooner they are gone, the better. Step aside boys, it’s time for the men to take over. The American people are tired of being lied to. I do not rely on TV for news..it’s just a disgusting insult to digest their crap. We need Jay, so get outa the way!!!
    My commentary can be shared but I doubt the authors of this article will ever let that happen. You lie to the people, you have a revolution on your hands. There is no way the people are going to sit back and watch our finest or our poorest be outright murdered by the administration and all the followers under him. He has desecrated this country and is attacking the people, the military members, the veterans, and putting the screws to the not yet veterans. I’ve said enough. The government doesn’t like people to tell the truth and enlighten the masses. With The Patriot Act, they can get rid of people by locking them up. If not then, outright kill people they don’t like. Our forefathers and all the soldiers are turning in their graves. They have all died in vain because this administration destroyed everything that they worked for. This is not going to continue. Americans are strong and are not going to go down without a fight. It boggles the mind that our own leader is destroying us. Leave Jay alone. There is no scandal and you know it. There are bigger fish to fry.

  5. zola daniels September 20, 2005 @ 9:49 am

    Kelly. stand by your man if you want to but get the truth by hearing both sides and facts are facts. Find me proof Jay went to Harvard and he got Pulitzer Prize on journalism?????? I myself find him a dirty old man.

  6. Boston - Ty September 20, 2005 @ 11:10 am

    Kinda smart Mr. Severin (oops I mean Kelly). Trying to discredit writers of this article by taking postions Jay would never admit to on the air… “OMG with all that GWBush has done to this country with his phoney axis of evil, and demolishing the WTC and blaming it on others, obliterating the constitution, mass murder even in our own country (NYC and NOLA)…” Jay would never admit to those positions. If you’re smart enough to connect the dots, and conclude the above about Mr. Bush and his cabal, you’re smart enough to figure out the flawed ideology of Mr. Severin. Its not that complicated, Its called “White Supremacy”, and its not just about black vs. white here in the U.S. Its about Afro-Brazilians being subjugated by Euro-Brazilians, Same dynamic throughout all of “Latin” America. The Indigenous “Red” Indian population is caught in the middle, being forced to choose sides, or just face being written into non-existance. Its about Aryans subjugating Dravidians in India. Its about European self-styled Jews invading ancient African lands, which have been ruled by Arabs since they invaded, in the mid-to-late 600’s AD, and murdered the native African population into oblivion – stealing black history and culture in the process. Semi = half, semite = half white/ half black, i.e raped african women (duh). And when Arabs aren’t busy begging to be accepted as full fledged “whites” they are orchestrating the continual theft of black history, culture and lives, i.e. Sudan. I do not even need to go into New Zealand or Austrailia. Using projection to your advantage Jay? tssk tsk, your nose is growing

  7. wtmoore September 20, 2005 @ 1:12 pm

    kelly…

    there’s always room for one more head in the sandbox of life. don’t open your eyes…you’ll get kitty litter in them, and that can smart.

    kelly, severin is a LIAR, got it? HE’S A LIAR…what part of that is so difficult to grasp? he’s built a career around mendacity…you’d think these morons wouldn’t lie about something so easily sourced, but alas, the right wingnuts don’t care about truth. by the time they’re outed and exposed, they move on to the next lie or smear tactic…

    severin will surviver, because unfortunately, intellectual honesty is not an imprortant trait when people like you are involved…it’s the same reason 40% of the public still believe bush is honest. partisan myopia…

  8. Nick Miller September 20, 2005 @ 4:12 pm

    To: Jon (the author of this piece)

    Carolyn Kay at http://www.makethemaccountable.com (forgive me if you’ve already heard of her) sends out an e-mail newsletter every couple of days. In her newsletter she posts stories and op-ed pieces from various sources. Most of which, at the very least, are left of center. I am a subscriber to her newsletter. I am also a Conservative Republican

    Carolyn and I have been back and forth a couple of times on the Air America scandal (being dubbed Air Enron by bloggers). Since all the details and hard facts about the scandal, involving $875,000 of taxpayer funds being diverted from a NY nonprofit to AAR, have been released… Carolyn is nowhere to be found. She will not respond to my e-mails and refuses to post anything in her newsletter regarding the scandal. Which is understandable. She has, just as I have, an agenda. So I’m ok with her refusal to even admit that there is a possibility that AAR is involved in a scandal that would make WorldCom execs squirm in their jail cells. Well, I was ok with it…

    In today’s newsletter she posted a link to your piece about Jay Severin. In this piece you make some of the most outlandish assertions and flat out lies I’ve ever heard. I am not an apologist for Jay Severin. I honestly know nothing of the man. My concern isn’t with whatever scandal he may or may not be involved in. My concern (or rather disgust) is with your usage of the story as a catalyst for what you call “mendacity” amongst Conservative talkers. Your piece on Jay Severin, in my personal opinion, is the ultimate case of the pot calling the kettle black.

    The first thing you point out about Severin is that he has padded his resume with lies about receiving a Pulitzer. Fair enough. I have no rebuttal for that accusation. Like I said, I know nothing of the man. The second thing you suggest is that he is somehow involved in ” behavior unbecoming of a married man and father.” Like I said before, I’m no fan of Severin. But the irony of a Clinton apologist accusing a Conservative of “behavior unbecoming of a married man” is staggering to say the least.

    Later in your piece you propose the idea that the ill fate of televangelists in the ’80’s will become that of present day Conservative talk show hosts. This assertion is flatly absurd. Neither you or I have a crystal ball that can see the future of talk radio. All we can do is make predictions based on past events and current, fact-based, trends. However, it would seem your political ideologies are hindering your ability to recognize anything factual. One such fact is that talk radio is the fastest growing radio format in America, in terms of listenership. This is due in large part to FM radios’ insistence on playing the same seven songs over and over while drowning their listeners in an oozing cesspool of some of the most obnoxious commercials known to man. I respect that radio is reliant on advertisers to remain profitable… but it’s out of control. And since Conservatives dominate the airwaves, they stand to ultimately reap the benefits of higher talk radio ratings with larger pocketbooks and further succession of their agenda.

    In the same paragraph you claim that televangelists and right-wing talkers share the same general audience. I agree with that to a point. But then you suggest that those same audiences are made up of ” Americans who lack the skills or intelligence to think for themselves.” A claim that has been debunked time and time again. It’s a circular discussion. The typical talk radio listener has a higher education than those who listen strictly to stations with a musical format. And those who listen to talk radio are considered to be “smarter” because they do so. Your outrageous assertion should be filed under “Attempts By The Left To Further Distance Themselves From Main Stream America.”

    Again, in the same paragraph, you asseverate that the “rightwing talker’s leadership is dominated by scandal-prone hypocrites who… are beset with human foibles and failures just like everyone else.” That’s interesting. Especially considering Al Franken has been caught lying about having any knowledge of the sleazy transaction involving the Gloria Wise Boys and Girls Club and Air America. Al Franken… you know, the same guy who has made millions selling books titled Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them and The Truth With Jokes. Does he get a pass? How come he wasn’t named in your list of corrupt talk radio hosts?

    In the next paragraph you accuse various right-wing talkers of spouting seemingly disesteemed ideologies. If outrageous speech on the air is to be considered morally or legally wrong, then perhaps we should encourage the government to consider locking Randi Rhodes and Rachel Maddow away for life without the chance of parol.

    Later you cite a decline in Limbaugh’s and O’Reilly’s ratings as proof that the Republican’s “message machines appears to be diminishing.” It appears you spoke too soon. About 5 hours after you posted your piece, the latest Arbitron ratings were released. http://www.radioandrecords.com Most conservative talk stations are showing a slow, but incontestable, ratings climb after their post election slump. Yet there is not one single Air Enron affiliate that can boast an increase in their ratings.

    You toss out some truly amazing damnations in your ensuing rant about “cynical and corrupt conservatives.” I’d be more than happy to discuss those at a later time. For now I’d like to stay on the subject of talk radio.

    Next you claim that liberal talk radio outlets such as Air America are shining the light of truth on Conservative talkers (I’ve already pointed out just how truthful Air Enron really is). Yet, judging by their ratings, that light would appear to be so dim that only a few can actually see it. And the “reality-based” blogosphere… I thought we dominated that too?!?!??!

    Nick

  9. The other Jay September 20, 2005 @ 4:38 pm

    Kelly,
    We spend more on advertising, marketing, special interests and spin than we do on health care, the environment and basic education.
    What, within such statistics, could that possibly mean for someone in your position (and the remaining 40% of this country who still believe BushCo has or ever will be an honorable entity)?

    To start with, the sole object of advertising, marketing, special interests and spin is to usurp any form of independent thinking on your part that could be called “reason”. Second, in order for those components of intellectual manipulation to be most effective, they must use those who can deliver their spun honey without you even knowing what you’re “buying”.
    Severin, Hannity, O’Reilly, Hume, Rove, (Karen) Hughes and downstream b.s. sociopaths like Scotty McClellan all fall into this group who choose fear (or repetition disguised as “truth”) as the best lever to your outrage and therefore, hold the keys to your ideological programming.

    Respectfully, I doubt you think about these things as you are still buying the line, but I strongly suggest you ask yourself. . .
    “Why do I so easily relate to these types (within your stated preference and in this case, Severin) and what nuance can I draw from such loyalties if in fact they are lying (and they are)?”
    Kelly, you’re probably a nice person, but you have an obligation to not only yourself, but to the future of this country. As soon as you admit to yourself that the sole goal of those people for whom you have so much admiration and undying loyalty is simply to make money off of your easily gained consensus, as well as to bolster the lurid psychological component which has extreme liars and frauds like Severin, G.W. Bush, (FEMA’s) Michael Brown (also lied blatantly on his resume) attempting what they attempt.

    My suggestion to you . . . Do the work! It’s not that difficult, but you do have to release your patterns of gullibility you have shown on this post.
    Severin has lied repeatedly on the air and regarding his credentials . . . and the GOP will never (beneath the veneer) give a damn about you or what’s actually best for the people of this country, unless you are running big business. Step back and take a good long look and then take another one.
    You’re backing a stable of losing horses ridden by crooked jockeys.

  10. I'm sure there's more September 20, 2005 @ 4:53 pm

    The crime is not just the host – its the corporations who are putting this crap out on the airwaves.

    It is clear that they will accept sleeze that supports right wing agenda while getting the vapors over the idea of disclosing the things like the true deaths caused by the Bush family.

    But I”m sure there’s more that will come out on this guy if we put a little work into it.

    He’s pretty interesting in the way he does fake enunciation in his speech to come across as some kind of ‘authority’. Maybe he is trying to hide his origins. It’s like Dr Laura that way – sort of like the person who holds a cup of tea with the little finger held out.

    He also said that he would give money (like the arabs who support terrorists) so someone who would kill Hillary Clinton.

    On the sex stuff, he seems to be trying to overcome something. He does a little sex thrill thing when women call, and, like our friend howard stern, takes a little too much interest in young women to be really healthy for an older man.

  11. Nick Miller September 20, 2005 @ 7:34 pm

    You Libs are unbelievably predictable. As I scroll through all the postings above, I find the same Liberal talking points I hear every single day. I’ve taken the liberty of summarizing all the Liberal talking points you are supposed to (and most of you did) use when debating anything with a Conservative:

    1) Blame George Bush
    2) Play the race card
    3) Accuse the Neo-Cons of mind control
    4) Blame big business and corporations
    5) Claim we don’t spend enough money on the environment
    6) Claim we don’t spend enough money on education
    7) Don’t forget to mention the poor people
    8) Remind the Neo-Cons that we really won both elections
    9) Somehow relate items 1-8 to whatever you’re talking about…regardless of how absurd it may seem
    10) Should any of these talking points fail, you should revert to using the ever effective “Bush lied, kids died.”

    Honestly you guys, it’s despicable. Try taking off your tin foil hats and actually participating in a point-by-point discussion. Then maybe you’ll get somewhere in your arguments.

  12. wtmoore September 21, 2005 @ 12:03 pm

    whatever nick…does it even dawn on you that you are using the same talking points that the rest of the tinfoil hat right wingnuts employ? do you bush apologists EVER go off message? “must save Dear Leader from the evil liberals, blah freakin’ blah”. my how i do so love watching you whiners defend the indefensible. severin is a LIAR….bush is a LIAR, hell, he’s a pathological liar. why is it beyond your ability to admit that?

    “you’re doing a good job brownie…” sheesh…

  13. Nick Miller September 21, 2005 @ 12:53 pm

    First of all WT… us Neo-Cons are not the ones known for wearing tin-foil hats. We’re not the ones known for being conspiracy theorists (Iraq war for oil, 9-11 was on purpose to start a war with profitable defense contracts, levees in NOLA were blown up on purpose to kill the blacks, etc. etc.).

    Second, and I mentioned this a couple of posts ago, the irony of a Clinton apologist calling anybody a liar is staggering. I truly feel sorry for you if you actually believe that any politician tells the truth even half of the time. I could care less about any of the lies that any politician has ever told. I care much more about the party he is affiliated with and what that party’s agenda is.

    And no… we don’t ever go off message. That’s because our message is focused and defensible. In a point-by-point, LINEAR, COMMON SENSE, NON-EMOTIONAL debate, we prevail virtually every time.

    As far as admitting Bush is a liar goes… I don’t have to, nor do I want to. I have an agenda. And at least I can admit that. Once again… I ask you to participate in a point-by-point argument, and you came back with the usual “Bush is a liar” epithets. Which, by the way, are quickly becoming the most lame-duck epithets. He’s going to be our president for the next 39 months… like it or not.

    I’ll refrain from pointing out all the lies of the Democratic Party (and boy is there a lot of them), if you refrain from using the same old conspiracy theories.

  14. wtmoore September 21, 2005 @ 1:55 pm

    screw you nick…what points do you want to discuss. how about the neo-con willingness to sacrifice upwards of 30,000 american lives to jumpstart a war in the middle east? you see, i’ve actually read the PNAC policy statement. have you? if you have, how do you square ANY of that crap w/ reality. and as for your “conspiracy theories”? kiss my ass and show me where i posted ONE damned thing about “conspiricies”. you have a prob w/ word comprehension, eh? talk about obfuscation?

    BTW, i’m no clinton apologist, so that dog won’t hunt. YOU, on the other hand, ARE a bush apologist. not even willing to broach the topic of bush’s serial lying?? WTF?

    yep…you have an agenda alright. check your email moron, i’m sure karl rove has something for you to post…more talking points, and more marching orders, you stepford whore.

    get after it. you want to debate a “point”, try posting one for a change. you got nuttin’….

  15. Nick Miller September 21, 2005 @ 2:34 pm

    You posted a lot of crap in that last post so bear with me… it may take me a couple of posts to respond…

  16. wtmoore September 21, 2005 @ 3:04 pm

    ~tapping fingers~ yeah, right…a lot of crap..got it.

    the entire neo-con (PNAC) agenda is couched in propoganda/lying. their stated purpose disavows truth as even relavent, so it’s no surprise that you don’t care to address bush’s serial lying. the ends justify the means, right? torture is okay as long as it’s them, not us, right? see how this works, little nicky?

    why do i get the feeling you haven’t actually read the PNAC mission statement?

    and yes, severin is still a cretin and a LIAR, you’re still an apologist for him, bush, and the neo-cons, and you’ve been as they say “served”…

    reading is FUN_damental….you should try it

  17. Nick Miller September 21, 2005 @ 3:17 pm

    I’m not sure where you get that 30,000 number from. Perhaps you could explain in your next post.

    No, I have not read PNAC’s policy statement. But I have it hear in front of me (It’s actually called the Statement of Principals) and I promise to read it. I fail to see what PNAC has anything to do with our discussion though. They’re one of a million 501(c)(3)’s. I’m sure they’ve donated quite a bit of money to BushCo (just as moveon.org has donated quite a bit of money to the Dems). I’m not avoiding the topic. I’m simply saying that I don’t know enough about PNAC to come to their defense.

    Now, about my conspiracy theories statement. That was meant, solely, to set you straight on your little tin-foil hat issue. You said:
    “does it even dawn on you that you are using the same talking points that the rest of the tinfoil hat right wingnuts employ?”
    And you were wrong. The tin-foil hat wearing citizens (they think the government and/or aliens can read and/or control their thoughts and that the tin-foil will protect them, get it?) of this country align themselves heavily with the Democratic Party. When was the last time you heard a conspiracy theory coming out of a Cons mouth? I never accused you of stating any conspiracy theories (if you read my post closely, you’ll see that for yourself). Obfuscation huh?

    You say you’re not a Clinton apologist. And since I don’t know you, I have no choice but to believe you. But I do have to wonder if you’ve ever uttered the words “Clinton balanced the budget” (that’s a topic I’d love to discuss) or any one of the other attempts by the left to lionize, and somehow create a legacy for, their hero.

    And you’re absolutely right about me being a Bush apologist. I’m also, dare I say, a party loyalist. I would vote for a murdering, pillaging, drug using, felon of a Republican before I voted for even the nicest, most pristine Democrat. Why? Because party trumps person. It’s an irrefutable fact. I’d be more than happy to discuss that too. I’ve delved into the “Bush is a liar” discussion several times with other libs. And it’s the exact same argument over and over again. They always bring all of these speculations and, here we go again, conspiracy theories to the table. How the hell am I supposed to refute speculation? But if you want to discuss it, just let me know.

    I’m just going to ignore your stepford whore comment in the interest of moving this whole thing along. Name-calling doesn’t do a whole lot for your arguments.

    You say “get after it… try posting one for a change.” I thought I had. In my original post (which was simply a copy and paste of the e-mail I sent to Jon the author of this piece) I made several points. And then, in my ensuing post, I made another point. How many points would you like me to make? I was simply trying to say that in the arena of ideas, Cons repeatedly put a smack-down on the Libs. So… bring the noise. Pick a topic any topic.
    There now…that didn’t take as long as I thought. You’re shot…

  18. Nick Miller September 21, 2005 @ 3:43 pm

    FUN-demental huh? THEN TRY READING MY ORIGINAL POST!!!!!! If you do, then you’ll find that I care as much about Severin and his scandals, as you care about Al Franken and his shenanigans! Or would you like to discuss those too?

  19. wtmoore September 21, 2005 @ 3:48 pm

    ouch…yep you sure made your point.

    >>>No, I have not read PNAC’s policy statement. But I have it hear in front of me (It’s actually called the Statement of Principals) and I promise to read it. I fail to see what PNAC has anything to do with our discussion though>>And you’re absolutely right about me being a Bush apologist. I’m also, dare I say, a party loyalist. I would vote for a murdering, pillaging, drug using, felon of a Republican before I voted for even the nicest, most pristine Democrat.

  20. wtmoore September 21, 2005 @ 3:59 pm

    okay nick…

    for some reason, my entire response didn’t get posted. hmmm…

    i can’t believe i’m debating a self professed neo-con, who can’t articulate their policies. i nailed it…you have no real clue who they are…

    but let’s really get down to it…

    >>>>And you’re absolutely right about me being a Bush apologist. I’m also, dare I say, a party loyalist. I would vote for a murdering, pillaging, drug using, felon of a Republican before I voted for even the nicest, most pristine Democrat.

  21. Nick Miller September 21, 2005 @ 4:03 pm

    Is that it? Is that all I get from you? One of my quotes? WTF is that?

    You say ouch like you quoting me was some kind of burn.

    If that’s what you call getting “after it,” then we’ll never get anywhere. I hope I’m writing this as you author another (and hopefully more intelligable) post.

  22. Nick Miller September 21, 2005 @ 4:05 pm

    I beleive you also took my quote out of context (a favorite past time of liberals). You forgot to throw on the following two sentences:

    “Why? Because party trumps person. It’s an irrefutable fact.”

  23. Nick Miller September 21, 2005 @ 4:27 pm

    Oh please WT. I could school you on your party’s policies… Imagine what I could with my party’s policies.

    That’s twice you’ve quoted me. Is that what you want to discuss? My quote?

  24. Nick Miller September 21, 2005 @ 4:29 pm

    Did you not like what I said? Here’s another one for ya… There’s no such thing as a “Moderate.”

  25. Nick Miller September 21, 2005 @ 4:49 pm

    I’m still wating…

  26. Nick Miller September 21, 2005 @ 5:18 pm

    How much time must pass before we declare another victory for me?

  27. Nick Miller September 21, 2005 @ 5:32 pm

    Todays final score is
    Nick: 5
    WTMoore: 0

  28. Johnny Elkhorn September 22, 2005 @ 8:41 am

    You are all douche bags. Jay Severin, the author of the article, all how posted (which includes me, before you get any ideas), are all douche bags.

  29. wtmoore September 22, 2005 @ 8:57 am

    yep nick…you’re a real winner. any asshole who would openly state he would support a drug addicted murdering GOP candidate over an unnamed pristine Dem is just not worth my time to engage. you referred to yourself as a neo-con, and you didn’t even know what they stand for. in other words, a perfect clueless bush supporter….a stepford idiot…

    taking your hand and scattering the game pieces does not make you a winner. it just proves you’re socially retarded. does your mother know you’re using her computer?

  30. Irene September 22, 2005 @ 1:02 pm

    I have listen to Jay for 4 1/2 years and I have learned a lot, its fun, entertaining and I feel I am part of a larger community. I also feel that ideas are shared from both sides, yes Jay has his view and he stresses it. But its communication everywhere else it’s all one persons view they don’t let you call in at all.

    I didn’t listen last Friday but I did forgive Clinton for all of his mistakes and I am working through forgiving Bush for his. Hay we are talking about radio, have you gone to another channel lately they make everything up and its all about Sex.

    I miss Jay and Pray that he comes back.

    From an independent, who has voted democrat because of environmental reasons.

  31. Nick Miller September 22, 2005 @ 1:33 pm

    Sorry I didn’t see your post earlier WT. I’ve been so involved with this whole AAR, litterally, begging for money thing.

    I made my statement to prove a point. That point is Party Trumps Person. And of course you, like most other Libs, have taken the “you’re not worth my time” exit out of a potentialy engaging conversation.

    I’ll say it again. I could school you on your party’s policies and ideas, imagine what I could do arguing for my own party.

    You have yet to prove that I lack any sort of understanding of politics. You have resorted to name-calling and verbal diarrhea in what would seem to be an attempt to prevent yourself from having to actually debate anything of importance.

    Unless you are actually able to engage in some intellectual debate with me, then I will walk away today knowing in my heart of hearts that I have won again. While the only thing you’ll be able to do is somehow justify your so-called “victory” over our entire exchange by calling me an “asshole neo-con.” Who’s the winner?

    BTW. I make enough money to buy my own computer in my own house next to the golf course country club, of which I’m a member and plan to take YOUR mom out to for dinner tomorrow night. I also have the intelligence to have invented the internet in which you and I use to “communicate.” The only problem is that Al Gore beat me to it. (Yet another crock of sh*t from the Democratic Party)

  32. wtmoore September 23, 2005 @ 10:23 am

    right nick…you’re a paradigm of virtue and success. (yawn)

    you keep running your mouth about schooling me about my party (yawn). you don’t KNOW what “my party” is, jerk. you assume way too much, and prove absolutely nothing w/ your boorish boasting. you don’t know who i am, what i do, or a damned thing about me. you just don’t get it. i wouldn’t engage ANY idiot who made the bald-faced assertion you did about your stepford “party loyalty” to murdering drunks. jesus you’re pathetic. and the best part? you can’t let it go. you’ll keep checking to see how i respond to your superior rhetoric, and you’ll always have to get the last word, won’t you? winning at all costs, right?

    BTW, nice touch mentioning my mom, scumbag. i wondered how long it would take for you to play that card. what’s next? my race, religion, or sexual orientation?…now i realize how desperate for attention you really are.

    like the knight in Holy Grail, who has lost his arms and legs but still insists on fighting w/ Arthur, you really should just let it go. the more you say, the more foolish you appear.

    yep, you’re a “winner”….and whether you like it or not, “you’re not worth the time ” it would take to rip you yet again a new asshole.

  33. Nick Miller September 23, 2005 @ 11:29 am

    Listen… All I’ve ever wanted from this three day bitch fest is to debate you. You have called me:
    liar
    loser
    stepford idiot
    socially retarded
    stepford whore
    moron
    etc.
    And you have refused to answer even one of my direct questions.

    If you don’t want to debate me then fine. But you’re only making yourself look dumb by pulling out all the stops to avoid doing so.

    I mentioned your mom only because you mentioned mine. If you’ll go through all of the posts, you’ll notice that I’M not the one with the degradation issue.

    You claim I’m the idiot for saying what I did about party loyalty. Then prove it! Let’s hear your argument against “party trumps person.” Then (since I don’t know anything about you) state your party. I am left to assume a lot about you because the vast majority of your posts have been about me and what a terrible “ass hole” I am. Judging by when you entered this post (immediately after my “Liberal Talking Points” post) it’s pretty safe to assume you’re left of center. Am I wrong?

    We could go back and forth until our fingers fall off. But I’d like to get down to the issues. And it’s clear that we will go back and forth until one of us picks an issue. So here’s an issue:

    ABORTION

    Here’s my stance:

    It’s wrong. It’s murder. It’s being used as birth control. It has absolutely nothing to do with “Women’s Rights.” And pro-“choice” activists are really just pro abortion zealots.

  34. wtmoore September 23, 2005 @ 12:29 pm

    wow nick…you oppose abortion. i’m shocked. you say abortion is murder, but you WOULD support “a drunken murdering GOP candidate over a pristine Dem”, right? you oppose murder, but would support one for your political agenda to advance? stepford idiot fits you…why not embrace it?

    i’m an independent…a social liberal and a VERY fiscal conservative…an Air Force veteran, married w/ grown children who chose careers helping others. i’m a Deist, very spriritual, but not religious. i was raised as a devout baptist. it’s interesting that you chose abortion to challenge me. my take? i oppose abortion, but i’m pro-choice. it’s none of your fucking business what happens between a woman, her doctor, and yes, who or whatever she prays to. abortion shouldn’t even be in the political arena, period. the crass usage of it as a wedge issue to shore up the religious right base of our current crop of supposed “conservatives” has gone on long enough. their “culture of life” BS has jumped the shark, as it were. that moment passed when bill frist MIS-diagnosed schaivo via vidotape, bush flew back to washigton cutting his vacation short (gasp), and the delay wingnuts went into overdrive to save an already dead woman from evil liberals. her autopsy proved what intelligent people already knew…she was braindead and blind. did you know that not one fucking repug that jumped on the save terri bandwagon attended her funeral? did you agree w/ that whole fiasco? i suspect you did.

    nick, i’ve had hundreds of students just like you. spoiled, boorish WASP jerks w/ a chip on their shoulder and a ridiculous sense of entitlement. how old are you? if you’re under 30 (which i suspect), why haven’t you volunteered to fight our “nobel war” on terrorism. i smell a chickhawk…

    if you want to be treated like an adult, try acting like one. if i was a gambler, which i’m not–i oppose legalized gambling–i’d be willing to bet the farm that you regret making that idiotic chest-thumping remark about “supporting a drunk murderer because of party”. but alas, just like our dry-drunk POTUS, you lack the ability to admit mistakes. me…naaah, not so much….

    i supported Nixon as a youth, voted for reagan in 80′, and bought the “thriller” album for my wife. see, i can admit mistakes. can you?

    boy howdy…i can’t wait to be “schooled”

    next topic? why do republicans hate the military? they’re looking to CUT medial benefits for our troops to fund the massive cost of Katrina. but hey, huge pork laden transportation bills and tax cuts for paris hilton are off the table…go figure…

    and jay severin is STILL a LYING, resume padding asshole…

  35. Nick Miller September 23, 2005 @ 3:02 pm

    First… I do not withdraw my statement about party loyalty. I stand by it 100%. Feel free to prove me wrong on any of it. I used the words “drunken” and “murdering” because they are favorite epithets of the left when describing George Bush. So I’m used to using that exact same line when debating Libs. I stand by my statement’s context and withdraw nothing.

    Tisk tisk tisk. Your next line kills me. How in the hell can you be a social democrat and a fiscal conservative. Unless you are aware of some new form of governing that I’m not… what you said is impossible. To stand to the left socially means that you support (to whatever extent) things like welfare, unemployment pay, disability, socialized health care, etc. All of those things require an immense amount of taxpayer dollars. A fiscal conservative does not support high taxes. So tell me then…As a social Lib and fiscal Con… how the hell do you make any decisions come voting day? Do you waste your vote on a third party candidate?

    I chose abortion because it’s a topic I’ve, unfortunately, had a lot of personal experience with. I hear your argument a lot when debating abortion. There are lots of people out there that feel it’s morally wrong but should remain legal. To them, and to you, I ask… why do you vote against your morals. I agree that it’s none of anybody’s business what happens between a woman, her doctor, or her god (a whole other subject). My concern is not with the rights of the woman… it’s with the rights of the unborn child. There are plenty of doctor/patient privilege restrictions that are in place that nobody opposes. So I don’t feel that that’s a valid argument.

    Whenever I debate anybody on abortion, the same thought keeps circling the back of my mind. That thought is “how ironic is it that this persons mother chose life so that they could stand here and try to convince me that it would have been ok if she didn’t?”

    As far as the Shiavo thing goes, I agree with all of the judges rulings in the matter. Legally her husband had the right to pull the tube. The thing that bothered me about it was that she had a family that was willing and able to care for her if her husband wanted to move on with his life. He claimed it was not her wish to be kept alive by artificial means (a story that changed a couple of times). But then why did he wait 9 years to pull the plug?

    You were wrong about me regretting my statement, and you were wrong about my age. The fact that I’m a 17 year Field Artillery (active U.S. Army 13B) vet, should be sufficient enough to debunk your entire “entitlement” paragraph.

    I, also, was raised Baptist. But southern Baptist. I left the church many years ago, and do not currently practice any religion. It’s safe to say that I’m an athiest. I’m certainly not part of the religious right.

    I’m not sure why Republicans hate the military. I’m not sure I agree with that either. If they really are cutting military benefits (and I haven’t heard anything on that yet), it’s because the money for rebuilding after these two, truly devastating, hurricanes has to come from somewhere. Can you imagine the outrage from the left if congress were to get the money by cutting down on medicare or welfare benefits? The military is an easy target right now.

    I’m not going to pick another topic yet. There’s plenty of room to continue discussing current topics. I have to step out shortly. I’ll be back in 30 mins. So forgive the slow response to your next post.

  36. wtmoore September 23, 2005 @ 4:34 pm

    oops…how silly of me to have a moral compass. sorry about that nick…

    you chose abortion because it’s devisive and oblique. you absolutely desembled on schaivo…congrats. you could write talking points for rove. ignore the grandstanding by your party (loyalty issues?) and their attempt to co-opt a grevious family situation. that’s another winning formula…

    as for your smug parsing of your “murdering drunken” bullshit remark, stick it up your ass. what is it w/ your ilk? you get caught making a sociopathic remark, and you dismiss it as the fault of liberals? take credit for your shit. oops, we’ve already addressed that bit of arrested adolescence….the inability to admit a mistake.

    but my favorite part of this is your abysmal lack of information. yes, the bushies and GOP congress idiots are looking to cut funding for military bennies. it’s not hard to know this. try reading more than your own rhetoric. i’m betting you STILL haven’t read the PNAC info. yet you’re a self professed “neo-con”??? idiot. i say that because only an ill informed idiot would allign themself w/ a political agenda they haven’t even investigated.

    you really are clueless. the idea that social liberalism and fiscal conservatism are incongruous is specious at best. it just depends on priorities. you oppose welfare, unless it rebuilds some asshole’s mcmansion that’s destroyed by a hurricane. you oppose welfare, unless it’s an open ended contract given to haliburton. you oppose welfare, unless it’s couched in tax breaks for oil companies that already have record profits. you oppose welfare, unless it builds a bridge to nowhere for constituents of a powerful repug alaskan legislator. you oppose welfare, unless it flows to “faith-based” assholes like pat robertson who had his “charity” placed at the top of the white house linked effort to raise money for katrina victims.

    you see nick, much of what you support is little more than welfare for the wealthy. bush’s illegal, unprovoked, insidious “war” in iraq is to me, “welfare” for the military industrial complex…the pentagon, and specifically the civilian NEO-CON fuckwads running it (rummy/feith/wolfie, etc, ad nauseum), have spent enough money in iraq to give every poor little child you despise a college education, and a major leg up so they wouldn’t have to be the target of military recruiting. it’s a snake eating it’s tail. circular logic…

    BTW, hawkeye once said, “i don’t believe in atheism”. me either. it’s another of your efforts to employ situational ethics.

  37. Nick Miller September 23, 2005 @ 5:48 pm

    when i make a mistake i’ll admit to it. And not before.

    I have been pretty good about trying to stick to debating subject matter, while you have done your best to to degrade me at some point in every post. Why is that? If you are the adult you claim to be, then you are truly the most immature adult I’ve ever encountered. Your anger in all of this is truly laughable. Would it make you feel better if I stooped to your level in my responses? Ok then… here we go.

    Man you’re an idiot. You have attempted to redefine the word welfare as to avoid answering up to being an independent. How nice it must be to be a spineless independent prick and to be able to take whatever side you want in an argument. Fucking grow up! W.C. Fields said “you can’t be a good egg your whole life. You either need to hatch or rot.” Now, let’s see if you can answer two simple questions:

    1) Do you support welfare? (The use of federal funds to support the “less fortunate”)

    2) If you answered yes to question 1, then do you support higher taxation to fund welfare?

    You never answered my question about who you vote for come election time. Is that because you don’t vote? Do you know how to vote? You obviously don’t know who to vote for. What a fucking joke!

    I wasn’t aware that my remark was “sociopathic.” And of corse, in your usual childish manner, you have resorted to name calling and avoiding the context of the statement. Predictable.

    Actually i have read the PNAC statement. When you want to discuss foreign policy we will. Have you read the TSPSICI statement? (Too Spineless to Pick a Side so I Claim to be an Independent). Do you ask liberals if they’ve read moveon.org or A.N.S.W.E.R.’S statements? What is the “Independent’s” statement. Is there one? Or do you just “call it like you see it?”

    And you’re absolutely right… i do despise every poor child out there. Kill them all I say! Who needs them? Seriously though…grow the fuck up! You have a serious inability to stay on any topic. More proof that you probaly aren’t the adult you say you are.

    And how the fuck is me being an athiest at all related to situational ethics. You’re one to talk about situational ethics. You can’t even choose a political party.

    Now you see how much of a pain in the ass reading your posts is. You go off on these curse word laden rants instead of sticking to the subject. Would you like to just keep insulting each other?

    My e-mail addy is nm_ucr_services@comcast.net. Use it for your next response.

  38. wtmoore September 23, 2005 @ 7:21 pm

    right…got it. you’ve been pretty good at sticking to subject matter, and i just moved the goalposts, over, and over. like lucy and charlie brown, a football metaphor i’m sure you can grasp.

    funny…why are you obsessed w/ my voting record? oops…you’re a stepford idiot with a desire to marginalize anyone who votes against your PARTY, right? party trumps the person, right, asshole? david duke ran as a republican, so i’m sure you lined up to support him, right?

    jesus you make me tired. try to focus. my original reason to even engage you was your absurd assertion that you would “support a drunken murdering GOP candidate over a pristine Dem”. i realize you are a little challenged when forced to deal w/ your own remarks. that’s understandable when we consider your political stripe. truth, honesty, fair play…hell…those are just abstract concepts…a collective hunch when we factor in your obtuse atheism. it’s ironic that someone with strong beliefs about “party loyalty” and “welfare” has no beliefs about our ultimate destiny.

    that’s a real stretch….

    BTW, i am having a LARGE time pushing your buttons….go ahead. i told you you’d have to get the last word in.

    who’s the winner, dickhead?

  39. Nick Miller September 24, 2005 @ 1:31 am

    I’m interested in your voting record because you’re an “independent.” You keep avoiding the subject and I think we all know why.

    The party trumps person argument is simple (for most people anyway). If a man supports welfare, believes affirmative action is just, and promotes socialized health care, but then votes for a Republican candidate based on that candidates looks or personality… then that man is an idiot. In essence, a voter should not care about a candidate’s addiction problems (Ted Kennedy) or criminal history (Ted Kennedy), so long as that candidates beliefs are in line with the voter’s beliefs. Get it? Oh how nice it would be if we never had to hear about insulting stump speaches or Swift Boat Vets. Unfortunately, that is not the case. Unfortunately the majority of America buys into those stump speaches and negative campaign ads. How nice would it be if all a candidate had to say was “I’m a Republican,” or “I’m a Democrat?” But no… we have to go through 10 months of BS every four years because of the “moderates” and “swing voters.” In this country, the people who know and care the least… matter the most.

    And no i did not vote for David Duke. That’s what the primaries are for. Everybody in the primaries belongs to the same party. That’s where voters are supposed to weed out the addicts and criminals. But, for reasons i explained before, that doesn’t always happen (Ted Kennedy). And when a criminal (John Kerry) does squeeze by the primaries, then I vote for my party’s candidate. A DUI getting, lying, “murdering,” Republican (George Bush) is still going to enact policy and appoint SCOTUS justices more in line with my beliefs than would even the “most pristine Dem.” There have I explained that well enough for you to understand?

    Now if you have an argument that disproves anything I just said (and you probably don’t), then I’d like to hear it. I did not invent the party trumps person debate, but I HAVE mastered it. I have never been proven wrong on it.

    Once again you have refused to answer any of my questions. Do you support welfare? How do you decide on a candidate come Super Tuesday?

    ” it’s ironic that someone with strong beliefs about “party loyalty” and “welfare” has no beliefs about our ultimate destiny.”

    So I have to have strong beliefs on the afterlife in order to have strong beliefs on political statements? Which is more ironic… that fact that I have taken a non-stance on religion? Or the fact that a spiritual man who was raised a devout Baptist has a hardcore stance in favor of abortion? Hmmm….

    Oh and don’t flatter yourself. You have yet to push a single button of mine.

  40. wtmoore September 25, 2005 @ 9:28 am

    last time nick…

    your party trumps candidate BS is absurd, period. groupspeak and thought, lockstep support, blind loyalty…how Orwellian. sounds like fascism/communism/totalitarianism to me. sorry dude, but your utter lack of morality (you still cling to the drunken murderer) combined w/ your obvious obsession w/ kennedy (yawn) and seeming inability to name even one repug you would shitcan shows your “agenda”. you don’t actually think i believe your 2 party crap do you? you want ONE party, and we both know who that would be.

    you keep pressing me for “answers”, yet refuse to accept the answers because you don’t like them, so you accusde me of not answering…how rovian of you. i answered your welfare question. all “entitlements” are a form of welfare. throwing wads of tax money to cronies is welfare writ large. you only have a problem with it when the face of the person cashing the check is either black, or god help us all, black and a voting democrat. forget playing the race card…it’s boorish. you’ve been dancing around the issue since your first post, so just say it. tell us why you oppose “welfare”. you really wouldn’t like my take on it…it’s way too draconian. a thumbnail view would be the end of public housing as we know it, and replace w/ a dorm approach. single parents would NOT get foodstamps….they would get 3 squares downstairs in the dorm cafeteria. there should also be an on premise child care facility, and mandatory attendance in educatrion classes and job training. sound familiar? it works for the military…

    on last shot. i never said anything about a “hardcore stance” about abortion, dumbass. i said i support a woman’s right to choose. my stance is EXACTLY because i AM a spiritual person…it’s an issue for God to sort out. you state abortion is murder, period, and that’s why you oppose it…but you would support a murdering politician?? i guess as long as the child is birthed, it’s okay to kill them then, right? or do we have wait a few years before it’s okay to kill them and still be a good partisan “party man”?

    dude, you are too fucked up to live. you have a magnet strapped to the seemy underside of your moral compass, and it is spinning wildly out of controll. i’m done with you. do take the opportunity to post back and prove my assertion that you are incapable of just walking away.

  41. jimmy severino October 5, 2005 @ 6:50 am

    Jay is being totally slimed and railroaded. He is the best out there, and the man is trying to keep him down. I am totally unbiased in this regard,

  42. Barry Nolan October 5, 2005 @ 3:42 pm

    In addition to lying about his Pulitzer Prize – and his “award winning MSNBC” work – Mr. Severin falsely claimed to have a Masters Degree from Boston University. When confronted with the truth – Mr. Severin at first adamantly insisted that he had earned his degree – but eventually acknowledged that he has been making the claim in error for the past thirty years. Mr. Severin’s lawyer said that Mr. Severin told him he “thought he remembered doing his thesis”. Quite a feat of imagination there. Infinity Radio has since removed the claim of a Masters from their press release concerning Mr. Severin.

  43. Andy October 5, 2005 @ 6:30 pm

    Jay Severin is the only person on the radio that makes any sense. He doesn’t get caught up in the right-wing hypocrisy. I find it hard to believe he would make such false claims, but maybe. That doesn’t change the fact that he is an intelligent human being (not perfect) who makes us all think and discuss politics amongst one another.

  44. CG October 10, 2005 @ 11:45 am

    WT and Nick thanks for the entertainement….I have to say Nick pretty much explained himself clearly. But I have to commend both of you to the service of oour Country. (hopefully both of you were beng honest…….

  45. Holly October 14, 2005 @ 11:46 am

    If you don’t like what you hear on the radio or TV, there is a button called the on/off switch. WAKE UP AMERICA !!!!! I THINK we are still a free society, able to make our own choises. Bring back Jay —- We should have gone Harry Truman on there asses, it would have saved us alot of lives and money.

    One of many of Boston’s best and brightest.

  46. Rachl October 21, 2005 @ 12:19 pm

    I think Jay’s smart and entertaining. I have enjoyed listening to him for years. The discourse encouraged me to learn more about politics and be more informed.

    I also happen to think Jay’s a bit full of himself, and could easily believe that he embellished his accomplishments. No one can be as full of shit or full of himslelf as Bill O’Reilly, though. Damn, it’s painful to listen to even 5 minutes of that guy.

    So, maybe Jay fibbed about his background. And, if he has a thing for hot 20yo girls, so what? It’s still good radio.

    Rachel

  47. K Smith October 26, 2005 @ 5:43 pm

    Wow,how “liberalism” has changed in the past twenty years. I was a liberal once during my college days and for a few years after. It lasted until I couldn’t stand big government taking most of my pay and wasting it in ways I could never imagine.

    Liberals used to have solutions (my first presidential election had me casting a vote for Jerry Brown all for that 15% flat tax); now they sadly monger around for power and lust after their lost glory days, engaging in juvenile name calling on air and off, in publications and presumably even in their dreams.

    I don’t know what I am any more, I’m not a republican and not a liberal. I find myself voting for the lesser of two or three evils lately. Idealism and party alignments belong to the young I suppose.

    I listened to Jay regularly. I found him amusing, thought provoking and perturbing, usally in the same show! One thing is for sure, if you listened regularly, you can attest that he has been very vocal in his many criticisms of the Bush administration; to equate him with a mindless republican lacky is ignorant. He is anti-Iraq-occupation, a position you would figure a few democrats would jump on in their only focus: regaining the whitehouse, but sadly they persist in name calling, happily living in denial that their lack of agenda has become tiresome and most of Americans work a 40 hour week and don’t have personal trainers, personal assistants and don’t wish they lived in Europe!

    The last fifteen years of politics has been quite entertaining actually. We had a president of the United States, highly skilled in charisma and eloquent speech treat us like kindergartners and give the excuse of “it depends on what your definition of ‘is’ is”. Now we have a president not so eloquent tell us the battle against terrorism will be a long one, and our ADD mentality can’t cope with three years of combat.

    I personally don’t really care if Jay Severin won a pulitzer prize, graduated from Harvard is married, is a ‘dirty old man’or anything else. He entertained me. He put people on the air (callers) in very liberal Massachusetts (where I reside) that had different opinions than our stereotype. You don’t learn from people you agree with, you learn from people whom you do not.

    I know how to turn off the radio, and I get regular practice during Mike Barnacle or Eoghan and Brodies’ show on WTKK in Boston.

    Sounds like a few of you here need more practice on that button.

  48. Kevin November 17, 2005 @ 9:07 am

    Last I heard, Jay Severin, Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Reilly were not elected to be on the air.

    They are on the air becuase they make money for their companies by getting sponsors to pay for advertising. If you hate Jay but still buy from his sponsors then you are a hypocrite. If you are for free speech but want him off the air because you don’t like what he says, then again, you are a hypocrite.

    Everybody has flaws (even me). If all you can do is harp on someone’s flaws to discredit their arguements, you probably don’t have any ideas of your own. Which brings me to my point…

    Stop shooting the messagengers and try shooting the messages.

  49. Mike December 5, 2005 @ 9:51 am

    I was googling to find out what happened to Jay Sevrin who mysteriously disappeared from the airwaves of WTKK in Boston.

    This article (I think) explains the what has happened and, though left leaning, was readable…UNTIL it went off the lefty ledge begining with:

    “…corrupt conservatives who have seized control of the country and ruined the economy, led us into a war for no other reason than to satisfy the whim of their aristocratic leader, and left our homeland security to be administered by cronies and flacks.”

    Do leftists, liberals, communists,- whatever you want to be considered – practice this stuff to make it all sound like you’ve been implanted with the script-chip? In my quest for the truth, nothing ends the discussion faster than this stuff. They are nice theories…but do you have any evidence? …and don’t hand me the Downing St memos or whtever they are called. The only proof I’ve ever heard that “Bush Lied” or “War for Oil” or any of the standard pap has been speculation derived from hand picking some facts and filtering tham through the ideology filter of people who, to the rest of us, are the party of ‘abortion on demand right up to the moment of birth” and ‘two guys in chaps spanking eachother in a parade’.

    As far as political talk radio goes, I think it’s a bit early to predict that Rush and O’Reily are thru. Air America is unlistenable and apparently so even for liberals since even they aren’t listening.

    Please, Please, Please!!! Find some evidence for your wacked out theories. Only people who have stopped being objective or people who do not think for themselves are buying the baseless claims of the ‘America is Bad’ crowd.

    …either that or just move to France!

  50. Madison December 5, 2005 @ 10:46 am

    Mike –

    First of all, we’re liberals and damn proud of it. Liberals built this nation while conservatives sat on the sidelines and kvetched.

    Proof that Republicans in Congress are corrupt:
    – Cunningham: $2.5 mil in bribes
    – DeLay: breaking Texas election laws
    – Frist: insider trading, lying about it, plus allowing government malfeasance and malfunction go un-investigated and thereby putting democracy at risk
    – Bob Ney: took pay for play$$ from Abramoff
    – Hastert: subverting government and democracy by allowing these and other scandals go un-investigated
    More to come as the Abramoff and MZM scandals unfold. (If you only listen to rightwing radio, you may not know about these scandals since they only broadcast the White House spin on everything.)

    Proof that we went to Iraq because of oil:
    – Answer this question honestly: If Iraq’s number one source of revenue was olive oil, instead of fuel oil, would we be there? The answer is no. If you said “yes” then why aren’t we aren’t invading and occupying the Sudan/Darfur/Myanamar/North Korea and other places where brutal dictators are commiting genocide? The terrorists were in some of these places until George Bush turned Iraq into a spawning ground for hatred of the US.

    And don’t hand me that “morals” crap. The Republican Party is led by closeted gay men, including the RNC Chair Ken Mehlman. George and Laura Bush have gay friends, so do Rick Santorum and his wife. They just spout their anti-gay rhetoric to get the votes of haters who aren’t smart enough to smell bullshit when it’s right under their nose.

    Two thirds of Americans believe that women have the inate right to determine what happens to their own bodies. Conservatives are demanding that pregnancy become a government program. When Roe is abolished in a year or two, in states where abortion is illegal the government will be charged with ensuring that each and every pregnancy comes to term. Conservatives want government-enforced pregnancies. Orwell couldn’t have dreamed this up. Abortion is wrong. We need less reproducing, not more. But the government should stay out of it. It’s a personal and/or family matter.

    At this point, I say bring it on. Get rid of Roe and let’s take the battle over abortion to the ballot box, which is what the psued0-moralists on the right say they want it. With two thirds of the electorate against them, candidates who support government-enforced pregnancy are going to get fewer votes than candidates who do. Count me as a lilberal who supports making candidates state their positions on whether the government should force women to procreate.

    The rightwing of this country is morally bankrupt. Here’s the proof: Conservatives get outraged over Clinton’s blow job but they think nothing of wasting the lives of thousands of brave American service personnel by sending them to war for no reason. They put their bizarre cult-like devotion to Dear Leader above what is morally right. That is moral bankruptcy.

    Even Bush and Cheney have admitted that the reasons they took the country to war were bogus. Therefor one of two things happened: Either Bush/Cheney et al lied about their reasons took the country to war, or we can believe them now that they just, you know, screwed up. Shit happens. If the latter is true, George W. Bush will have a place in history for committing the worst case of official negligence in the history of warfare. Personally, I’d prefer to think he lied. The idea that anybody could screw up so badly that thousands of our soldiers and innocent Iraqis were killed and over $250 BILLION was wasted. (So far.)

    What conservatives are starting to understand is that George W. Bush is the worst president in the U.S. history. For some reason, though, the dawning realization that Bush is incompetent at just about everything but lying (which is no mean feat for a man who can barely speak in complete sentences) makes rightwingers lash out at liberals.

    He’s taking the GOP down. Enjoy the ride!

  51. Chris December 14, 2005 @ 11:37 pm

    My biggest problem with Jay Sevrin wasn’t that he was a pompous, self-aggrandizing ass; nor that he was right wing; nor even that he was bigoted and close-minded. To his credit, he was the closest of the RNC propagandists on 96.9 FM to actually being conservative.

    My problem with Jay Sevrin was that he was fundamentally un-American. He did not understand what a true American conservative was. He repeatedly said on his program that a conservative believed in “conserving the Constitution.” I have no idea what that meant, but I do know that a true American conservative adheres to the ideology of America as set forth in our Declaration of Independence and the preamble of our Constitution. This was an ideology that was drawn from the philosophies of Locke, Hobbs, Rousseau, and especially John Stuart Mill. A true American conservative believes that people do and should have the right to do what they wish provided the free exercise of that right does not infringe on the rights of others. They believe the primary role of government is to adjudicate when conflicts over the exercise of individual rights occurs. They believe that the Constitution is the social contract between governed and government and that we, the people, must hold our government to its obligations under that contract. They do not believe in dynasties: Political or economic. They do not believe that dissent is un-patriotic or un-American but rather that dissent can be most patriotic and most American. They do not believe in institutionalized activities that violate the Constitution. True conservatives believe in a representative government that represents the will and needs of the citizenry as a whole and not the will and desires of corporate interests. While a true conservative may be disturbed by ill-administered welfare programs for the benefit of the poor, that bothers them far less than the myriad welfare programs our federal and state governments run for the benefit of private corporations and foreign potentates.

    Jay Severin, like so many of the right wing propagandists, was wont to go into tirades against welfare programs for the poor that cost the taxpayers of this nation a bit of money, but I never once heard him rip into the government for the massive welfare programs it runs for the timber industry, oil industry, sugar refineries, drug companies, etc., that cost our nation’s taxpayers a great deal of money.

    It somewhat saddens me that Jay Sevrin caused his downfall by misrepresenting his C.V.. What should have sunk his career was publically advocating the institutionalized use of torture by the government of the United States of America. That was both utterly un-American, and unforgiveable.

  52. terrible article May 7, 2006 @ 2:42 am

    Seriously, the worst article I ever read. Can it be more one-sided? You are terrible.

  53. gina gal June 23, 2006 @ 10:01 am

    I’m unfamiliar with the subject but in my view, Chris’ posting said it all (and if this was “the worst article ever read” by ‘terrible article’ I’d love to see his/her reading list). I’m here because I can’t figure how Jay Severn justifies his claim that Al Gore is “the biggest loser on the planet” (as I brlieve he said on a recent IMUS show) when more Americans voted for Gore than for Bush. I don’t know how many presidents were elected after losing the popular vote, but I’m guessing it’s not many. So what makes him “the biggest loser?” His best-selling book on global warming? Perhaps his comedic talent evidenced recently on SNL? Please enlighten me, Jay Severin fans.

  54. Mike Tracey August 7, 2006 @ 4:45 pm

    Your comment: “Recent ratings show declines for Rush and O’Reilly in key markets” is a joke. You know very well that any decline in any market is due to competing CONSERVATIVE hosts. Why not do your readers an actual service and speak to why liberal talk shows do so poorly….?

  55. [...] Americans — believe the natural state of the world is to have individual self-determination, human rights, the rule of law and a robust democratic economy. On this view, most of the existing world and almost all of world history is a freakish aberration. In fact, the natural state of the world is Darfur. The freakish aberration is America and the rest of the Anglo-Saxon world. The British Empire once spread the culture of prosperity around the globe — Judeo-Christian values, tolerance, equality, private property and the rule of law. All recipients of the British Empire’s largesse benefited, but the empire’s most successful colony was the United States. Nobody is taking issues with the United States taking prudent pro-active measures to protect her citizens but not at the expense of superciliously dehumanizing the weaker nations. You probably remember how the Americans cordoned off Kenyans during the ’98 bomb blast so that they could go in and save their own. Jay Severin, a talk radio host very famous in the Boston area constantly says (to the affirmation of many of his callers) that America has the right to nuke an entire country to save the life of one US soldier. I am not a National GeoghrAfrican. [...]

  56. IVO August 8, 2007 @ 3:59 pm

    Severin is a liar…He lied about his education, he lied about his real name, he lied about family situation….Wake up people….He is a dirty , old fart who happened to have some coin in the bank…He also stabbed Michael Graham in the back before returning to 96.9 for a second time

  57. solange713 January 12, 2008 @ 1:24 pm

    jay is gay

  58. MK March 12, 2008 @ 12:09 pm

    Do not forget, he is gay. He tries really hard to hide it, like listening rock, pretending he know a lot about women, but he is a lonely loser living alone with a dog or cat and doing a lock himself.

  59. rick April 20, 2008 @ 12:06 pm

    What’s up with those teeth? He looks stupid and he is a fag that needs bodyguards. Definetely not a mans’ man and women who supposedely go with him. Ecch!!!! Very articulate, lonely and couldn’t make it on the Bill Maher show. I think Imus is about to throw him off as well. He actually started on WRKO at night when Mike Katz was on in the morning. Katz had to be let go since he wanted to use an 11 cent bullet to cure immigration and drug crime. I would love to hear Ted Kennedy on Severins’ show as a guest. As much as I don’t like Ted, I think Severin would be destroyed by him. At least Howie confronts some of the peeps he hates on his show. Severin, no guts, no military, although an expert on the subject. Two years, maybe.

  60. hesnotmypresident2009 January 12, 2009 @ 11:28 pm

    In Mass we now have the right to watch women whip out her boob and feed her brat. The right to watch the teeny bopper roll a joint and then smoke it. And the two gay guys to hold hands coo at each other and suck face. Yet…This is what everyone is worried about? Whether Jay Severin lied on his resume…Wow…no wonder why Obama duped so many people!

  61. matt January 23, 2009 @ 5:19 pm

    Jay speaks the truth about a world that has gone so far left we might not be able to come back. To be left you tell people to turn down their thermostats, but keep yours up. Or to support affirmative action. To be left you must hate George Bush. If someone talks negatively about Obama they are labeld racist. To be left you must do everything that a sane person would do backwards. So I day to all of you Lefty Looies stop crying, I worked overtime this week so your welfare check will have a bonus in it.

  62. Oskarwilder April 4, 2009 @ 8:15 am

    Jay is a fraud. Boston’s ‘best and brightest’ obviously don’t know the difference between rhetoric..and discourse (‘Oh, Jay. We learn so much from you….’. God help them). Jay changes his position on virtually every issue and political affiliation, depending upon the argument that he’s attempting to make. There is never true discourse on ‘Extreme Games'; it’s just the sound of one-hand-clapping.

    Jay is currently bragging that he’s won an award from NewsMax. NewsMax is to journalism, what Jay is to intellectualism. Second-prize: two awards from NewsMax!

  63. Karen T June 23, 2009 @ 7:19 am

    I don’t really care for Jay or his show too much. He too right-wing. His opinion is the only opinion and he has the attitude that if you don’t go along with him and his right-wing thinking, than you’re really not all that intelligent.

    Jay really needs to prevent looking so ignorant and close-minded if he really wants anyone to take him seriously. There are two sides to every story; he only sees one.

    I’m not slighting Jay’s intelligence – at all. He’s an extremely intelligent man, knows his politics, very well versed, and fully comprehends the current issues of politics. However, he would benefit his audience if he were a little more objective in his theories.

Leave a Reply