RSS Feed MenuBoston-area talk radio host Jay Severin makes Mark Levin look like Diane Rehm. So it was with great displeasure that I heard about his return to the airwaves last week after a month long indefinite suspension.
The proximate cause of Severin’s latest banishment was a fusillade of intemperate remarks that he made about Mexican immigrants, whom he labeled “leeches,” “primitives” and “criminaliens.” Hospital emergency rooms, he said, have become “essentially condos for Mexicans.” He also blamed, in the midst of the national hysteria over swine flu, our neighbors south of the Border for bringing disease into the United States. “In addition to venereal disease and the other leading exports of Mexico — women with mustaches and VD — now we have swine flu.”
But this was not the first time that Severin, a former political consultant to Pat Buchanan, had made disgusting comments about a whole group of people on his WTKK radio show. In a 2004 conversation with a caller about whether the United States should “befriend Muslims,” Severin retorted, “You think we should befriend them; I think we should kill them.” How’s that for a foreign policy!
Severin is also creative with the truth, particularly in regards to his resume and achievements. In 2005, he claimed on-air that he had received a Pulitzer Prize for online journalism, even though there is no such Pulitzer category (Severin hasn’t won a Pulitzer for anything). Asked about the claim by the Boston Globe’s Scot Lehigh, Severin offered this lame response: “What I said was, there is a prize that my editor told me is the equivalent of the Pulitzer Prize for Web journalism. That is a hell of a caveat.” That is a hell of a caveat, and would render whatever accomplishment he imagined for himself next to meaningless, except Severin didn’t offer it.
Severin issued the requisite apology for his latest tirade, the sort of insincere expression of regret that politicians and celebrity abusers of the law and/or basic standards of propriety seem to offer on a weekly basis in response to popular outrage over their misbehavior. Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick, who has a monthly radio show on WTKK, weighed in on the controversy, saying that while he “read and appreciated [Severin’s] apology,” “we have got to figure out a way on this station and in our broader civic life to engage even on difficult issues without demeaning people who differ from us in background or point of view.” Those are wise words from the Governor. A first step would be to start ignoring Severin and other blowhards, whatever their political leanings.
barker13 // Jun 10, 2009 at 9:49 am
Re: Midcon; 5:09 AM –”Perhaps your goal is to educate the site and its community the error of their ways. We should be grateful for you and those like you. Not everyone would be willing to spend the time and effort in an attempt to raise the masses out of their intellectual stupor as you are. Thanks be to Franco!”Yep. Damn straight. Thanks be to everyone who regularly contributes intelligent commentary and useful facts.Hey… a bit of friendly ball-busting adds spark and sizzle to any exchange, but in all seriousness Midcon… where do you believe Franco was wrong with regard to his comment? As I noted in my 8:43 pm post last night, there is indeed a clear and noticeably regular “group effort” (by Frum and certain “contributors”) to go after conservative pundits.(Right…??? I mean… I’m not imagining this, am I…???)Re: Franco; 6:30 AM –”They envy…”Yep. Sure seem to. (*SHRUG*)Hey… I myself vacillate between “elitism” and populism, but Frum & Company show an old style “priggishness” at times that just sets my teeth to grinding. You know… that effeminate snobbish “clubby” attitude – the “breeding” of the establisment vs. “nouveau riche” if you will.Re: Franco; 6:50 AM –”…the Democrats will use Frum as a mouthpiece to drive home and lend credibility to the meme that Republicans are beholden to virulently hateful talk radio. They have used this tactic for years, trotting out John McCain to disagree with Republicans trotting out Chuck Hegel or Arlen Specter…”Yep. (*NOD*)Re: Franco; 7:22 AM –”Who’s apologizing and distancing themselves from Letterman? The joke about the daughter was indefensible. Children of political candidates need not be gratuitously attacked. Where is the outrage??”Heck… look at balconesfault response… he’s (she’s) apparently fine with Letterman’s attack. (*SIGH*)Those of you here at NM who aren’t actually liberal Democrats… Franco is making a key point: The Dems fight to win. Always remember that. In the real world it’s not about honor or integrity, about doing the “right thing,” it’s about power… it’s about winning. Is the GOP full of “angels” vs. the “devils” of the Democratic Party? No. Not at all. But as corrupt, stupid, and hateful as Republicans can be, in terms of “fighting dirty” I’ve gotta give the Dems the edge – at least as far as getting away with it and prospering from it goes.Re: Franco; 7:55 AM –”By the way,Palin attended the game with her 14 year-old daughter, so it wasn’t even Bristol he was referring to.”Thanks for making that point! Good job!”I’m not complaining about Letterman, I’m complaining about the double standard you and others apply…”Again. I’m with Franco. Bottom line, I look down upon people who apply double standards, who are hypocritical, who lie and “cheat” in furthering their chances of winning (be it winning something concrete like an election or winning a blog debate), and far more often than not it seems that it is those on the Left who gravitate towards this “all’s fair in love and war” concept.So, yeah… going back to Midcon’s 5:09 am post… Thanks Be To Franco.(*NOD*)BILL
balconesfault // Jun 10, 2009 at 9:54 am
“Heck… look at balconesfault response… he’s (she’s) apparently fine with Letterman’s attack. (*SIGH*)”As I said – “It was tasteless.” I wouldn’t have used the daughter joke, and better adjectives could have been used to describe Palin’s cultivated “babe” look (in Limbaugh’s words).If nothing else, it was offensive to flight attendants.
ktward // Jun 10, 2009 at 11:53 am
No doubt DF will comment on this article shortly, but it’s worth linking here:http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-06-09-poll-parties_N.htmWhy the link, you ask? Because it speaks to the larger self-destructive problems the GOP faces today, exacerbated by folks like Severin.Which is, IMHO, precisely the point James is illustrating.Quick excerpt:”In the poll, 34% had a favorable impression of the Republican Party, matching the lowest level in more than a decade. In comparison, 53% had a favorable impression of the Democratic Party.”Dissatisfaction with the GOP extends to within its own ranks. Among Republicans, 33% had an unfavorable impression of their own party. In contrast, 4% of Democrats had an unfavorable impression of their party.”The GOP’s electoral setbacks, policy divisions and image problems make it harder for the party to influence the national debate.”
ChristianMiller // Jun 10, 2009 at 1:00 pm
balcone, Please allow me to point out a few things. First thanks for posting those jokes. They don’t quite rise to the level of tasteless jokes. But notice that Letterman only targets safe Democrats, that is, Democrats who are already so exposed as whatever they are Clinton as a playboy, and Marion Barry an utterly corrupt politician and serial liar if there ever was one. Also he goes after Blago – same thing. And Gore was no longer running for any office, Gore being fat is the most benign aspect of where Gore could be joked about. Gore’s hypocrisy and preachyness is where the real comedy is, but that would be damaging. And note that he hasn’t attacked Chelsea or any member of Democrats’ families either (nor should he, of course).These Democrats are safe in that their careers are over Letterman can do no further damage to their political efforts. The timing of Letterman’s attacks on them is completely benign. And of course I think you would still agree they don’t rise in equivalence of smearing a 14 year-old girl who went to a Yankees game with her mother.Palin still could be a viable candidate and mocking her when there is so much more to mock reveals an animus that is palpable.I didn’t know balloon juice is a major liberal blog. So what? Any Republican can cite this blog as evidence Republicans aren’t all in lock step with Limbaugh either, lotsa good that does. No, either Letterman stops the gratuitous remarks about 14 year-olds and apologizes or I’m not gonna countenance laments from our side about Severin, Rush or anyone else. They don’t rise to the same level of nastiness – not even close. The only thing I find similar or equivalent to these Letterman jokes from our side (sorta our side ) is what Imus said about the Rutgers basketball team. Personally I can’t stand Imus. I believe he is purposefully shocking, he tries too hard to be edgy and cool (and he’s not) he has a confused and I believe self-serving view of politics. The jokes are equivalent because in both cases young women were publicly and needlessly tarnished with being slutty in some way just for a cheap laugh. These young women are private citizens and did nothing to warrant this type of casual attack or reference. Regardless of what you think of Sara Palin’s politics, her daughter can’t help being her daughter. The Rutgers B-ball team were just playing a game for God’s sake.This also contributes to discouraging good people from taking strong political stands – because people like Letterman are going to target you AND your family. The kind of attacks the Palin family underwent is unprecedented in politics and it all came from Democrats and so called moderates.
ChristianMiller // Jun 10, 2009 at 1:13 pm
“Dissatisfaction with the GOP extends to within its own ranks. Among Republicans, 33% had an unfavorable impression of their own party. In contrast, 4% of Democrats had an unfavorable impression of their party.”YEP Count me under that 33% In fact I’m willing to bet that more conservatives than moderates are unhappy by at least 2-1. Because it is the MODERATES who are running the party. Bush ran as a conservative got elected twice then moderated his policies (if he ever really had to) continuing to spend make nice with Democrats on everything but the war and then the Republicans lost the house and ran another MODERATE John McCain who LOST. Of course it is the conservatives in the party who are most upset with the direction.
ktward // Jun 10, 2009 at 1:23 pm
Oh, for Pete’s sake.The parsing of tasteless jokes among celebrities, comedians and politicians is a complete waste of time and perfectly good acrimony: for every joke ‘you’ argue as indefensible, ‘they’ have an equally legit example of the indefensible.Talk about losing the forest through the trees.Now, *this* thread is about inarguably incendiary speech with a loud mic. The kind of speech that foments hate and criminal behavior among the emotionally and psychologically unbalanced at worst, and at best paints the Republican Party in a most unflattering light. (Holy understatement.)Perspective, gentleman. Let’s keep it.
ktward // Jun 10, 2009 at 1:50 pm
Franco, I agree with you, in that I also believe it is the far right wing of the Republican Party that represents the lion’s share of that 33% unfav opinion.(Though I’m willing to concede you and I may be wrong: perhaps that lion’s share is in fact the moderates who are quite unhappy with the far right’s disproportionate influence–based on member numbers–over the Party’s attempts to find and solidify credible direction. If sinz turns up here, I’ve no doubt he’ll have legit argument either way, so I’ll skip that point for now.)One of the dynamics I find most fascinating about this blog is who is, or who gets to decide, the lucky contestant with the legitimacy to define ‘conservative’.The definition you and, say, Tesla assert is very often at odds with our blog host, DF, and others posting here by way of column or comment. The challenge the Party faces with this internal conflict is that Party direction (and viability) will suffer until this internal conflict is resolved in a practical way.Touch gloves and to your corners!
ktward // Jun 10, 2009 at 2:20 pm
barker13, 8:43 pm sez:”… if we had an unedited, in context transcript or video of an entire Severin segment to read/listen to/watch and then react to that context then we’d have something solid upon which to base a worthwhile discussion.”Excellent point. Really. Context is everything- and I will indeed hold you to this principle going forward.James made a credible effort to include supporting links, but IMO he should have also included the transcript/video link in question for a more comprehensive examination, hence blog discussion. He’s young, and learning experiences being what they are we can forgive him this time provided he takes away the lesson.Meantime, barker, you’re in charge of scrounging up the entire Severin transcript that included his Mexican immigrant/illegal alien comments as quoted by James in this column. Let’s see if it’s indeed fact, as Franco purports (without link, btw), that:”Severin was not referring to “Mexican immigrants” he was referring to illegal Mexican immigrants.”Frankly, I have my doubts that, in this case, context distinctions will color the big picture any differently. But I’ve an open mind. Let’s see what barker (or Franco?) brings us.
barker13 // Jun 10, 2009 at 3:10 pm
Re: Ktward; wrote 36 minutes ago –”Excellent point.”You should have quite while you were ahead.(*SMILE*) (*CHUCKLE*) Seriously, Ktward, I’ll leave you to provide or not provide evidence that backs up contentions you make and I’ll also leave Franco to his own very competent devices.It’s not up to me to provide evidence “supporting” my “defense” of Severin because… er… I didn’t exactly “defend” him. I didn’t make any factual claims about what Severin said or meant one way or the other.(*SHRUG*)Anyway… nice try. (*GRIN*)BILL
Dr. Tesla // Jun 10, 2009 at 3:25 pm
I just wanted to point out that there is NOTHING on this website about David Letterman “joke” about Palin looking like a slut and her daughter getting knocked up by a baseball player on the Yankees.If Rush or Levin or a conservative talk show host had said that, wouldn’t Frum and his bucket boys on this site be all over that like white on rice?You betcha.
midcon // Jun 10, 2009 at 3:36 pm
barker,Here is what what said regarding this site.”Frum can’t stop Rush or Levin from talking, they aren’t going to change their styles or opinions because of some dinky web site that is populated by shoddy writers and sloppy thinkers. And one replete with Obama voters claiming to be “conservative”. This site is intellectually fraudulent.”My comment was specifically regarding this paragraph. Now, this paragraph, not only refers to the contributors like DF and company, it also refers YOU, ME, and FRANCO, and everyone else for that matter. So, my question remains, why be a presence on such a site? In fact if you agree with his comment, you might take a crack at answering it as well.
Dr. Tesla // Jun 10, 2009 at 3:41 pm
It would seem that Frum would need to attack David Letterman, Jon Stewart, Bill Maher, and other liberal entertainers, as it’s the Democrats that have the power. Not sure how you form a new majority unless you can beat the present majority, which is the Obama-led liberal Democrats with the Crystal-type moderates that just didn’t know Obama was a socialist big government kind of guy.
Dr. Tesla // Jun 10, 2009 at 3:43 pm
Frum hates Rush because Rush criticized him for seeking to profit from a confidential relationship with Bush when Frum wrote a book in which he took some cheap shots at Bush. Frum has a pattern of attacking people to get attention for himself and promote his books and/or website.
ktward // Jun 10, 2009 at 4:54 pm
barker13, 3:10 pm:That was a very lazy response. I’ve come to expect better from you even when I expect not to agree with you.If you’re going to argue ‘context is missing and it matters in this discussion’ (I’m paraphrasing of course, but it’s easy enough to scroll down and check my take on it), then buck up and provide the context you’ve expressed is necessary for discussion.You don’t wanna? Fine, then say so, or ignore my comment altogether. It’s not necessary for you to feign legitimate discussion with an empty rhetorical tap dance. Me, while I equally agree context is important, I don’t believe context will change the stripes of this author’s contentions. But I already stated that, in so many words.Meantime, in lieu of the above, how about some worthwhile feedback on my 1:23 or 1:50 comments?Or is that too hard.
ChristianMiller // Jun 10, 2009 at 6:52 pm
ktward Guilty until proven innocent? The fact is the slam was made with a few words as quotes some one-word quotes. I’m assuming these words were said, but CURIOUS that they are not presented with surrounding words. Had they also been damning I’m sure they too would be included. But perhaps they were mitigating and exculpatory. You and I don’t really know, do we?
ChristianMiller // Jun 10, 2009 at 7:03 pm
ktward,Why is the onus somehow on barker? The charge is not adequately backed up. There is little or no context presented in this article. It’s not as if words cost a dollar apiece to put up on the internet. They got the quotes from somewhere, why are they so non phrase-like, not a single full sentence is quoted, and peppered with disjointed words? How come complete context isn’t provided?I’m not going to search for a transcript to satisfy a narrow-minded drone who believes whatever someone claims by extracting what could even be random words and filling in his own context.You want to live in a bumper-sticker soundbyte culture? I don’t.
barker13 // Jun 10, 2009 at 8:02 pm
Re: Dr. Tesla; 3:25 PM –Fair question. David…? Care to respond? (*SMIRK*)Re: Midcon; 3:36 PM –Huh…??? Anyway… I believe my “original” 8:43 PM post was clear and fairly concise.Same for my 9:49 AM post.(*SHRUG*)As for why I continue to post here… it’s a forum for my views, an arena for often interesting, fairly sophisticated debate, and the “crowd” is small enough to actually keep a thread going.As you’ll notice if you care to, when I agree with Frum I agree with Frum. When I agree with Sinz I agree with Sinz. When I agree with you or Balconesfault or even on rare occasion Krove or Otto… well… then I indicate as much, in writing, often offering kudos.(*SHRUG*)Obviously there are regulars whom I respect more than others (Brutus and Mike K come to mind as guys I wouldn’t want to debate with money riding on the outcome) and Franco and I are pretty much in sync on most issues, but by and large I enjoy the intellectual challenge of the back and forth and rarely let personality conflicts effect my postings.Basically… I call ‘em as I see ‘em. Constructive criticism of the site shouldn’t (nor is it meant to) indicate that I don’t enjoy the site overall.Clear enough for you, Midcon…???Re: Ktward; 4:54 PM –”That was a very lazy response.”No, KT, it wasn’t; it was an honest, forthright response.(*SMILE*)As Franco pointed out… the onus ain’t on me, doll.(*SHRUG*)Ktward… again… learn to quit when you’re “up.” As you originally stated in your response to my 8:43 PM post, my critique was, quote, “Excellent point. Really. Context is everything…”Now can’t we all take a moment to reflect upon the wit and wisdom of… er… me… and stop the rock throwing.(*CHUCKLE*) (*WINK*)BILL
barker13 // Jun 10, 2009 at 8:22 pm
Re: Ktward; 4:54 PM –”…how about some worthwhile feedback on my 1:23 or 1:50 comments?”OK! (*GRIN*)Your 1:23 PM post — I think it’s bullshit. Media bias isn’t simply a question of how the hard news is presented, it’s the manipulation of cultural norms and worldviews via “entertainment” and “education.”There are lines. When Frum or whoever goes after something Limbaugh or Coulter (two very different personality types btw, two very different styles) sometimes I’ll agree, sometimes I’ll disagree. You’d have to ask me specifics based upon specific incidents and I’ll share my thoughts on other examples you care to discuss, but on the Letterman comments… they were vile, hateful, and clearly crossed the line of acceptable mainstream media entertainment. At least in my view.I just don’t buy your moral equivalency argument about how “they all do it.” I believe it’s your perspective that is off here, not mine, not Franco’s, not Dr. Tesla’s. (*SHRUG*)Your 1:50 PM post — OK. (*SHRUG*) Short answer… my definition of “true conservative” is someone who thinks along the same basic lines as… er… me.(*GRIN*)Seriously… what sort of “response” are you looking for? My idea of “conservative” ideology is reflected in every post I add to every thread. (*SHRUG*) My “conservatism” is part (WASP) traditionalism… part libertarian… part Constitutionalist… part populist… part elitist…(*SHRUG*)BILL
sinz54 // Jun 11, 2009 at 8:24 am
Dr. Tesla: You just answered your own question.The Obama-led liberal Democrats are NOT the majority. They can only form a majority in coalition with moderates who, like Crystal Wright, were disgusted with the Republicans for perfectly good reasons.But Crystal Wright has said, again and again, why she isn’t sold on the liberal Democrats either. She’s waiting to hear a convincing story that the Republicans are ready to lead the nation and run the government again. And that the Republicans are prepared to reconstruct a CENTER-right coalition, comprised of conservatives AND centrists. Only a CENTER-right coalition can comprise a “New Majority.”And that’s the problem. There are too many conservatives like yourself who think that Obama will crash and burn on his own, and hence the White House will fall into your laps like a ripe plum without your having to do anything. And that moderates like Crystal Wright will come crawling back to you on their hands and knees begging you to save them from Obama.In other words, you’re just waiting for your luck to change. But unlike you, I don’t believe in gambling.