« Memorial Day | Main | Correction »

May 26, 2007


Norma Martino

Dear Monica,
Can you tell me what I can do other than calling and emailing congress, which doesn't do any good, I want to make sure Senator Kennedy does not get reelected. I cannot get people motivated even my own family thinks I'm nuts for caring so deeply about this awful "immigration bill" Most people do not realize the enormous drain already on our country. I am deeply concerned and want to do something but don't have a clue how to go about it. I'm sure there are others out here in Massachusetts that feel the same. Please let me know how to start a grassroots campange to stop Kennedy from being reelected. I'm embarrrassed to tell people I live in Massachusetts, how bad is that?
Thank You
Norma Martino

Tom TB

Norma, you're stuck with "Vote Ted for Driver's Ed", and I have his buddy Chris Dodd! There's no easy answer when there is a legacy of incumbent advantage, short of term limits in Congress which Congress would have to vote for, which would be like dinosaurs voting for their own extinction!



In your shoes, I'd seriously consider moving to North Carolina where the weather is more moderate and the politicians more mentally stable. Although, Mitt Romney seems to be an exception to the usualy perversity in New England politics.

With all the talk on this weeks show about the destrutivve impact of ROSIE, there's a report that THE LEZBO HOGZILLA has been felled by a mere youth.



My Dear Monica,

We were listening to the radio broadcast today and there
is something that needs to be discussed here. It would be
interesting to find out how many listeners you alienated today
by being disrespectful and dismissive toward 'Mark from Texas'
when he brought up the subject of Larry Kudlow. He had been
quite critical of this economist for his over-the-top support of
the Senate-version bill on illegal immigration, and amnesty
in general, as good for the economy. To wit, Larry professes
a respect for capitalism and that is all well and good. But,
as far as we can tell, he was never canonized for his work
or his opinions, such that his ideas should somehow be
above criticism. There are many active people in the GOP
who do not ever get to express their point of view about
these matters and the truth is that their numbers are legion.
Mark's point was apparently that he was fed up with some
folks like Larry Kudlow who enjoy a rather large soapbox, on
CNBC and WABC-AM, and who are undermining the thing
that the rest of us are fighting for, which is to preserve the
very cultural foundations of this society. By all evidence, this
is indeed a goal that you agree with when you say that you
also object to the current Senate plan which prescribes what
you call an "abomination." Border security does indeed trump
the desire to accomodate an illegal alien population. -- Bravo
on your zeal.

However, we see no need to circumvent the point of view of
someone who is ostensibly a loyal and thoughtful American,
simply because Larry Kudlow is your 'friend.' We are aware
of a longstanding policy on WABC that disallows the assailing
of other hosts, but it is unclear how Westwood One deals with
this issue and if you are bound by the same rules. So, if you
cut off this listener (Mark) out of your loyalty to a friend, and
not because of some unspoken radio rule, we have to object
in the most rigorous way. Larry has encouraged Americans
to invest in all sorts of ideas (some good) at the worst possible
time. This is his record, yet it is clearly not a correct policy to
pursue at specific times in history and this appears to be what
Mark was advancing. For instance, in year 2000, Mr. Kudlow
was an unwavering bull in the stockmarket (like today) and
those who followed his sentiment and were fully invested until
now, are just barely breaking even, seven years later. This is not
counting the loss to inflation, which is substantial if you measure
it in terms of the gain in gold. Larry never apologized for these
views (as far as we know) nor does he realize his mistake even
now presumably, since he believes core rate CPI figures are
valid, in spite of the government's use of hedonics. Yet if we
were all to follow your lead, we might never be inclined to bring
any of this up. Those who assume this highly rarified mantle of
leadership must also accept the resulting accountability. One
who leads must not pretend there is a relative moral equality
of outcomes when policy matters are at stake. And so in this
arena of ideas, the flawed logic of some positions cannot be
afforded equivalent respect. Either somebody gets it, or they
do not. It is not that listener's fault for being right.

In assertive fashion, Kudlow now pushes for this misbegotten
immigration plan at every opportunity and there are very few
legitimate venues where folks who disagree can express their
opposition. After all, they are not going to be able to call in
to Larry's show and get on the air to confront him with any
of this stuff. Why on earth would you oppose anyone taking
issue with ideas which are plain wrong, simply to preserve
what we perceive as a counterfeit dignity to the man's view?
This is not simply an issue like, do we want chocolate ice
cream or vanilla, as if one choice is just as valid as another.
The very fabric of society will be decided by this one vote
and certainly Lawrence Kudlow's feelings are not more
important than the outcome of legislation that will determine
the future of the United States domestically for years to come.

Now, you are a good and loyal friend to people. Everybody
who is even half awake knows that about you. Monica Crowley
is a real friend to her friends, and a loyal, trusted associate who
is supportive and fair, even to a fault. But, we have to take you
to task on this one point. The value of this illegal immigration
mess is an overriding issue that will be all-pervasive in its
consequences and not just legislatively. Here is where we
will witness the 'Schism to end all Schisms' in the GOP, if
we are to allow Kudlow's view to dominate our policy. The
conservative movement may need to look for a new home,
if they are made to suffer any more slaps to the face as what
you delivered today for the benefit of Larry. Granted, you even
agreed with the caller, but you did not have to disrespect him
as if his angst was somehow inappropriate, or too personal.
Only the Good Lord knows how many people you drove away.
It was very unnecessary given the fact that you allow "Steve
from Manhattan" on the radio every weekend under a new
handle (this week he was somebody else again 'Roger,' but
you told him to call back), and he had been banned from
Sean Hannity's show in past years because of his constant
campaigning for Buchanan (now he loves Tancredo - but
what's not to love?). The point is, if Steve can get on every
week and obviously under a different alias while you play
along, then could not one guy who disagrees with Kudlow be
allowed to have his say? The man spoke for many of us out
here and it was hurtful that you would act so unappreciative
of the very people who actually agree with you. Friendship is
one thing, but this is business, Monica. If you got cancelled,
it is doubtful that Larry would bail you out. Just a word to
the wise. Other than this turkey bone you left in our throat,
it was a good show. - SAM

The comments to this entry are closed.