"RHF" wrote in message
om...
FD,

The majority of the 'original' PROGRESSIVES were Republicans at
the turn of the last century (1900). The Progressives were for
"Good and Honest" Government, not 'bigger' government.

Yeah, it's true that most of the original progressives were Republicans, but
there's no way it can be said they weren't for bigger government. The food
and drug laws (including the drug bans) were bigger government. The
anti-trust laws were bigger government. The land set asides for national
parks were bigger government. The social welfare programs were bigger
government.

This government expansion may or may not have been good policy, but it
certainly was expansion.


Teddy Roosevelt was one of the most notable of them.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/tr26.html


~ RHF
.
.

"We are insane, each in our own way, and with insanity goes
irresponsibility. Theodore the man is sane; in fairness we ought to keep in
mind that Theodore, as statesman and politician, is insane and
irresponsible."
Mark Twain

http://www.twainquotes.com/Roosevelt.html

Or HL Mencken said something like "Roosevelt didn't believe in Democracy, he
simply believed in Government."

Frank Dresser

Frank Dresser

"RHF" wrote in message
m...
FW,

"a female interviewer was talking to Ralph Nadar and trying to
get him to admit he'd thrown the election to Bush in 2000,"

ONE MORE DEMOCRAT LIE:

Ralph Nader was NOT the difference (Numerically) in any state
between Bush and Gore when you subtract out Pat Buchanan.
[ The Negatives (RN) balanced out the Pluses (PB). ]

However, Pat Buchanan DID 'make' the "Difference Numerically"
in three states.
[ To put them in the Gore (Won) Column and the Bush (Lost) Box. ]

Just the Facts ~ RHF

Sorry RHF--Nader got about 97,000 votes in Florida, Buchanan about
17,000. Gotta be fair.

Cool - I'll probably be getting an XM setup soon because of the Jesus
Freaks running freedom of speech right out of the country. My
favorite morning show is being targeted and will probably move to
satellite due to the FCC deciding for us what "indecency" is.

I never thought I'd be going for Satellite but it looks like it has
its foothold. Thank God that the advertised Grundig Eton 900 Whatever
is supposed to have a Satellite receiver built in ... best of all
worlds for me. But will it ever be sold???

"T. Early" wrote in message
...


If you consider Roe v Wade, affirmative action, Miranda rights, "God"
in the pledge of allegiance, and exceptions to search and seizure
requirements to make little difference.



Is there really much evidence there's much difference between judges
appointed by Republicans and Democrats? I know Rush is oftentimes eagar to
tell us who appointed the judges (usually Carter or Clinton) who write
decisions he disagrees with. But often Rush doesn't mention who appointed
the judge. Howcum? I'm guessing these are mostly Reagan or Bush
appointees.

How might I tell the difference between court decisions between Republican
judges and Democrat judges? By the girls in the military school decision?
By the campaign reform decision?

Certainly the abortion decision is the highest profile of these old issues.
The religious right has made a real difference in American elections. The
majority of the Supreme Court is now Republican. And the abortion decision
is now older than the majority of Americans, and may outlive us all.

Frank Dresser

"AC Smith" wrote in message
om...
Cool - I'll probably be getting an XM setup soon because of the
Jesus
Freaks running freedom of speech right out of the country. My
favorite morning show is being targeted and will probably move to
satellite due to the FCC deciding for us what "indecency" is.


Yeah, freedom of speech is really threatened by coming down on a
morning show over yakking about anal sex on the -public- airwaves.
What a friggin' outrage--after all, only those @#$$@ Jesus freaks
would get upset about that.

"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
...

"T. Early" wrote in message
...


If you consider Roe v Wade, affirmative action, Miranda rights,
"God"
in the pledge of allegiance, and exceptions to search and seizure
requirements to make little difference.



Is there really much evidence there's much difference between judges
appointed by Republicans and Democrats? I know Rush is oftentimes
eagar to
tell us who appointed the judges (usually Carter or Clinton) who
write
decisions he disagrees with. But often Rush doesn't mention who
appointed
the judge. Howcum? I'm guessing these are mostly Reagan or Bush
appointees.

How might I tell the difference between court decisions between
Republican
judges and Democrat judges? By the girls in the military school
decision?
By the campaign reform decision?

Certainly the abortion decision is the highest profile of these old
issues.
The religious right has made a real difference in American
elections. The
majority of the Supreme Court is now Republican. And the abortion
decision
is now older than the majority of Americans, and may outlive us all.


I can't argue with you--you're too logical But the question was
whether who gets elected matters, and I still think that the area in
which it matters -most- is in the area of judicial appointments. It's
true that the majority of Supreme Court appointments were made by
Republican presidents, but the two lower federal courts also are very
important--and the party in control gets many appointments to those
courts for the life of the judges that aren't subject to the scrutiny
received by Supreme Court justices. I also think that, as both sides
of the political spectrum have becoming increasingly polarized (rabid)
in recent years, future appointments to all courts will reflect that
polarization. And yes, while many cases are probably decided without
regard to who appointed the judges, on any number of important issues
judges appointed by Democrats tend to be less literal in interpreting
laws than judges appointed by Republicans.

NPR morning Edition has about 9 million listeners. Almost
twice the audience of the "Today" show which is the leader
of the morning TV news magazines.


Frank Dresser wrote:
"David" wrote in message
Th

I think liberal talk radio could be successful. But I'm sure guilt radio
will never get past the NPR level.

Frank Dresser

In article , "Brenda Ann Dyer"
writes:

For
instance, if not for liberals, women would still not have the vote, blacks
would still be slaves, and you would be working in a sweatshop for $1 an
hour.

- and NO weekends off
No Health Insurance,
No education for children,
child labor,
No equal opportunity
No rewarding honest, hard work with a living wage
No freedom from government interference in our private lives

No separation of Church and State to preserve the freedom to pursue our beliefs

"T. Early" wrote in message
...


I can't argue with you--you're too logical But the question was
whether who gets elected matters, and I still think that the area in
which it matters -most- is in the area of judicial appointments. It's
true that the majority of Supreme Court appointments were made by
Republican presidents, but the two lower federal courts also are very
important--and the party in control gets many appointments to those
courts for the life of the judges that aren't subject to the scrutiny
received by Supreme Court justices. I also think that, as both sides
of the political spectrum have becoming increasingly polarized (rabid)
in recent years, future appointments to all courts will reflect that
polarization. And yes, while many cases are probably decided without
regard to who appointed the judges, on any number of important issues
judges appointed by Democrats tend to be less literal in interpreting
laws than judges appointed by Republicans.



There might be a bigger difference between judges than it seems right now.
I don't know about many of the judges, and I only follow some of the cases
which make the headlines.

One of the biggest cases recently is the revisted abortion case in which
Anthony Kennedy reversed himself. I'm sure many of the anti-abortion
activists abandoned the Republicans for Buchanan on that one.

I wonder if there are that many strict constructionists/constitutionalists
to choose from Judicial activism has been the trend in legal circles for
over a generation. And political trends don't often change in a big way
without some sort of economic or political disaster.

Frank Dresser

"Larry Ozarow" wrote in message
...
NPR morning Edition has about 9 million listeners. Almost
twice the audience of the "Today" show which is the leader
of the morning TV news magazines.


I'm sure Rush's afternoon numbers are higher, and that's not counting all
the Rush clones on the radio. But you raise a good point.

I doubt the new liberal radio hosts will get a small fraction of NPR numbers
unless they can let liberalism somehow seem at least a bit hedonistic, at
least once in a while.

I listened to Franken again today. Same Bush bashing grind.

Frank Dresser