Lenny wrote:

Yeah, freedom of speech is really threatened by coming down on a
morning show over yakking about anal sex on the -public- airwaves.

It wasn't about freedom of speech. Cinammon Cheeri-O-s sales were
plummeting nationwide. It was bad for business.




mike

The number I saw for Limbaugh is about 14 million. Certainly
higher, but considering that he's the keystone of conservative
talk radio, 2/3 of his number is hardly as pathetic as you
seemed to be implying.

I agree that Franken is not so hot so far, but honestly to
me it sounds like he's just trying to imitate Limbaugh's
style. I gather that you are fairly conservative. I'm pretty
liberal - so to me most right wing radio sounds pretty
boring as well. Bush-bashing is certainly more entertaining
to me than Clinton or Rodham/Clinton-bashing.

At least the left wing commentators don't
harp on Richard Nixon the way right-wingers continue to
bring up his opposite number from the 60's - Jane Fonda.
One man's red meat is another's crapola, or whatever.


Frank Dresser wrote:
"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

Larry Ozarow wrote:

The number I saw for Limbaugh is about 14 million. Certainly
higher, but considering that he's the keystone of conservative
talk radio, 2/3 of his number is hardly as pathetic as you
seemed to be implying.

I agree that Franken is not so hot so far, but honestly to
me it sounds like he's just trying to imitate Limbaugh's
style. I gather that you are fairly conservative. I'm pretty
liberal - so to me most right wing radio sounds pretty
boring as well. Bush-bashing is certainly more entertaining
to me than Clinton or Rodham/Clinton-bashing.

At least the left wing commentators don't
harp on Richard Nixon the way right-wingers continue to
bring up his opposite number from the 60's - Jane Fonda.
One man's red meat is another's crapola, or whatever.


Nixon has been dead since 1994, and while he did some stupid things, he was never photographed at an anti aircraft gun with a bunch of friends who happened to be trying to kill members of our military, and he never held a press conference to say the folks
we were fighting were a swell bunch of guys.

When our POW's came back and said they'd been mistreated, she called them liars.

Ultimately, in 1988 she apologized, but many people had already made up their minds.

"Larry Ozarow" wrote in message
...
The number I saw for Limbaugh is about 14 million. Certainly
higher, but considering that he's the keystone of conservative
talk radio, 2/3 of his number is hardly as pathetic as you
seemed to be implying.

I agree that Franken is not so hot so far, but honestly to
me it sounds like he's just trying to imitate Limbaugh's
style. I gather that you are fairly conservative. I'm pretty
liberal - so to me most right wing radio sounds pretty
boring as well. Bush-bashing is certainly more entertaining
to me than Clinton or Rodham/Clinton-bashing.

At least the left wing commentators don't
harp on Richard Nixon the way right-wingers continue to
bring up his opposite number from the 60's - Jane Fonda.
One man's red meat is another's crapola, or whatever.


Fonda has become "relevant" again because Kerry--one of her running
mates in antiwar movement--is relevant. I agree that both sides need
to put to rest some of these obsessions, including Fonda, but, with
Kerry on the scene, bringing her up isn't quite as obsessive as you
make it sound IMO.

BTW, when Bob Edwards was recently canned as host of Morning Edition
(due to market forces from which I thought NPR was supposed to be
immune) I read estimates that put the listenership of that program at
13 million (!).

''Classical liberalism'' is an oxymoron.

Al Franken is a New Yorker.

Today's ''liberals'' are truer to their heritage than the nutjobs
running around today falsely claiming to be ''conservatives''.

On Thu, 1 Apr 2004 12:07:51 -0500, "T. Early"
wrote:


"David" wrote in message
.. .
I said ''Liberal''

The word has been turned into a put-down by the neofascists. Mr.
Franken intends to reclaim it. He uses it himself without
hesitation.



Nice try, Franken-phile. Hollywood Al isn't reclaiming anything--he
is your standard left-wing, one-note, Bush-bashing -modern day-
liberal who has no clue what classical "liberalism" used to be about.
He may use the term "without hesitation," but, like most things he
says without hesitation, he's wrong. The word has been turned into a
put-down very justifiably because so many of today's liberals are so
clueless about the heritage of their alleged political philosophy, as
they are about the history of pretty much everything.

On Fri, 2 Apr 2004 10:33:05 -0500, "T. Early"
wrote:


"Larry Ozarow" wrote in message
. ..
The number I saw for Limbaugh is about 14 million. Certainly
higher, but considering that he's the keystone of conservative
talk radio, 2/3 of his number is hardly as pathetic as you
seemed to be implying.

I agree that Franken is not so hot so far, but honestly to
me it sounds like he's just trying to imitate Limbaugh's
style. I gather that you are fairly conservative. I'm pretty
liberal - so to me most right wing radio sounds pretty
boring as well. Bush-bashing is certainly more entertaining
to me than Clinton or Rodham/Clinton-bashing.

At least the left wing commentators don't
harp on Richard Nixon the way right-wingers continue to
bring up his opposite number from the 60's - Jane Fonda.
One man's red meat is another's crapola, or whatever.


Fonda has become "relevant" again because Kerry--one of her running
mates in antiwar movement--is relevant. I agree that both sides need
to put to rest some of these obsessions, including Fonda, but, with
Kerry on the scene, bringing her up isn't quite as obsessive as you
make it sound IMO.

BTW, when Bob Edwards was recently canned as host of Morning Edition
(due to market forces from which I thought NPR was supposed to be
immune) I read estimates that put the listenership of that program at
13 million (!).


I really like the fact that Kerry got 5 medals in Vietnam. A lot of
people tried to avoid the war. Doesn't sound like he did. I think
there is a general feeling now that the war was wrong. I guess he
believes that now too. Vietnam was a tough place. I don't know much
about Bush but his service was valuable too at that time. I don't
blame him for missing the "battle". Not his fault - just the luck of
the draw. Either way - I have a great deal of respect for any
veteran. Even if they didn't see combat. Nice to know that they love
their country more than life.

BB

"Larry Ozarow" wrote in message
...
The number I saw for Limbaugh is about 14 million. Certainly
higher, but considering that he's the keystone of conservative
talk radio, 2/3 of his number is hardly as pathetic as you
seemed to be implying.


I didn't know NPR numbers were that high, but NPR numbers will be an
important target in judging Franken's or any other Air America's host's
success.


I agree that Franken is not so hot so far, but honestly to
me it sounds like he's just trying to imitate Limbaugh's
style.

When Limbaugh started, he sounded as if he were imitating some of Top 40's
best DJs. Larry Lujack and Dick Biondi come to mind. I'm sure Limbaugh
made his brand of conservatism seem fun to alot of people who never thought
of conservatism as fun before.

I think there are liberals who could do a better Limbaugh. Maybe Air
America should have given a spot to Howard Hessman and let him redo Dr.
Johnny Fever, this time with topics rather than records.

I gather that you are fairly conservative. I'm pretty
liberal - so to me most right wing radio sounds pretty
boring as well. Bush-bashing is certainly more entertaining
to me than Clinton or Rodham/Clinton-bashing.

Right wing radio has become pretty boring. They seem to get much of their
material straight from the Republican party now. Still, some of the right
wing hosts do show flashes of personality and non-putdown humor, not to
mention topic changes.

I don't know what Air America is up to. They seem to be programming for the
small sliver of Bush bashers. It's as if a Top 40 station found some of the
listeners really really really really really like to hear "Stairway to
Heaven", so they play it over and over and over and over and over.



At least the left wing commentators don't
harp on Richard Nixon the way right-wingers continue to
bring up his opposite number from the 60's - Jane Fonda.
One man's red meat is another's crapola, or whatever.



Jane Fonda's war time activities weren't much of an issue back when she was
doing movies and excercise videos. Sure, there was some grumbling, but
nothing like it is now. The real attacks on Jane Fonda were started by
Republicans when she started politicing and fundraising for the Democratic
party. And no one has ever given partisan attack dogs a fuller bowl of red
meat than Jane Fonda. I can't think of any other US political activist who
has been photographed on an enemy anti-aircraft gun.

Nixon was a non-factor in the political wars after his resignation.

Frank Dresser

David wrote:
''Classical liberalism'' is an oxymoron.

Al Franken is a New Yorker.


Actually he's a Minnesotan.

Today's ''liberals'' are truer to their heritage than the nutjobs
running around today falsely claiming to be ''conservatives''.


Not only the nutjobs. I don't see how
a police-statist like John Ashcroft fits into
any traditional notion of conservatism.

T. Early wrote:


Fonda has become "relevant" again because Kerry--one of her running
mates in antiwar movement--is relevant. I agree that both sides need
to put to rest some of these obsessions, including Fonda, but, with
Kerry on the scene, bringing her up isn't quite as obsessive as you
make it sound IMO.

The fact that Jane Fonda and John Kerry were both anti-war activists
at the same time doesn't really make them running mates. Also Jane Fonda
has been a constant theme on conservative talk-radio, long before Kerry
became the candidate apparent. One more point: Donald Rumsfeld actually
did work in the Nixon administration, so his connection to Nixon is much
more direct than Fonda's to Kerry.


BTW, when Bob Edwards was recently canned as host of Morning Edition
(due to market forces from which I thought NPR was supposed to be
immune) I read estimates that put the listenership of that program at
13 million (!).


Me too. I used the 9 million number because that's the only one I could
find readily on the web.

Frank Dresser wrote:


Jane Fonda's war time activities weren't much of an issue back when she was
doing movies and excercise videos. Sure, there was some grumbling, but
nothing like it is now. The real attacks on Jane Fonda were started by
Republicans when she started politicing and fundraising for the Democratic
party. And no one has ever given partisan attack dogs a fuller bowl of red
meat than Jane Fonda. I can't think of any other US political activist who
has been photographed on an enemy anti-aircraft gun.

Nixon was a non-factor in the political wars after his resignation.

Frank Dresser


I think Fonda's wartime activities became an issue when the revisionist
view of the Vietnam war began to gain ground during Reagan's
administration. And while it's true perhaps that Nixon was a non-factor
politically as you say, this is not to his credit. If anything it
emphasizes the peculiar nature of the right-wing obsession with Hanoi Jane.