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 (!).

"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

From: "Stinger"

Very likely,
many people listening to some of the more esoteric or fringe radio hosts
(Gallagher, Reagan, etc.) would not necessarily be the same ones that read
William Buckley or even George Will.

Duh. That was hard to guess. Do you think 15% of conservatives (can) read
Buckley or Will?

Liberals do not have a monopoly on
college graduates.


But, you'd probably blast college teachers (more educated than just college) as
being the vanguard of the commie invasion, right?Remember, you do exactly that
later in your post!

Additionally, I think an easy case could be made that elitist dumbasses such
as yourself

Aren't you the same guy that was lambasting liberals as namecallers because
they lack intellect?! Did you have a lobotomy, yesterday?


must rely on an ever-larger, uneducated (or lower-educated) mass
of people to try to elect your socialist dream teams.

So, do you really want to stick to the ASININE claim that liberals appeal more
to the lower rungs of society than do conservatives? Now, that's boggling!

With the help of
their alliance with teachers unions, the Democratic agenda of late has been
to create a populace as uneducated as possible, convinced that they must be
reliant upon the government.

Oh, I get it. Teachers are against education. They want ignorant students. That
must be why Bush's Secretary of Education calls teachers terrorists.


-- Stinger


Stinger, I've generally respected your posts more than most of the so-called
intellectual conservatives on this NG. But this last one was pure,
unadulterated horse****. I'm sorry to see what a negative effect this NG is
having on you.


Michael Bryant, WA4009SWL
Louisville, KY
R75, S800, RX320, SW77, ICF2010K,
DX398, 7600G, 6800W, RF2200, 7600A
GE SRll, Pro-2006, Pro-2010, Pro-76
(remove "nojunk" to reply)

Michael Bryant wrote:

From: "Stinger"

Very likely,
many people listening to some of the more esoteric or fringe radio hosts
(Gallagher, Reagan, etc.) would not necessarily be the same ones that read
William Buckley or even George Will.

Duh. That was hard to guess. Do you think 15% of conservatives (can) read
Buckley or Will?

Liberals do not have a monopoly on
college graduates.


But, you'd probably blast college teachers (more educated than just college) as
being the vanguard of the commie invasion, right?Remember, you do exactly that
later in your post!

Additionally, I think an easy case could be made that elitist dumbasses such
as yourself

Aren't you the same guy that was lambasting liberals as namecallers because
they lack intellect?! Did you have a lobotomy, yesterday?


must rely on an ever-larger, uneducated (or lower-educated) mass
of people to try to elect your socialist dream teams.

So, do you really want to stick to the ASININE claim that liberals appeal more
to the lower rungs of society than do conservatives? Now, that's boggling!

With the help of
their alliance with teachers unions, the Democratic agenda of late has been
to create a populace as uneducated as possible, convinced that they must be
reliant upon the government.

Oh, I get it. Teachers are against education. They want ignorant students. That
must be why Bush's Secretary of Education calls teachers terrorists.

Especially the ones who lie about having a PhD!

From: N8KDV

Especially the ones who lie about having a PhD!

Another thread spammed by N8KDV. Plonk him.


Michael Bryant, WA4009SWL
Louisville, KY
R75, S800, RX320, SW77, ICF2010K,
DX398, 7600G, 6800W, RF2200, 7600A
GE SRll, Pro-2006, Pro-2010, Pro-76
(remove "nojunk" to reply)

Michael Bryant wrote:

From: N8KDV

Especially the ones who lie about having a PhD!

Another thread spammed by N8KDV. Plonk him.

You just can't stand the truth can you Fat Boy?

You did lie about having the PhD did you not?

From: N8KDV

You did lie about having the PhD did you not?

Repeating for the slow-reading N8KDV:
I thought I had it, as I had completed all the requirements. A technicality and
the departure of one of the professors sitting on my dissertation committee
kept me from being conferred a PhD. I have explained this before. And I really
have completed the coursework for two PhD's one in Rhetoric & Public Address
and another one in Interpersonal Communication. I know all of that leaves me
far behind your Business Admin degree from Grand Valley State.

There was no deliberate lie on my part.

Now, what was that last of employment, Steve? Why are you so afraid to tell us?
Afraid of being caught?

I also have the result of your investigation back. Should I proceed?


Michael Bryant, WA4009SWL
Louisville, KY
R75, S800, RX320, SW77, ICF2010K,
DX398, 7600G, 6800W, RF2200, 7600A
GE SRll, Pro-2006, Pro-2010, Pro-76
(remove "nojunk" to reply)

"Michael Bryant" wrote in message
...
From: "Stinger"

Very likely,
many people listening to some of the more esoteric or fringe radio hosts
(Gallagher, Reagan, etc.) would not necessarily be the same ones that
read
William Buckley or even George Will.

Duh. That was hard to guess. Do you think 15% of conservatives (can) read
Buckley or Will?

Liberals do not have a monopoly on
college graduates.


But, you'd probably blast college teachers (more educated than just
college) as
being the vanguard of the commie invasion, right?Remember, you do exactly
that
later in your post!

Additionally, I think an easy case could be made that elitist dumbasses
such
as yourself

Aren't you the same guy that was lambasting liberals as namecallers
because
they lack intellect?! Did you have a lobotomy, yesterday?


must rely on an ever-larger, uneducated (or lower-educated) mass
of people to try to elect your socialist dream teams.

So, do you really want to stick to the ASININE claim that liberals appeal
more
to the lower rungs of society than do conservatives? Now, that's boggling!

With the help of
their alliance with teachers unions, the Democratic agenda of late has
been
to create a populace as uneducated as possible, convinced that they must
be
reliant upon the government.

Oh, I get it. Teachers are against education. They want ignorant students.
That
must be why Bush's Secretary of Education calls teachers terrorists.


-- Stinger


Stinger, I've generally respected your posts more than most of the
so-called
intellectual conservatives on this NG. But this last one was pure,
unadulterated horse****. I'm sorry to see what a negative effect this NG
is
having on you.


Michael Bryant, WA4009SWL
Louisville, KY
R75, S800, RX320, SW77, ICF2010K,
DX398, 7600G, 6800W, RF2200, 7600A
GE SRll, Pro-2006, Pro-2010, Pro-76
(remove "nojunk" to reply)

Lately, I've been reading this twit's postings and watching him claim that
all conservatives are poorly-educated, gullible rednecks. That
condescending, elitist snobbery in ill-thought post after post disgusts me.
He's not worthy of my respect.

His moronic belief that all conservatives listen (and believe) every
right-wing guy in front of a microphone is just plain stupid. His complete
ignorance of demographics is astonishing, and his "we know what is best for
you people" tone is contemptible.

Actually, I very much support the idea of tenured professors in the
(semi)-protected environment of academia. I do wish that they would keep
some grip on the reality of the outside world by doing some activities
outside academia, such
as consulting. There is no teacher better than experience.

However, my accusation against the teacher's unions in on-target and true.
These organizations fight against testing teachers for ability, testing
students for learned skills or achievement, and against rooting out which
teachers are short-changing our children's education. Just as with any
other union, their agenda is all about protecting jobs (for even the worst,
as long as they have seniority) and getting more for themselves. The
students' interests are not even in their equation. Look at the absolute
horror that is being uncovered each and every day in the New Orleans
municipal school system (in which the teachers unions have vigorously
opposed any reforms).

As far as making any "asinine" claim that Democrats have a lock on the
uneducated, that was not what my post said. If you re-read both Leonard's
and my post, you'll see that I was refuting his conjecture that the
Democrats had all of the educated voters. My assertion is that they have at
least as many of the uneducated, and also that Democratic politicians have
learned to pander to them.

-- Stinger