|
XM Satellite Adds 24/7 Liberal Channel
Monday March 29, 11:22 am ET
XM and Progress Media Further Political Discourse Through Humor, Insight and Intelligent New Voices WASHINGTON and NEW YORK, March 29 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- XM Satellite Radio (Nasdaq: XMSR - News), the pioneer and leader in satellite radio, on Wednesday, March 31, debuts XM America Left, Channel 167, a new talk radio channel dedicated to progressive political viewpoints. Broadcasting coast-to-coast from its headquarters less than a mile from the U.S. Capitol in Washington, DC, XM provides the highly-anticipated Air America Radio with its first national platform. XM's fast-growing nation of more than 3 million listeners now can tune in daily to Air America's talented and opinionated on-air personalities including popular satirist Al Franken, comedienne Jeanene Garofalo, hip hop icon Chuck D. and environmental activist Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. New channel XM America Left complements XM's other talk programming which features more conservative on-air talent, including Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage and Ann Coulter. "We are excited to provide a national audience to progressive superstar Al Franken and his spirited cohorts at Air America. Challenging our listeners, and giving them the best and broadest choices possible is our daily mission at XM. Where else are you going to find Al Franken and Bill O'Reilly, or opera and punk for that matter, living under one roof," said Hugh Panero, XM President and CEO. "We cannot think of a better way to bring our important message directly into the cars, homes and minds of Americans than broadcasting on XM Satellite Radio," said Mark Walsh, CEO of Progress Media. "There is a great underserved market of Americans who want to hear compelling and funny talk voices expressing viewpoints long absent from the radio airwaves. Air America on XM will go a long way to correcting this imbalance at a particularly opportune time." America Left's daily program schedule includes the Air America lineup and the popular shows of progressive talk radio personalities Ed Schultz and Alan Colmes. Morning Sedition 6:00 a.m. Eastern Standard Time Unfiltered w/Lizz Winstead and Chuck D. 9:00 a.m. Al Franken Noon Ed Schultz 3:00 p.m. Randi Rhodes 6:00 p.m. Marty Kaplan 7:00 p.m. Jeanene Garofalo 8:00 p.m. Alan Colmes 10:00 p.m. |
PROGRESSIVE MY ARSE! Liberals dont have the COURAGE to ADMIT they are LIBERALS. They use the PC word "progressive" in it's place because they dont have the GUTS (or intellect)to argue (with reason instead of name-calling) their true position on ANYTHING Yodar ] David wrote: Monday March 29, 11:22 am ET XM and Progress Media Further Political Discourse Through Humor, Insight and Intelligent New Voices WASHINGTON and NEW YORK, March 29 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- XM Satellite Radio (Nasdaq: XMSR - News), the pioneer and leader in satellite radio, on Wednesday, March 31, debuts XM America Left, Channel 167, a new talk radio channel dedicated to progressive political viewpoints. New channel XM America Left complements XM's other talk programming which features more conservative on-air talent, including Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage and Ann Coulter. "We are excited to provide a national audience to progressive superstar Al Franken and his spirited cohorts at Air America. Challenging our listeners, and giving them the best and broadest choices possible is our daily mission at XM. Where else are you going to find Al Franken and Bill O'Reilly, or opera and punk for that matter, living under one roof," said Hugh Panero, XM President and CEO. |
"YODAR" wrote in message . com... PROGRESSIVE MY ARSE! Liberals dont have the COURAGE to ADMIT they are LIBERALS. They use the PC word "progressive" in it's place because they dont have the GUTS (or intellect)to argue (with reason instead of name-calling) their true position on ANYTHING Yodar I'm pretty much centrist myself.. I have liberal view on some things (health care for the elderly, death penalty, etc.) and conservative views on other things (taxes, abortion, etc.).. but I have never understood what the far right hates so much about the left (or vice-versa for that matter). Both sides have some crazy ideas, both sides have some great ideas. 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. If not for conservatives, we would be paying half of our wages in taxes and would never be able to own a home or have credit... |
In article ,
"Brenda Ann Dyer" wrote: I'm pretty much centrist myself.. I have liberal view on some things (health care for the elderly, death penalty, etc.) and conservative views on other things (taxes, abortion, etc.).. but I have never understood what the far right hates so much about the left (or vice-versa for that matter). It's all about "bragging rights". "We Won The Election!" "We're In The White House!" "We're More Popular!". Neener Neener! It has nothing to do with "The Future Of America" or any of that rhetoric. It's a horse race, a beauty pageant. Pure and simple. That's why I gave up voting about 20 years ago. It makes no difference who "wins" or who "loses". Any candidate will say anything to any group in order to get elected. Whatever you all decide is fine with me. Just wake me up when it's all over. Dan Drake R8, Grundig Satellit 650 Radio Shack DX-440, Grundig YB400 Tecsun PL-230 (YB550PE), Kaito KA1102 Hallicraters S-120 (1962) Zenith black dial 5 tube Tombstone (1936) E. H. Scott 23 tube Imperial Allwave in Tasman cabinet (1935) |
"Dan" wrote in message ... In article , "Brenda Ann Dyer" wrote: I'm pretty much centrist myself.. I have liberal view on some things (health care for the elderly, death penalty, etc.) and conservative views on other things (taxes, abortion, etc.).. but I have never understood what the far right hates so much about the left (or vice-versa for that matter). It's all about "bragging rights". "We Won The Election!" "We're In The White House!" "We're More Popular!". Neener Neener! Well Dan, I guess you're entitled. But if you think judicial appointments, which are purely based on the party in power, have nothing to do with the future of the country, or the present in which you're living, there's not much I can say. |
"Dan" wrote in message ... In article , "Brenda Ann Dyer" wrote: I'm pretty much centrist myself.. I have liberal view on some things (health care for the elderly, death penalty, etc.) and conservative views on other things (taxes, abortion, etc.).. but I have never understood what the far right hates so much about the left (or vice-versa for that matter). It's all about "bragging rights". "We Won The Election!" "We're In The White House!" "We're More Popular!". Neener Neener! It has nothing to do with "The Future Of America" or any of that rhetoric. It's a horse race, a beauty pageant. Pure and simple. That's why I gave up voting about 20 years ago. It makes no difference who "wins" or who "loses". Any candidate will say anything to any group in order to get elected. Whatever you all decide is fine with me. Just wake me up when it's all over. You've got a lot of nerve to be telling the truth Dan! Get ready to duck : ) DeWayne Dan Drake R8, Grundig Satellit 650 Radio Shack DX-440, Grundig YB400 Tecsun PL-230 (YB550PE), Kaito KA1102 Hallicraters S-120 (1962) Zenith black dial 5 tube Tombstone (1936) E. H. Scott 23 tube Imperial Allwave in Tasman cabinet (1935) |
Great post, B.A.
-- Stinger "Brenda Ann Dyer" wrote in message ... "YODAR" wrote in message . com... PROGRESSIVE MY ARSE! Liberals dont have the COURAGE to ADMIT they are LIBERALS. They use the PC word "progressive" in it's place because they dont have the GUTS (or intellect)to argue (with reason instead of name-calling) their true position on ANYTHING Yodar I'm pretty much centrist myself.. I have liberal view on some things (health care for the elderly, death penalty, etc.) and conservative views on other things (taxes, abortion, etc.).. but I have never understood what the far right hates so much about the left (or vice-versa for that matter). Both sides have some crazy ideas, both sides have some great ideas. 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. If not for conservatives, we would be paying half of our wages in taxes and would never be able to own a home or have credit... |
|
"YODAR" wrote in message . com... PROGRESSIVE MY ARSE! Liberals dont have the COURAGE to ADMIT they are LIBERALS. They use the PC word "progressive" in it's place because they dont have the GUTS (or intellect)to argue (with reason instead of name-calling) their true position on ANYTHING Yodar I think the term "progressive" is appropriate. The progressive movement formed sometime around the end of the 19th century and the progressives favored the use of do-gooder government to enforce their ideas of social justice and equality. Liberals, at least in the 18th and 19th century sense are similar to modern libertarianians. I like the return of the distinction between liberals and progressives, and I hope the distinction becomes even clearer. I'd be even more pleased if old fashioned liberalism came back as a potent political force in the US. Frank Dresser |
"David" wrote in message ... [snip] "We cannot think of a better way to bring our important message directly into the cars, homes and minds of Americans than broadcasting on XM Satellite Radio," said Mark Walsh, CEO of Progress Media. "There is a great underserved market of Americans who want to hear compelling and funny talk voices expressing viewpoints long absent from the radio airwaves. Air America on XM will go a long way to correcting this imbalance at a particularly opportune time." [snip] I listened in for about an hour. Nothing but Bush bashing. Bashing politicians is OK, but it gets tiresome. I wonder if they really have a handle on the success of Rush Limbaugh. Rush was one of the first media people who made it seem fun to be a conservative. Conservatives used to be ridiculed as a bunch of uptight squares. It was the conservatives who wrote the Blue Laws. It was the conservatives who banned books and movies. It was the conservatives who got the vapors when skirts went above the knee. Rush properly turned the ridicule back on the liberals (actually it's the progressives, but that distinction got blurred about a century ago). The liberals tell you not to smoke. The liberals punish people who don't wear a seat belt. The liberals say a steak is not only unheathy, but meat production will destroy the world's environment. The modern liberals(progressives) have become the new administrators of the nanny state. I think liberal talk radio could be successful. But I'm sure guilt radio will never get past the NPR level. Frank Dresser |
"Dan" wrote in message ... It's all about "bragging rights". "We Won The Election!" "We're In The White House!" "We're More Popular!". Neener Neener! It has nothing to do with "The Future Of America" or any of that rhetoric. It's a horse race, a beauty pageant. Pure and simple. If only that were true. This is the era of Big Government. There are thousands and thousands of jobs to be handed out. There are billions of dollars worth of contracts to be awarded. People will be prosecuted, or not prosecuted, based on the outcome of the election. That's why I gave up voting about 20 years ago. It makes no difference who "wins" or who "loses". Any candidate will say anything to any group in order to get elected. It makes a great deal of difference who wins, at least for some people. And, yes, candidates will say most anything, but they put much less in writing. Whatever you all decide is fine with me. Just wake me up when it's all over. Dan Sorry if I gave you nightmares! Frank Dresser |
In article ,
"Frank Dresser" wrote: "Dan" wrote in message ... It's all about "bragging rights". "We Won The Election!" "We're In The White House!" "We're More Popular!". Neener Neener! It has nothing to do with "The Future Of America" or any of that rhetoric. It's a horse race, a beauty pageant. Pure and simple. If only that were true. This is the era of Big Government. There are thousands and thousands of jobs to be handed out. There are billions of dollars worth of contracts to be awarded. People will be prosecuted, or not prosecuted, based on the outcome of the election. All of that will happen no matter who is in the White House. If the job goes to Eany, Meany, Miney or Moe it makes little difference. Dan Drake R8, Grundig Satellit 650 Radio Shack DX-440, Grundig YB400 Tecsun PL-230 (YB550PE), Kaito KA1102 Hallicraters S-120 (1962) Zenith black dial 5 tube Tombstone (1936) E. H. Scott 23 tube Imperial Allwave in Tasman cabinet (1935) |
In article ,
"T. Early" wrote: Well Dan, I guess you're entitled. But if you think judicial appointments, which are purely based on the party in power, have nothing to do with the future of the country, or the present in which you're living, there's not much I can say. That's the *only* thing that *might* matter. In the long run, however, it balances out, because you generally get 8 years of Republicans and then 8 years of Democrats. Lather, Rinse, Repeat. Dan |
"Dan" wrote in message ... In article , "Frank Dresser" wrote: "Dan" wrote in message ... It's all about "bragging rights". "We Won The Election!" "We're In The White House!" "We're More Popular!". Neener Neener! It has nothing to do with "The Future Of America" or any of that rhetoric. It's a horse race, a beauty pageant. Pure and simple. If only that were true. This is the era of Big Government. There are thousands and thousands of jobs to be handed out. There are billions of dollars worth of contracts to be awarded. People will be prosecuted, or not prosecuted, based on the outcome of the election. All of that will happen no matter who is in the White House. If the job goes to Eany, Meany, Miney or Moe it makes little difference. 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. |
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. On Thu, 01 Apr 2004 00:53:47 GMT, YODAR wrote: PROGRESSIVE MY ARSE! Liberals dont have the COURAGE to ADMIT they are LIBERALS. They use the PC word "progressive" in it's place because they dont have the GUTS (or intellect)to argue (with reason instead of name-calling) their true position on ANYTHING Yodar ] David wrote: Monday March 29, 11:22 am ET XM and Progress Media Further Political Discourse Through Humor, Insight and Intelligent New Voices WASHINGTON and NEW YORK, March 29 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- XM Satellite Radio (Nasdaq: XMSR - News), the pioneer and leader in satellite radio, on Wednesday, March 31, debuts XM America Left, Channel 167, a new talk radio channel dedicated to progressive political viewpoints. New channel XM America Left complements XM's other talk programming which features more conservative on-air talent, including Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage and Ann Coulter. "We are excited to provide a national audience to progressive superstar Al Franken and his spirited cohorts at Air America. Challenging our listeners, and giving them the best and broadest choices possible is our daily mission at XM. Where else are you going to find Al Franken and Bill O'Reilly, or opera and punk for that matter, living under one roof," said Hugh Panero, XM President and CEO. |
Neither Bush nor Rush Limbaugh are the slightest bit ''conservative''.
They are right-wing wackos. Gordon Liddy is a conservative. Ben Stein is a conservative. Both of them called Al Franken yesterday and wished him great success. And please give me a break about tedious bashing. ****ing Limbaugh still whines about Bill Clinton. On Thu, 01 Apr 2004 05:53:59 GMT, "Frank Dresser" wrote: "David" wrote in message .. . [snip] "We cannot think of a better way to bring our important message directly into the cars, homes and minds of Americans than broadcasting on XM Satellite Radio," said Mark Walsh, CEO of Progress Media. "There is a great underserved market of Americans who want to hear compelling and funny talk voices expressing viewpoints long absent from the radio airwaves. Air America on XM will go a long way to correcting this imbalance at a particularly opportune time." [snip] I listened in for about an hour. Nothing but Bush bashing. Bashing politicians is OK, but it gets tiresome. I wonder if they really have a handle on the success of Rush Limbaugh. Rush was one of the first media people who made it seem fun to be a conservative. Conservatives used to be ridiculed as a bunch of uptight squares. It was the conservatives who wrote the Blue Laws. It was the conservatives who banned books and movies. It was the conservatives who got the vapors when skirts went above the knee. Rush properly turned the ridicule back on the liberals (actually it's the progressives, but that distinction got blurred about a century ago). The liberals tell you not to smoke. The liberals punish people who don't wear a seat belt. The liberals say a steak is not only unheathy, but meat production will destroy the world's environment. The modern liberals(progressives) have become the new administrators of the nanny state. I think liberal talk radio could be successful. But I'm sure guilt radio will never get past the NPR level. Frank Dresser |
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 .. .. = = = (Frank White) wrote in message = = = ... - - - - - S N I P - - - - - I actually tuned in to this today via streaming audio. Twice. The first time, three of the commentators were complaining about Bush. The second time, a female interviewer was talking to Ralph Nadar and trying to get him to admit he'd thrown the election to Bush in 2000, and a second campaign this year might do the same thing. She was, of course, making no headway... I'll say this. If I didn't hit two exceptionally dull segments, or the channel doesn't improve fast, it's doomed because it's incredibly BORING!!! :( FW |
"Dan" wrote in message ... All of that will happen no matter who is in the White House. If the job goes to Eany, Meany, Miney or Moe it makes little difference. Dan Ah, you must be thinking of the Beast system. James Lloyd (ha ha ha) draws the comparision between the Beast of the Book of Revelation and Leviathian as described by Thomas Hobbes. I'm glad James Lloyd explains these things to me, because I once cracked open Leviathian and promptly fell asleep. Maybe little difference, but there is a difference. I notice that the Book of Revelation describes two different locations for the Mark of the Beast. Just enough for Republicans and Democrats. Frank Dresser |
"David" wrote in message ... Neither Bush nor Rush Limbaugh are the slightest bit ''conservative''. They are right-wing wackos. Gordon Liddy is a conservative. Ben Stein is a conservative. Both of them called Al Franken yesterday and wished him great success. And please give me a break about tedious bashing. ****ing Limbaugh still whines about Bill Clinton. I think Rush was at his best when he was at his best at his start, during the first Bush's administration. Rush was more conservative and less Republican. He was even saying nice things about such disparate conservatives as Pat Buchanan and the libertarians. Rush became a cheerleader for the Republican establishment just before the 1992 elections. His show still had it's good moments, but I haven't listened much lately. Frank Dresser |
"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. |
"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 |
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. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:55 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com