"dxAce" wrote in message
...
What's even more pathetic is they're going to run him again in '08.

Cool... it was fun once, it'll be fun again!

Maybe this time we'll find out if he was actually dishonourably discharged
at
one time. That'd be a real hoot.

Let the fun begin!

WASHINGTON - Sen. John F. Kerry tapped campaign funds for Red Sox tickets
and to pay nearly $300 in overdue Boston parking tickets in March, records
show.

Kerry's Senate campaign committee wrote a $287 check to the City of
Boston Parking Clerk on March 31, 2005. The Bay State senator listed
``travel expense'' as the purpose for the expenditure.

Kerry leased a car for campaign-related travel in Massachusetts that
was cited for about a half-dozen parking tickets in Boston.

Most of the tickets were issued in October and November 2003 and not
paid until more than 15 months later in March 2005 after accruing penalty
fees.

``They were leftover tickets we only found out about when we closed out
the lease,'' Kerry spokeswoman Jenny Backus said. ``The car was used for the
Senate campaign by staffers and volunteers.''

Kerry, meanwhile, used presidential campaign funds for a $3,150 tab for
Boston Red Sox tickets in July when he threw out the first pitch at Fenway
Park before the Democratic National Convention.

A Federal Election Commission spokesman said congressmen are entitled
to pay for parking tickets and other expenses from their campaign funds as
long as they were ``campaign-related.''

Other members of the Bay State congressional delegation also reported
some novel spending this year.

U.S. Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-South Boston) spent $1,231 on makeup
services during a two-week stretch in March, according to his most recent
FEC report.

``Congresssman Lynch had a pretty intensive round of TV interviews due
to the baseball steroid hearings, the Big Dig hearings and his Iraq trip,''
Lynch spokesman Matt Ferraguto said.

"David" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 3 May 2005 13:22:34 -0500, "MnMikew"
wrote:


wrote in message
roups.com...
The story is almost a year old:
Sun Jul 18th, 2004 at 22:51:39 PDT

Here are the CURRENT ratings:
http://www.radioandrecords.com/rrratings

Not as pretty a picture is it?????

Why do you think he posted it? The NEW ratings would have screwed up his
agenda.

The link was in a contemporary article. It was an accident. As
usual, you missed the big picture while getting hung-up like a tweeker
on something insignificant.

The big picture is AA is failing. You're the one with the hang-up.

"MnMikew" wrote in message
...

"David" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 3 May 2005 13:22:34 -0500, "MnMikew"
wrote:


wrote in message
roups.com...
The story is almost a year old:
Sun Jul 18th, 2004 at 22:51:39 PDT

Here are the CURRENT ratings:
http://www.radioandrecords.com/rrratings

Not as pretty a picture is it?????

Why do you think he posted it? The NEW ratings would have screwed up his
agenda.

The link was in a contemporary article. It was an accident. As
usual, you missed the big picture while getting hung-up like a tweeker
on something insignificant.

The big picture is AA is failing. You're the one with the hang-up.

It is not failing. It is very viable, but it is not the major factor in most
US markets that conservative talk is, mostly due tot he fact that in very
few markets is the programming on a competitive technical facility.

"David" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 04 May 2005 17:03:50 GMT, "David Eduardo"
wrote:


"David" wrote in message
. ..
On 3 May 2005 18:31:54 -0700, wrote:

here is a link to the current ratings:
http://www.radioandratings.com/rrratings

AAR's ratings are in the crapper.
????

They are only on 14 hours a day.

And there are only 13 significant ratings hours a day.


What do the free ratings on randr dot comm mean?

6 AM to Midnight, M-Sun. The sales numbers are mostly 6 AM to 7 PM, M-F in
specific adult demos.

"David Eduardo" wrote in message
m...
The big picture is AA is failing. You're the one with the hang-up.

It is not failing. It is very viable, but it is not the major factor in
most
US markets that conservative talk is, mostly due tot he fact that in very
few markets is the programming on a competitive technical facility.

Viable means capable (or possibility) of surviving, but not guaranteed to
thrive.

In the cab business, as with many others: "Money talks and BS walks." The
power brokers in many markets in the radio biz apparnetly don't care to jump
onto AA, even though there are abundant facilities available for the right
formatting fit. AA doesn't appear to fit in, and its revenue producing and
prior accounts payable history also speak for themselves.

"Gary Schnabl" wrote in message
...

"David Eduardo" wrote in message
m...
The big picture is AA is failing. You're the one with the hang-up.

It is not failing. It is very viable, but it is not the major factor in
most
US markets that conservative talk is, mostly due tot he fact that in very
few markets is the programming on a competitive technical facility.

Viable means capable (or possibility) of surviving, but not guaranteed to
thrive.

And AA is very viable. They already are at the affiliate mark that will
sustain them, albeit not with astounding, windfall profits.

In the cab business, as with many others: "Money talks and BS walks." The
power brokers in many markets in the radio biz apparnetly don't care to
jump
onto AA, even though there are abundant facilities available for the right
formatting fit.

Actually, there are very few facilities available for such a format. The
need is for a good signal, ownership which is not format-specific and
underperformance of the good signal. In other words, a strong AM that is not
owned by a company that, for example, only does Spanish, and a facility that
is not profitable now.

There are very few good, competitive AM signals in the US that are not
already utilized in a good manner and quite profitable. In fact, most
markets have only a couple of full market AM signals (DC has none, for
example) and these are uniformly committed to a profitable format.

What is left is the mid to lower tier of staitons, many of which are more
profitable in ethnic or religious programming than they could be, given the
signal-to-ratings expectations as a competitive talker.

AA doesn't appear to fit in, and its revenue producing and
prior accounts payable history also speak for themselves.

They had one bad two-month period at start up. they changed management and
got a more solid backer than the guys from Guam. They are on a firm
foundation now.

On Wed, 4 May 2005 17:49:55 -0400, "Gary Schnabl"
wrote:

The
power brokers in many markets in the radio biz apparnetly don't care to jump
onto AA, even though there are abundant facilities available for the right
formatting fit. AA doesn't appear to fit in, and its revenue producing and
prior accounts payable history also speak for themselves.

Near half the Air America affiliates are owned by Clear Channel.

Nobody brokers more power than they do.

"David Eduardo" wrote in message
...
There are very few good, competitive AM signals in the US that are not
already utilized in a good manner and quite profitable. In fact, most
markets have only a couple of full market AM signals (DC has none, for
example) and these are uniformly committed to a profitable format.

What is left is the mid to lower tier of staitons, many of which are more
profitable in ethnic or religious programming than they could be, given
the
signal-to-ratings expectations as a competitive talker.

AA doesn't appear to fit in, and its revenue producing and
prior accounts payable history also speak for themselves.

They had one bad two-month period at start up. they changed management and
got a more solid backer than the guys from Guam. They are on a firm
foundation now.

Let's take Limbaugh, for example, when he started 17 years ago. He had 58
outlets to begin with in an uncharted sea of AM stations with an unproven
format - and daytime at that. AA still has fewer outlets than Limbaugh
started with. When you consider the added alternative distractions that
didn't exist 17 years ago, he's still doing very well.

And it's also not all due to Limbaugh. When he's away, the ratings for that
program still hold up for his replacement hosts. While he was away for some
time due to his problem(s), the listeners were still there, I've heard.
Maybe you have the ratings for those weeks. If so, make mention of them.

A sidebar - Does it really matter who's at the helm for the particular AA
shows for a particular time slot? Would it matter if the ex-mayor of Cincy
did Franken's show or vice versa, for example?

However, the real question is how well would AA do in the solid red areas of
the nation that do not have an occasional oasis of blue, such as the
Research Triangle in North Carolina or Austin TX? The conservative programs
draw well in the traditionally blue areas that are also good radio markets.
Why doesn't AA have an actual edge in their "own" backyards?

"David" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 4 May 2005 17:49:55 -0400, "Gary Schnabl"
wrote:

The
power brokers in many markets in the radio biz apparnetly don't care to
jump
onto AA, even though there are abundant facilities available for the
right
formatting fit. AA doesn't appear to fit in, and its revenue producing
and
prior accounts payable history also speak for themselves.

Near half the Air America affiliates are owned by Clear Channel.

Nobody brokers more power than they do.

The financial worth of the super conglomerates is not what was once
imagined, and many stations are now on the chopping block at Viacom. It
costs CC next to nothing to provide AA's programming, and a little of
something is better than a lot of nothing.

"David" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 4 May 2005 17:49:55 -0400, "Gary Schnabl"
wrote:

The
power brokers in many markets in the radio biz apparnetly don't care to
jump
onto AA, even though there are abundant facilities available for the right
formatting fit. AA doesn't appear to fit in, and its revenue producing and
prior accounts payable history also speak for themselves.

Near half the Air America affiliates are owned by Clear Channel.

Nobody brokers more power than they do.

Actually, less than 20% of the AA affiliates are owned by Clear Channel.