Any bets on how long this answer to Rush Limbaugh & Fox et al will last? Will Air America tap in to a groundswell of liberal populism

I'm listening now. Will report back sometime.

But I have my doubts. If this would have worked as well as the conservative shows, someone would have done it years ago.

The don't get it. Conservative talk radio thrives not only because it is a viewpoint seldom heard in the mainstream media but because the mainstream media constantly oozes their partisan liberal bias.

Radio doesn't need an answer to Rush and Sean because they already have several: CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN and all the various "news" programs (such as 60 Minutes) that are getting to be nothing more than propoganda instruments of the Democratic Party.

So far (after 20 min.), it's all ad hominems against Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, and lamenting the great injustice of the Florida election in 2000!

Very profound stuff!

So far (after 20 min.), it's all ad hominems against Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, and lamenting the great injustice of the Florida election in 2000!

Hey, not that Rush doesn't throw around the derogatory term or two, but I would have very much have expected the liberal show to end up being a characterture of a conservative show. That's all they think the conservative shows are about. That's all they hear. But the in-depth discussions and thoughtful analyses are of primary importance or they wouldn't have drawn the kind of audience that they have.

I listened to one of Randi's interviews with Madeline Albright, which was sponsored by the same outfit that brought us Queer Eye for the Straight Guy , they proclaimed. Basically, it was a bashing of the Bush Administration re: the 911 Commission, which, just like Phil said before, is the topic du jour and will be gone tomorrow (metaphorically, which is to say, literally, within a couple of weeks after Condi smokes 'em)

I see you fellows are enjoying the new internet access to liberal radio

Kicking republican butt since 1999

Want more? Go to: Political Strikes

FWIW, I'm not overly fond of conservative radio talk shows. O'Reilly is my favorite of those we get out here (Rush, Hannity, Boortz, Savage, Ingraham), but he seems more of an independent than conservative and often takes issue with conservative positions, especially on the environment. He's often arrogant and rude, however, but usually toward people who somewhat deserve it.

I agree with Brad that sometimes there are thoughtful reflections and exchanges, but I also think they've contributed to an unhealthy demonization of liberals and liberal positions. Sean Hannity even has liberals listed along with terrorists in the subtitle of his new book, "Deliver Us From Evil." He's the most shallow of all, imo--a world-class extravert motormouth who manages to move every interview into the space where he feels comfortable.

Rush can often come up with an interesting angle, but he is so painfully repetitive that I just turn him off after a few minutes. Click back on after a few minutes and he's talking about the same thing using the same metaphors.

As for the rest . . . maybe I'll take them up later. After Rush and Hannity, however, the market share for conservative talk radio is relatively small.

I do agree with Brad, however, that they give voice to opinions and sentiments not often carried by the mainstream press, Fox being a notable exception, along with people like George Will on ABC.

Phil, you ought to give a listen to Michael Medved if he's available. I think I learn more from him than anyone. He, along with some of his experts, has really dug down deep into the Middle East issues. And Rush, at least for me, is absolutely vital for parsing the liberal press and liberal politicians. I used to be amazed, during the cold war, when I would read a snippet or two of what Pravda had to say. It is very easy for an entire people to be brainwashed. For a free people to remain so we must have all sides of the issues, and just as important, if not more so, we must know when we're not getting it.

Hold it a minute here, people!

Libs have put Al Frankin, a comedian, in charge of their posturing?

Enough said.

unhealthy demonization

Cannon to the right of us
Cannon to the left of us
On into the valley

Would that be Billy?

(I don't get the connection.)

unhealthy demonization

Cannon to the right of us
Cannon to the left of us
On into the valley
++++++++++++++++++++++++++

which is only to suggest that unhealthy demonization and incivil discourse are a problem on the left and the right, and, for that matter, come from some in the arrogant middle, too

tidbits from today's liberal radio:

a)FoxNews is a FoxyMoron

b)the deconstruction of Sean Hannity

c)WMD - weapons of media deconstruction

Today's O'Franken Factor

In a nutshell what Sen Joe Biden said:

The Bush Team (w/ strong neo-con influence) took its eye off the ball by not concentrating on Afghanistan and moving on Iraq. These are intelligent people and good people. However, they place too much emphasis on their theory of state-sponsored terrorism, which is a neo-con theory, which makes it faith-based intelligence.

IOW, nothing new.

Richard Clarke on Franken (taped):

White House worked up by Star Wars and Iraq, not terrorism.

Clinton vs Bush view: Bill was not initially concerned but eventually got personally worked up (but within his first month WTC was attacked). Clinton started talking about the dark side of globalization. He spent much time reading and writing about it. Clarke was told not to send Bush much to read because he wasn't a reader.

During transition, the Clinton administration told the incoming Bush team (obviously visceral Clinton-haters) the national security priorities should be:
1) alQaeda
2) Arab-Israeli
3) North Korea

Tsk. Tsk. Dubya was obsessed with Iraq.

Contrasting Dec 99 and Summer 2001 - In Dec 99, CIA was saying that, from chatter, alQaeda is planning a major attck. Clinton called daily meetings in White House of highest level officials. Attacks were stopped successfully (Millenium Games, etc). Same CIA Director said same thing in 2001. National Security Advisor, Condi, doesn't convene any meetings; President doesn't call any meetings. Bush, ergo, was disengaged.

Countering RightWingHate Radio ... advertisement

The smear of Clarke-
Cheney: Clarke was out of the loop
Condi: Clarke was in the loop
Clarke to Rummy: going after Iraq was nutty, subsequently, Clarke no longer in the loop on Iraq but still in loop on counterterrorism.

Families forced the commission. Bush didn't want it.

Questions of Condi b4 Commission:
What did President do before 911 about terrorism? Not much.
What did President do after 911?
Started in right direction then got diverted.

Clarke claims President really wanted (intimidatingly so) a memo back from Clarke implicating Iraq in 911.


Franken: The Wag the Dog theorists are responsible for 911 because it caused Clinton to raise his evidence threshold for pursuing bin Laden. He specifically mentions Ann Coulter, Lucianne Goldberg and someone else ... oh yeah, Linda Tripp.

Not even a fellow apologist backs up Al's nutty theory:

quote:

When the USS Cole was hit in October 2000, al Qaeda was a prime suspect. But other terrorist groups and states which had attacked us before were also potentially responsible.

It was appropriate that Mr. Clinton wanted conclusions from his chief intelligence and law enforcement agencies before launching broad retaliatory strikes on al Qaeda and Taliban targets in Afghanistan. Definitive conclusions from the CIA and FBI on who was behind the Cole were not provided to Mr. Clinton for the remainder of his term.

Even without conclusions from the FBI and CIA on the Cole, bin Laden and his lieutenants were still hunted to the last day of Mr. Clinton's presidency for al Qaeda's 1998 attacks on our two embassies in Africa. from Debunking Right-Wing Conspiracies About Sudan, Clinton and Bin Laden at Political Stragey.org

Advertisement:

quote:

We at Politicalstrategy.us are a group of concerned citizens outraged by recent events that have threatened our rights as U.S. Citizens: The theft of the presidency, the stripping of our rights to privacy and the pandering of the right wing to the wealthiest 1% of Americans at the expense of the other 99%.
PS.us was created to unify and strengthen the progressive community, (i.e. the majority of the American population) to encourage an aggressive defense and assault on all things that continue to threaten our freedom and sensibility, and to ensure that progressives have a powerful, consistent and clear message that rivals the propaganda machine of the conservative establishment.

Yada. Yada. Yada. Nada. Nada. Nada.

FINALLY, A LOOK AT WHAT REALLY CAUSED SEPT. 11

JB is TROLLING SPlace --- somebody's got to give voice to the unfortunate

I guess what must really chap the hell out of libs like this is that many of them privately, or through public tallies, thought Bush excelled in reponse to 911 in Afganistan, and started back-pedalling once he declared war on Saddam.

Arguing over what could have been done prior to 911 is valid, but the motive is clearly lame as can be, given the disparity between Bush and Kerry re: competence for national security. And that's the liberal rub. If Gore were president, we'd still be pandering to Pakistan while it catered to its militant groups, and Saddam would be gloating over lifted sanctions and new money to refurbish his WMD.

quote:

PS.us was created to unify and strengthen the progressive community, (i.e. the majority of the American population) to encourage an aggressive defense and assault on all things that continue to threaten our freedom and sensibility, and to ensure that progressives have a powerful, consistent and clear message that rivals the propaganda machine of the conservative establishment.

Present From Progressives: Starvation by David Horowitz

How many poor people have progressives starved since 1917? It's a good question and somebody should do the research and publish it.

Russia was the breadbasket of Europe until progressives seized power in that year and started instituting policies to "share the wealth." For the next 70 years until socialism collapsed, Russia was a net importer of food always on the brink of famine. In the 1930s, Stalin instigated a calculated famine in the Ukraine to rid himself of approximately 10 million political enemies.

His crime was protected by the progressives at the New York Times and on the Pulitzer Prize Committee (they control both institutions to this day). Because soft progressives cover for hard-line progressives like Stalin, Castro and other political monsters � preferring to demonize George Bush and John Ashcroft instead � these atrocities continue.

The left's inability to understand the most basic economic fact � that people need an incentive to produce � has caused the unnecessary deaths of tens of millions of people � mostly poor � in the last 75 years. But thanks to a politically corrupted media and educational system, their pig-headed pursuit of socialist fantasies goes on.

A faith that ruined whole continents and destroyed a world of human lives by David Horowitz

Looking behind us, this century of ours was mostly a stage for the destructive dramas of a secular religious faith called "socialism." It is a faith inspired by the dream of a social redemption realized through human rather than divine power, through the force of politics and the state. In its communist form, the efforts of this faith ruined whole continents and destroyed a world of human lives. Have we learned from these disasters, or will the passions of this faith follow us into the century to come?

Even though it is in a different league My favorite radio talk radio hosts are Jeff Cavins and Al Kresta. They are on network of catholic stations covering much of the midwest. I get the news from a catholic bias which is refreshing. I am not a big fan of conservative or liberal radio but enjoy a good religious talk show. I also enjoy listening to Catholic Answers a Catholic apologetic radio show. Listing of radio stations can be found at
Relevant Radio

Hopefully I spelled that correctly.

Apparently Clinton and Gore helped get this project started. Click here. The article notes that it's not going so well, however, with financial troubles on the horizon.

Did anyone ever listen to them? I tried once and the DJ was trying to explain how Bush stole the election in Florida using his dad's friends and the U.S. Supreme Court to help him out. I would have loved to call to inquire just which recount Gore won, but thought better of it and left it all alone.

"Earthlings in the unBalance" and a free copy of "My Lies" to the first 50 calllers during Jerry Springer's fun filled hour? Want a little cheese with that whine, Al?