Are you saying that it will NEVER again come to power? Their leadership is lacking right now no doubt, but I wouldn’t say we are talking about whips here, yet."
I will acknowledge that it isn’t impossible for a governor to come out of nowhere and shake things up.
The question becomes: Will the DNC chair or the “chosen-one” Hillary fall in behind this new leader? He controls the finances, she has powerful allies.
They both desperately want the prize.
It would take the consumate physician to weave that spell.
I contend that at this point, the democrats are showing that they have learned exactly nothing from the last election. Did you catch Harry Reid calling W. a “loser” the other day.
You add on the the almost pathological inability to connect with middle America, and I have my doubts about the dems on the national level.
It’s funny, but the only “up and comer” trying to connect is rodham. We know it’s a sham, but at least she’s trying.
[quote]vroom, don’t put words in my mouth or in zeb’s mouth.
That’s something Professor X would do and has done, and it’s far far beneath you.
I only asked you a question. That you chose not to answer it but instead bring up a straw man shows how little you actually have. [/quote]
Joe, have you been eating soy bars this morning. The last thing I’m trying to do is put words in anyones mouth. I’m also not trying to straw man anything, have you been smoking crack as well?
Your questions were quite silly, I didn’t think you actually wanted me to try and answer them. If it will mollify you I’ll be happy to try…
How the hell should I know. I have no idea. I can’t answer this question in any reasonable way.
According to you and this thread, I’d have to say Limbaugh has the ratings. Oh, I see, liberalism sucks and this proves it.
Look, I don’t know what your panties are in a bunch about. This thread degenerated into a liberalism is dead conversation and I felt the evidence for that was a bit weak.
Apparently fewer and fewer people respond to the Arbitron ratings these days so some would debate the overall accuracy of their numbers.
So either people who listen to Air America don’t respond to the ratings surveys or people just don’t listen to AA period. Regardless ratings determine advertising revenue and money is king, except for NPR of course.
The recent HBO documentary ‘Left of the Dial’ gave a very interesting look behind the scenes of the first year of Air America and it wasn’t very pretty. It generally takes years for a radio show to build up a substantial audience, slowly adding more and more affiliates; AA tried to simply buy as many as they could right off the bat. The result was that they spent far more money then they took in in advertising revenue and all things went to hell.
If in the next 10 years they can build up an audience and sustain themselves good for them, if not then I suppose people just aren’t interested in listening to them. Only time will tell.
Retiring the Boogeyman
By Shawn Macomber
Published 4/1/2005 12:04:12 AM
Throughout the last election cycle, liberals built up radio conglomerate Clear Channel into a Frankensteinesque monster, created out of dead, soulless radio stations and brought to life with the twin goals of destroying all good music and serving right-wing interests.
But now that Clear Channel’s profit motive is helping bolster the ratings of the Air America radio network, those who worked so hard to create this dark mythology are furiously attempting to deconstruct it.
Retiring a corporate boogeyman certainly has its perks. When a Clear Channel station in Portland, Oregon, picked up Air America, for example, Al Franken’s show went from a dismal 26th place to third. Now approximately one-third of Air America’s affiliates are Clear Channel stations. The liberal network is even getting back into the Chicago market from which conservatives gleefully watched it ignominiously removed shortly after debuting last year.
In fact, thanks to the much-maligned free market and the corporations that service it, Air America is becoming what critics said it could never be: a success.
Michelle = dumbass. The network has been on the the air for one year Michelle! That means creating an infrastructure and format to compete with conservative radio that’s been doing this for how long? Decades? Does she think that conservatives are going to stop listening to Rush and then listen to al? No Al would have to create his own audience.
Success for Iraq could take decades, but success for liberal radio is to be determined in a year–what an idiot she is. (and do eskimos=YOUTH, because that’s the demographic their beating people in–by the way Michelle this is the demo advertisers want.)
[quote]The Mage wrote:
Most media is liberal. Movies, television, newspapers. All liberal, regardless of how people want to argue it.[/quote]
I am amazed that you walk through life trying to turn everything into a liberal vs conservative battle for your attention. I can’t think of one movie I have seen where I sat there and said, “That was so conservative” or, “I can’t believe how liberal that was!”. Going out on a Friday night must suck for you.
[quote]vroom wrote:
vroom, don’t put words in my mouth or in zeb’s mouth.
That’s something Professor X would do and has done, and it’s far far beneath you.
I only asked you a question. That you chose not to answer it but instead bring up a straw man shows how little you actually have.
Joe, have you been eating soy bars this morning. The last thing I’m trying to do is put words in anyones mouth. I’m also not trying to straw man anything, have you been smoking crack as well?
Your questions were quite silly, I didn’t think you actually wanted me to try and answer them. If it will mollify you I’ll be happy to try…
why does the content suck though?
How the hell should I know. I have no idea. I can’t answer this question in any reasonable way.
There are people on this board who hate Limbaugh and say his content sucks. But who’s got the ratings?
According to you and this thread, I’d have to say Limbaugh has the ratings. Oh, I see, liberalism sucks and this proves it.
Look, I don’t know what your panties are in a bunch about. This thread degenerated into a liberalism is dead conversation and I felt the evidence for that was a bit weak.
Sue me.[/quote]
But that’s not what I said.
I merely asked the question about…oh, fuck it.
You’re just being an ass today…but then again how is that different than any other day?
[quote]But that’s not what I said.
I merely asked the question about…oh, fuck it.
You’re just being an ass today…but then again how is that different than any other day? [/quote]
Oh wait, I think I see what you are crying about. I added this to my response…
To whom it may concern, the above statement only reflects my opinion on the direction of this thread. It’s placement may have implied that Joe was arguing that viewpoint when he was not.
I don’t actually know what Joe’s viewpoint is or what he was arguing. Perhaps he would care to elucidate on this topic?
“…Another problem with Air America is it is designed [u]not[/u] as a way to get out liberal messages, but as a way to attack conservatives, and conservative shows…”
THAT’S A BIG PROBLEM!
You HAVE to have a message and/or alternatives…merely “trolling and hating” may be good for about 3 seconds…then it gets old…and ultimately it’s non-sustaining…
One HAS to have: 1) a message and/or 2) alternatives…
(This really reminds me a LOT of the “T-Nation” trolls and haters…to avoid highjacking the thread, you can ask me about my thoughts on that later if you’re interested…)
[quote]Professor X wrote:
The Mage wrote:
Most media is liberal. Movies, television, newspapers. All liberal, regardless of how people want to argue it.
I am amazed that you walk through life trying to turn everything into a liberal vs conservative battle for your attention. I can’t think of one movie I have seen where I sat there and said, “That was so conservative” or, “I can’t believe how liberal that was!”. Going out on a Friday night must suck for you.[/quote]
Of course not because most movies are liberal. It is a liberal organization for the most part. You can’t see that because if you see something that matches your beliefs, you are less likely to notice it.
Also I don’t walk out of movies saying, “That was so liberal.” Or any similar message, but I can notice the subtle, as well as overt messages that are there.
Despite the shallow sophistry, the issue is highly partisan, because…wait for it…
…Air American itself is designed to pursue a hyperpartisan agenda. It wants to be partisan and extremely pro-Democratic. And that’s perfectly fine, but let’s not try and view this radio station as anything less than a political pulpit.
Why does it suck? I think because conservative radio struck a nerve with a group of people that thought themselves voiceless in other areas. Modern liberals don’t have that problem. They have the editorial pages and the news reporting of major newspapers by and large, and the university - perhaps the loudest megaphone for their ideas. In short, Air America was a bad idea from the outset, strictly from a supply and demand point of view - there is plenty of supply for liberal opinion, the radio program just gets shoved out of the way by other, more preferred choices. Besides, if you are a liberal-minded person, why bother with Air America when you have NPR?
The fact that its personalities aren’t all that compelling doesn’t help either.
And Mage hit it right on the head - an entire radio station devoted to one theme - “Bush is bad, m’kay?” - is not going to generate interest among people who are something more than brainless lapdogs sucking down lattes and wallowing in their own self-importance for having the good, enlightened “progressive” sense to listen to Air America in the first place. In the absence of smart, thoughtful alternatives and fresh ideas - which liberalism has been bereft of for far too long, much to the nation’s chagrin - reactionary radio isn’t going to do anything to start a discussion with people who think for themselves.
I am still having a great deal of fun with the irony of liberals’ calling themselves “progressive”. Always a good time.
[quote]The Mage wrote:
Of course not because most movies are liberal. It is a liberal organization for the most part.[/quote]
Aside from F911, could you provide some sort of example of the rampant liberalism that shuns conservative ideas in film? Would conservative movies be more religious? No swearing? No sex? Ahh, I can see why there aren’t any movies like this. No one would go see them. Honestly, please provide an example of this beyond simply making a generalization that broad.
[quote]mindeffer01 wrote:
It’s a conspiracy at the highest levels of govt. and business. Thats why Air America is doing poorly. It’s the money mongering powerbrokers destroying their competition. Megalodons sweeping in for the kill on their favorite prey, the poor little guys that are just trying to eak out their little niche.
Geez Zeb, I thought they told you about this at our last convention.
[quote]oboffill wrote:
Most of you guys can’t see past what’s in front of your face. You live in a little boxed-in mind, where this whole political process is nothing more than a basketball game. To you guys, The Republicans are up by 15 points in the game right now. As in the sports world, the fans root for the home team, and in this case, root for their All-Stars.
You know what happens?
You lose rational and intelligent thought. You ride your emotions. You kick a dog when its down. You dehumanize the opposition. To you, ethics and morality are casualties of war. You live in a comfortable world where things have going well for YOU, so you say to yourself, “What gives THEM the right to try to change the way things are run?”
The Rupublicans have struck a nerve with their supporters. In my opinion, that party has outsmarted the Democrats in almost every way. The Rublicans understand the concept of “taking one for the team” and never airing the dirty laundry. The Democrats are lost right now, as has been pointed out. The party itself has no firm direction. In my opinion, THAT is more important than the views of the party members as it pertains to the electoral process. I believe America is not very “Republican” at all, as you saw how close the race was is November. Had the Democrat party been more cohesive internally, in my opinion, they would have won. [/quote]
Thor- Retarded? No not even close, but sometimes that would be nice. That was an example of the hyperbole filled propaganda that spews forth every time it becomes obvious that even mainstream America disagrees with the viewpoints of a lunatic fringe.
The ones I used are the more common and less creative ones. I’m sure there are more complex and creative spiels being written at this very moment.But hell, I was just being sarcastic and having a little fun. I thought that was obvious, but if you aren’t very good at critical reading, you probably didn’t get that.
You see, there are techniques used in writing that can put a subtle or even obvious slant on the tone of an article. This is done by using any number of literary devices to sway the opinion of the reader. Once you learn to identify these, you will be able to discerne the difference between something that has been written to provide information, and something that was written to sway an opinion.
So maybe I should rephrase my initial response to- Because of the over use of the I feel perspective, coupled with a lack of ability to report without attacking, I believe that Air America sucks.
izat better?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
The Mage wrote:
Of course not because most movies are liberal. It is a liberal organization for the most part.
Aside from F911, could you provide some sort of example of the rampant liberalism that shuns conservative ideas in film? Would conservative movies be more religious? No swearing? No sex? Ahh, I can see why there aren’t any movies like this. No one would go see them. Honestly, please provide an example of this beyond simply making a generalization that broad.[/quote]
I seem to remember The Passion of the Christ having a hard time getting funding. Then when it came out it was a full frontal attack on the movie, every little thing was picked apart. I don’t remember Moore’s movie getting the same treatment. Also can anyone name a Pro-Life movie? I can’t think of a single one.
[quote]CDM wrote:
Professor X wrote:
The Mage wrote:
Of course not because most movies are liberal. It is a liberal organization for the most part.
Aside from F911, could you provide some sort of example of the rampant liberalism that shuns conservative ideas in film? Would conservative movies be more religious? No swearing? No sex? Ahh, I can see why there aren’t any movies like this. No one would go see them. Honestly, please provide an example of this beyond simply making a generalization that broad.
I seem to remember The Passion of the Christ having a hard time getting funding. Then when it came out it was a full frontal attack on the movie, every little thing was picked apart. I don’t remember Moore’s movie getting the same treatment. Also can anyone name a Pro-Life movie? I can’t think of a single one.
[/quote]
Picked apart? By the jewish community, yes, but not by most people (For obvious reasons…and I hope no one thinks that is antisemitic). That movie will probably become a classic in retrospect and most people that I know enjoyed it. It didn’t do too poorly at the box office either. Please, do better than that. That is actually a bad example to prove some type of liberal bias considering how well it did. It outdid any expectations.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
CDM wrote:
Professor X wrote:
The Mage wrote:
Of course not because most movies are liberal. It is a liberal organization for the most part.
Aside from F911, could you provide some sort of example of the rampant liberalism that shuns conservative ideas in film? Would conservative movies be more religious? No swearing? No sex? Ahh, I can see why there aren’t any movies like this. No one would go see them. Honestly, please provide an example of this beyond simply making a generalization that broad.
I seem to remember The Passion of the Christ having a hard time getting funding. Then when it came out it was a full frontal attack on the movie, every little thing was picked apart. I don’t remember Moore’s movie getting the same treatment. Also can anyone name a Pro-Life movie? I can’t think of a single one.
Picked apart? By the jewish community, yes, but not by most people (For obvious reasons…and I hope no one thinks that is antisemitic). That movie will probably become a classic in retrospect and most people that I know enjoyed it. It didn’t do too poorly at the box office either. Please, do better than that. That is actually a bad example to prove some type of liberal bias considering how well it did. It outdid any expectations.[/quote]
It was picked apart by more the the Jewish. I still have the Time and Newsweek issues that tried their best to discredit the movie. That wasn’t really my point though. The point I was trying to make was that you have Mel Gibson, one of the biggest stars in Hollywood and he cannot get a single backer for his movie? Do you think he had that much trouble getting Braveheart made or if he would of pitched What Women Want 2? I doubt it. But in the meanwhile you have the major studios give the green light to tripe like Hide and Seek, or any movie with Ben Affleck in it. The Passion did well in spite of all the roadblocks that were put up against it. And I see no one has come up with a Pro-Life movie yet.
[quote]CDM wrote:
It was picked apart by more the the Jewish. I still have the Time and Newsweek issues that tried their best to discredit the movie. That wasn’t really my point though. The point I was trying to make was that you have Mel Gibson, one of the biggest stars in Hollywood and he cannot get a single backer for his movie? Do you think he had that much trouble getting Braveheart made or if he would of pitched What Women Want 2? I doubt it. But in the meanwhile you have the major studios give the green light to tripe like Hide and Seek, or any movie with Ben Affleck in it. The Passion did well in spite of all the roadblocks that were put up against it. And I see no one has come up with a Pro-Life movie yet.
[/quote]
My issue with what you just wrote is that you act as if religion is some right held only by conservatives. You can’t possibly be serious. Do you think that no one but conservatives believe deeply in God? Mel Gibson’s movie didn’t have anything to do with “liberal vs conservative” and everything to do with getting a very religious movie backed with some money. Why was that an issue? Because producers want to back things that they think will make money. It is that simple. If religious movies were suddenly en vogue, you would see NOTHING but religious movies at the movie theater. Gibson had the last laugh because I know very few people who haven’t at least heard of that movie. The hype helped it sell.
Also, I disagree with there being some uproar from random people against that movie. Much of the controversy was directly related to the Jewish community and their opinion of how history took place. Quit acting as if “liberals” or any other sub-group of society was speaking out against the movie due to it being “conservative”. That notion alone insults every Christian in this country who is not conservative.