~~Will Rush Limbaugh "retire" before 2006 is out? Some wiser, more experienced heads than ours are predicting it. He's in a downhill slide all over the country-(radio in general is in a steep slump) and our guy claims he'll say he has won or lost the battle or that there are so many voices that now share his opinion, so his work is done. Or it could be the legal thing, or a new marriage, or his golf game. With Limbaugh's falling numbers across the country, Premiere, he says, will want to get out of that multimillion $ contract one way or another. Small stations in mid-sized markets can't pay the freight for someone who "it can be said is on a downhill slide- read plummet." KTTH is paying Limbaugh $350,000 a year and a chunk of the ad revenue and the failing KTTH, with little more going for it than Limbaugh can ill afford it.
~~It's Willy Horton all over again. The State Republicans unabashed dirty trick sending post cards with a photo of a scary child rapist and a description of his crimes to at-risk Democrats' districts all over the state has been exposed and has backfired. The postcard implied the guy was in the neighborhood and the local Democrat had voted to put him there- even though it was the same guy in the photo in every district. Darryl over at Hominid Views has the real story. (The sex offender was not, as viciously rumored, BlatherWatch's Michael Hood, but rather a convict living under strict supervision in Pierce County. Hood has never been arrested or implicated in any sex crimes, though at one point in his life, he laughably considered himself "the gangster of love)."
~~KTTH will be the voice of the Sonics starting in the 2006-07 season. It's further evidence after automating last month that Entercom is pulling the station away from political talk.The Seahawks saved this Book for KIRO, so maybe Entercom suits believe they can can juice up the numbers with basketball. Bet they're praying the Legislature will cooperate and build the Sonics a new stadium- a labor of love we taxpayers go through about every 10 years. The Sonics are threatening to leave if that doesn't happen- the Legislature will capitulate if we can glean anything from light 20th century history.
~~Mike Webb, former KIRO talk host charged in December with felony insurance fraud was scheduled Tuesday to appear in Superior Court to have the calendar set for his trial: he requested it be postponed until mid-February. This is the second time he's postponed it. Legal sources say he may be considering a guilty plea in what appears to be a strong case against him. Our lawyer friend says, "If I were defending him, I'd be advising him to plea it out." Webb has proclaimed his innocence repeatedly and famously told Seattle Times reporter, Christine Clarridge: "It would take an absolute idiot to try to defraud someone like that." Look for Mike to plead guilty while vociferously maintaining his innocence.
~~Another juicy theory that has a little credibility is Entercom's talkers are in trouble nationwide
because CEO David Field has taken his eye off the ball. He's obsessed, they're saying, with building a grand empire that includes ABC Radio and has taken his focus off of the stations he currently owns. Any energy not devoted to that is going to HD 2, the new digital radio format that the public is almost totally unaware of. (All of this is why, go the rumors, Tom Clendening and David Pridemore still have their jobs). When we looked into what's going on nationally with Entercom we found some merit to the theory that the company trend is toward infomericals and "lifestyle" talk, which really don't make a lot of money or get ratings. They're letting the sales departments take over a lot of the stations. It's why excreable Ron & Don are back in town, why Bryan Styble's (rhymes with unlistenable) star is rising at KIRO.
~~Entercom has apparently lost its bid to take over Disney's ABC Radio, to Citadel Broadcasting Corp. according to Reuters. It would have made Entercom the largest radio conglmerate in the country.
Hay guess what stock yard Vinnie going to talk about tonight ???????? the samething he talks about very night ................football again somebody call in a change the subject to food !
Posted by: Brian | January 25, 2006 at 06:08 AM
I heard KTTH was doing the seahawks broadcasts, not the sonics (moving from sisterstation KIRO).
I didn't even think the sonic's contract with KJR was up for bid. Sure you have the story right?
Posted by: afdsasdfdsa | January 25, 2006 at 08:14 AM
nope, you were right, I was wrong.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/sonics/2002760140_radio25.html
Interesting that the sonics would jump ship from KJR.
At least the KJR jocks can finally rip into the sonics like they deserve.
Posted by: asfsdaf | January 25, 2006 at 08:19 AM
re: Rush
If I were in his position, I'd take the money and run... run to the nearest golf course... Locally, he never really had an impact... KTTH should have stuck with O'Reilly in the morning...
re: Willy Horton
Give me a break. Is anyone paying attention to what the democrats are trying to do the proposed HB 2467 "Increasing the seriousness level of rape of a child in the second degree" bill? They want to lessen the penalty "if" the "rapist" is a member of the family. Their rationale is children and family members won't report sexual abuse if they think someone in the family is going to have to do hard time. What a crock! I think everyone who apposes "Jessica's Law Plus" should give a good ear to the dozens of victims that called in on Monson and Carlson yesterday (1.24.2006)
re: KTTH
It's about time they did something, but if they don't boost their signal, it won't make much any difference. Then again, that might be a blessing in disguise. The Sonics on a station that's too weak to be tuned onto within much of the city limits... lovely!
re: Mike Webb
As Bugs Bunny would say... "What a maroon."
re: Entercom
Attention: Everyone likes a winner!
Did anyone catch that the Seahawks locally got an 80% rating this last Sunday against the Carolina Panthers? I hope people take notice that the Seahawks rise is no fluke and has taken many years to put together. It's a melding of talent and leadership that starts from the top down.
Only last year it was rumored Holgrem was on the way out, Alexander was on the trading block and Hasselbeck was a fiction of Mike Holmgren's imagination. Paul Allen could have started all over, but didn't, with the exception of getting rid of GM Bob Ferguson. I can't wait until Feb 5th. I think Seattle is going to shock the nation by handling the Steelers, convincingly.
Go Hawks!
Posted by: Joe | January 25, 2006 at 10:31 AM
Mike Webb & his webbcast are interesting items of note in seattle radio - his "webbcast" most especially. It is both endearing and weird that MW continues his show from his home studio via the web without advertisers.
However, another seattle-area radio extremist & failure to watch is Brian Maloney. Apparently incapable of holding down any real job, and wanting to change careers, he has a blog (the URL above) upon which he posts daily (at least) rants - mostly about Al Franken & Air America Radio.
It would seem that he's attempting to recreate himself as a Media Investigative Reporter - but he's very obviously deliberately biased, and does a terrible job at loosely connecting concepts and proclaiming scandals, laying them at the feet of people who cannot be at all responsible.
It's, at the very least, a fun, fun read, as it's wholly ridiculous.
And, it's "on-topic" for this site :)
Posted by: tj | January 25, 2006 at 11:50 AM
Yeah well...you should try working in the same building with the ambiguously...happy(?)...Maloney.
He prefers gossip to real conversation.
Posted by: Scrilla | January 25, 2006 at 12:43 PM
Is Maloney gay? Oh my stars.
Posted by: Quentin Crisp | January 25, 2006 at 02:28 PM
Who wants to bet that KTTH is a sports talk station by this time next year?
And speaking of which, who is the idiot amend chorus they have stuck with Boze while Sytmann is gone. The good thing, Sytmann is gone. The bad thing, Boze is better when he is being challanged or worked with, not when everything is said is met with a "Wow, that is exactly so." Find someone smart and liberal to match with Boze and you would have a show well worth listening to.
Posted by: JDB | January 25, 2006 at 04:05 PM
ah yes, Brian Baloney, the Radio Fertilizer....
Posted by: sparky | January 25, 2006 at 04:06 PM
The Sonics, execrable as they are, are a no-lose situation for KTTH -- nobody listens to it at night anyway. It might well be a good peg for a second all-sports station -- something most markets this size have. More interesting is why KJR wouldn't pay to keep the Sonics, especially with the threat that it might help launch a competitor. When KJR got the last contract it was their first PBP and gave them more credibility as an all-sports station. Now that they have the much more lucrative UW franchise, the Sonics aren't nearl so attractive. David Locke probably draws more listeners than the Sonics -- not to mention that they preempt drive time at times, and events like last Sunday's Carolina postgame as well. KJR is too talented an air lineup to be burdened with a mediocrity like the Sonics.
Posted by: GP | January 25, 2006 at 05:40 PM
Michael sez, " KTTH is paying Limbaugh $350,000 a year"
And, Sir Michael, how is your favorite looney network doing? Even more bad news as Air America continues to sink into oblivion.
O'Rielly reports tonight that Air America has to PAY stations to play their programming. Now, there's a business plan. AA pays
their SF station $250K a quarter to carry AA, LA $320K a quarter, NYC $250M a year. Ratings for Summer/Fall book for Franken in the key democraphic 25-54 (The Blathers favorite market quote) down 33% in LA. SF, down 24%, down 42% in Boston, Portland,Or., 18%, and San Antonio booted the entire network. Frankens program eats almost 50% of the AA budget.
Michael, how could you omit such sterling facts. Inquiring minds want to know.
Posted by: Lump | January 25, 2006 at 08:37 PM
And if Bill says its true, it has to be true...
Posted by: sparky | January 25, 2006 at 09:55 PM
O'Reiley reports a lot of stuff--he never informed anyone of his sexual harrassment payoff
Posted by: chris | January 25, 2006 at 09:58 PM
I'll look into those charges, Lump. I don't believe much I hear from Bill O'Reilly- especially when it comes to what he says about Al Franken and Air America. He's been exposed again and again as an out and out liar who lets his personal hatred of Franken (who has done a whole lot of the exposin') get him irrational. Read the O'Reilly files at Media Matters and see if you wanna use him as a source--a source of entertainment maybe, but as a source of the facts- not so much...
Posted by: blathering michael | January 25, 2006 at 10:06 PM
What ever happend to Erin Hart on Kiro? I haven't heard her in weeks.....
Posted by: surge | January 26, 2006 at 12:26 AM
Guess what stock yard Vinnie going to talk about tonight ? Let me quess............AH AH ?????? football , when he goes out of town next week maybe he will stay there hay stock yard Vennie!
Posted by: Brian | January 26, 2006 at 05:59 AM
I heard this morning about Bill O'Reilly's "guest" who had all the "facts" about the supposed demise of Air America. The Guest's name was BRIAN, but that is all they knew about him...hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
The "fact" the guest left out was that Al Franken is currently beating Bill in the ratings in New York.
oops.
Posted by: sparky | January 26, 2006 at 08:29 AM
The Blatherer sez,"I'll look into those charges, Lump. I don't believe much I hear from Bill O'Reilly- especially when it comes to what he says about Al Franken and Air America. He's been exposed again and again as an out and out liar who lets his personal hatred of Franken (who has done a whole lot of the exposin') get him irrational."
Just reporting what I heard, true or false. I don't have the ability to access that info or if I can, how do I find it? Seems only those with some sort of connection have access. Would like you to use your connections and just give out the facts. Good or bad, I can take it.
And as far as the input from Chris about the sexual harrassment charge against O'Rielly, how do you know what happened? It was all ordered sealed by the courts. Oh yeah, if your a member of the lunatic fringe then it must be so. And if the thread runs true, then Bill Clinton certainly must be full of crap also. Come to think of it, he mostly is a liar.
And Sparky, care to dispute the AA info and point me in the right direction? info? I'm not so one sided as many of you are that I won't admit when I'm wrong or need to research in a different direction. Inquiring minds want to know.
Posted by: Lump | January 26, 2006 at 01:14 PM
The Blaterer sez, "Read the O'Reilly files at Media Matters and see if you wanna use him as a source--a source of entertainment maybe, but as a source of the facts- not so much..."
OK, I google the site for the web address and this is what is sez, "Media Matters
A non-profit progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in .
mediamatters.."
OK, good nuff and then I go to the O'Reilly sight and see the head poo-bah is David Brock who can be argumentely, sp Joanie?, called a lefty loony in his own right. So, I read it as a progressive, (loony) site, am I wrong? Brock sez O'Reilly won't let him on the program, so I wrote O'Reillys web site and asked if it's true. Maybe or maybe not I'll get an answer and go from there. You won't believe O'Rielly and I won't believe Brock, so let's have a cocktail.
Posted by: Lump | January 26, 2006 at 01:30 PM
>> Brian re: O'Reilly New York Ratings vs Air America
Get a grip. New York is not the only barometer in the ratings race. For one thing it is a very left of center market, much like Seattle and the whole west coast. The fact is Air America is tanking over most of the nation. The only reason it is on the air anywhere is because of the bottomless pocketbook from George Soros. Add to it the fact that Air America actually pays stations to get into certain markets and you get the picture that it is one gigantic commercial for the extreme left. It it had to survive on it's own merit and commercial revenues, it would be gone in a heartbeat.
>> Brian re: O'Reilly vs Al Frankin
Any honest person that saw the O'Reilly/Frankin debate recognizes that Frankin is a rude, ignorant, left wing, bomb throwing ass hole who couldn't engage in a real debate to save his life. The fact that O'Reilly doesn't like him is well justified. You say that O'Reilly lies about Frankin when the exact opposite is true. The fact is Frankin and most of the left have no real solutions for any of todays issues leaving them the only option to throw insults at the right.
Posted by: Joe | January 26, 2006 at 01:55 PM
Anyone who is not aware of that sexual harrassment suit against Bill O'Reilly, must not watch much TV. It was aired adnausium for months. The lawsuit was...not the "payoff" of course. Bill never opened his big fat mouth about that. He repulses me.
He totally paid them off to get it dropped. Who pays off their accusers when they're innocent? Money and popularity buys freedom; it happens over and over and over. Ask OJ and Michael Jackson.
Posted by: Critter | January 26, 2006 at 02:18 PM
Joe, your last paragraph is equaly true when you swap "Frankin" for "O'Reilly" and "left" for "right".
A recent study showed that partisans don't actualy think about what their political aponents have to say, and that they only react to them emotionaly and defensively.
When people have already made up their mind it's easier to accept what the leader of their pack has to say then to burn mental calories coming up with conclusions of their own.
Plus if people identify themselves as conservative it must be emotionaly troubling to admit that a liberal ever has a good idea, maybe even a better idea than a conservative counter part. If the price of considering the other side's argument is cognative dissonance it can be too much to ask for allot of people.
Posted by: Andrew | January 26, 2006 at 02:25 PM
Critter, it seems like the public doesn't realy give a shit that O'Reilly or Pat O'Brien are sex deviants. There careers keep on going as if nothing ever happened.
Which makes me wonder why thought they had to fire Mike Webb. Sure what he did looks bad and he's an obvious hypocrite, but who cares? I don't see any evidence that it realy affects any bottom line. He could open his show by saying "Hi I'm Mike hypocricy-is-my-middle-name Webb" and it wouldn't change the fact that he's just some guy who talks into a microphone, whom a few people listen to.
Posted by: Andrew | January 26, 2006 at 02:35 PM
>> Andrew: I agree with you. Most people only listen to thoughts that back their agenda, but I'll stick with my premise that Frankin and other left wing zealots only real message is one of hate for anyone who doesn't agree with their point of view.
Posted by: Joe | January 26, 2006 at 04:26 PM
"my premise that Frankin and other left wing zealots only real message is one of hate for anyone who doesn't agree with their point of view"
The truth is the hate conservatives and only conservatives - but here's the part you're not considering, they hate them for some reason or another.
Here's one example of many problems, there was no tie between 9-11 and Iraq, but conservatives supported going to war with Iraq and still do to this day. How are we supposed to feel? You tell me.
Posted by: Andrew | January 26, 2006 at 05:21 PM
It seems like you hear in the news quite often that some left wing groups try to shout down some conservative speaker on campus, or at a public rally. I don't seem to hear about incidents where conservatives break into events where liberal speakers have the stage and then proceed to shout them down. Just one man's observation....
Posted by: ExDem | January 26, 2006 at 06:12 PM
I am reminded of the speech given by Hillary Clinton in Seattle....a lot of conservatives showed up, as is their constitutional right, and proceeded to attempt to shout her down, although the lib crowd was much bigger.
Posted by: sparky | January 26, 2006 at 06:36 PM
Lump, my access is the same as yours, pal.
Bill's sexual Loofashenanigans were caught on an answering machine tape of the young woman involved. I learned more about Bill than I ever cared to know. Did you happen to catch the recording of him reading from his "adult audience" novel he wrote? Something about a guy with yellow teeth getting it on with sweet young things who were high on opium....lol..
Posted by: sparky | January 26, 2006 at 06:40 PM
Not only did the KVI egg its listeners on to show up at Hillary's appearance, they were captured on film expressing "Kill the bitch!" sentiments.
Posted by: Fluffycat | January 26, 2006 at 06:51 PM
Sparky sez, "I learned more about Bill than I ever cared to know. Did you happen to catch the recording of him reading from his "adult audience" novel he wrote? Something about a guy with yellow teeth getting it on with sweet young things who were high on opium....lol."
No, but would you read it to me?
Now is that "Bill" O'Reilly or Clinton?
Posted by: Lump | January 26, 2006 at 08:00 PM
No, you need to hear Bill ( O'Reilly) it in his own voice. It makes it just that much more creepier. Available on audio tape at a bookstore near you, or from Amazon.com, where one person left this review:
"Poorly written but explicit and graphic scenes of drug use, sex with minors, drug addicted teenage prostitutes, and other lurid content that seems to be thrown in for those who enjoy child porn. I wonder who his target audience is???"
lolololol
Posted by: sparky | January 26, 2006 at 08:24 PM
Don't forget Bill's references to 'yellowed teeth"
Posted by: chris | January 26, 2006 at 10:03 PM
Good, we're getting somewhere. So we have example # 1 of conservatives shouting down someone from 13 years ago. Are there any others? Maybe something from the last decade would be relevant.
I can probably Google and find 10 examples of conservative speakers getting shouted down in the past week. But I understand the math - one example from 1993 probably means conservatives deserve the same reputation as the liberals in this regard.
Posted by: ExDem | January 26, 2006 at 11:12 PM
Who cares?
Posted by: Andrew | January 27, 2006 at 12:14 AM
Lots of people care. The liberals, the self proclaimed Lions of Free Speech, have a nasty reputation for trying to deny that speech to people that disagree with them.
Posted by: ExDem | January 27, 2006 at 07:13 AM
It's not intellectualy honest of you to claim that some young extreme idealogues represent the entire liberal spectrum of thought. That would be like saying all Muslims are terrorists because some Muslims are terrorists.
Besides, whats a little harmless shouting down compared to BOMBING AN ABORTION CLINIC?
Posted by: Andrew | January 27, 2006 at 09:53 AM
I can still see the Conservatives storming the building in Florda where Bush and Gore's votes were being re-counted.
They were screaming and shouting and banging and kicking the glass windows and doors. They reminded me of a heard of cattle being prodded into a slaughter house.
And they call Liberals shouters? Too funny (sad).
Posted by: Critter | January 27, 2006 at 09:57 AM
How many liberal politicians require the audience to sign a pledge?
How many liberal politicians forbid opposing views from even getting in the door of the venue?
How many liberal politicians demand that a conservative wearing a T shirt with Bush's name on it be dragged out by guards?
How many liberal politicians limit their audiences to those who are invited so there is no chance of even a frown in the audience???
this is a ridiculous tit for tat argument...
Posted by: sparky | January 27, 2006 at 10:32 AM
Bombing an abortion clinic? Yeah, that happens so rarely....and when it does, conservatives like to lock up the criminals who committed the heinous act. Fortunately, those types of incidents have happened maybe twice that I can recall in the past 20 years. I haven't researched that, but that's about all I can recall off the top of my head because it is so rare.
If someone wants to limit the audience, that's fine. There's no right to having free access to people in the constitution. I think it's probably a wise thing to limit access when you have people whose sole purpose is to disrupt a speech that others want to hear.
Anyway, it is too funny to read the reactions to this whole observation. I know it hurts, but that's the reputation that liberals have. If you want to change that perception, then start policing some of the wingnuts that are the embarassment to liberal views.
Posted by: ExDem | January 27, 2006 at 12:24 PM
Allot of conservatives have a reputation for being gun nuts and right wing wackos.
We draw attention to your observation because you have severe tunnel vision, you seem to think extremism is limited to your oponents. We sort of care about you a little and just want to help.
Posted by: Andrew | January 27, 2006 at 12:52 PM
The First Amendment should never be seen as an embarrassment, except maybe in the case of Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin.....
Posted by: sparky | January 27, 2006 at 01:13 PM
Thank God liberals don't limit access! They can handle it and the people they allow - whether to listen or rabble-rouse - can use whatever information they glean from the open forums progressives believe in.
ExDem, you are off the charts with that kind of thinking. Closed government invites a citizenry so uninformed and propagandized that it loses its freedoms and becomes a puppet to whatever government dictates. Surely you are wiser than that. American boys and girls are dying in the effort to change just such governments.
Posted by: joanie | January 27, 2006 at 04:10 PM
joanie sez, "Thank God liberals don't limit access! They can handle it and the people they allow - whether to listen or rabble-rouse - can use whatever information they glean from the open forums progressives believe in."
Well, that's absolutely a crock of BS. Liberals only believe in free speech when it's THEIR free speech. I seem to recall there's a conservative who was denied his speaking engagement at some sort of private school in Seattle after they signed the contract because "progressive" teachers disagreed with the invited guest.
Progressive is just a PC word for liberals. The attacks on Bill Kristol, Ann Coulter, David Horowitz and others show how "tolerant" the loonies are. I saw on the news that the Attorney General of the US was disrespected at some lefty university by fringe clowns who needed their asses kicked. Yeah, the loonies sure don't limit access.
Posted by: Lump | January 27, 2006 at 05:54 PM
Don't be so stupid, Lump. Attacks are not limiting access.
You take one example as reflective of all of us. That's just stupid!
Also, on KIRO, who are the jerks that cannot stand the heat of instant messaging? Hmmmmmm?
And, if progressives were like you say, Michael would limit your access to Blatherwatch.
Posted by: joanie | January 27, 2006 at 06:05 PM
joanie said: "Also, on KIRO, who are the jerks that cannot stand the heat of instant messaging? Hmmmmmm?"
The answer to that would be the far right conservative Lou Pate. I hear he's leaving KIRO. About time! Of course, he would never admit to being let go, like Erin did. He'll insist he left on his own steam. I doubt that.
Posted by: Critter | January 27, 2006 at 06:25 PM
Dori doesn't take instant messages either. Are you surprised?
One thing Erin Hart did that Dori would never have the guts to do is visit the chat room during his show. He knows he'd get ripped to shreds in no time and has never had the intestinal fortitude to try to defend his point of view against people he can't shout down, ridicule, or cut off.
I've always thought Dori was nothing but a mean-mouthed bully and this is just another proof that he is.
Posted by: Fluffycat | January 27, 2006 at 07:00 PM
Dori's ranting against the gay right thingy today was every bit as mean spirited as Mike Webb ever was about anything. He must have said "this law solves a problem that doesn't exist" twenty times. If he's telling the truth then the law is moot so who the fuck cares? What's motivates someone to talk about "a problem that doesn't exist" for an hour? Hate.
Posted by: Andrew | January 27, 2006 at 07:34 PM
Good point, Andrew. I'm so tired of these self-righteous righties! Neither does Mr. Know-It-All Shiers!
Sorry Sparky, I'm out of tact and diplomacy tonight!
One more thing:
Joe, you said Al Franken was a liar. Just when did he lie? He has many guests on his show. Are they also liars? Here's the guest list for today: Judd Legum, research director at The Center for Progress in W.,DC; Art Rolnick, economist of Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis (talking about early childhood ed); George Miller, Rep. from CA., Joe Conason, writer; Martin Indyk, Director of the Saban Center for Middle East Policy and fellow at the Brookings Inst.
So, who did Bill O'Reilly have on that so informed your thinking?
Posted by: joanie | January 27, 2006 at 07:50 PM
Who is talking about closed government? Have they stopped televising press conferences or public appearances? Are reporters not allowed into political rallies? What are you talking about?
Radio talk show hosts that have time to get into chat rooms during their broadcast obviously don't have enough callers or material. I called the Erin Hart show once a year ago. I was on the air 15 seconds later. That's just another sign that no one calls, and probably the same nobodies are listening as well.
Liberals don't limit access because they don't have to deal with the same lack of civility that conservatives have to. Conservatives don't show up to liberal events dressed like Cigarettes, or wearing Coat Hangars so that they can shout down the speaker. Conservatives tend to stay away from those events because they don't like the speaker or what is being said. And they tend to honor the right to free speech by allowing it to happen. Again, liberals don't have a reputation for the same approach.
I admit that there are conservatives that are way on the right also. And when they express wacko ideas, they are repudiated by the mainstream conservatives. When Trent Lott endorsed Strom Thurmond, he was made to appologize and his party replaced him as leader of the Senate. When Joe Livingston became leader in the House, he was made to step down when it was revealed he had cheated on his wife.
Another reputation of the current crop of Democrats - they won't repudiate the wackos in their own party. Instead, they start attacking people like Joe Lieberman when he takes a position in agreement with the administration on the progress in Iraq. They remain silent or provide personal buses for the Cindy Sheehans and Jesse Jacksons, but shun mainstream guys like Lieberman.
Posted by: ExDem | January 27, 2006 at 08:23 PM
Remember when you wanted to know how I knew that Judy Martin and the NY Times had parted company? It wasn't in the papers yet but it was out there. So I knew it before you did.
Trent Lott was actually replaced as leader of his party because he was little too comfortable with the Democrats. It had nothing to do with Strom Thurmond except that it gave the repubs a means by which to replace him.
How do I know this? Because I listen to CSpan and hear an awful lot of off-the-record discussions by people who know. Oftentimes, they are groups including both parties. You don't hear as much good stuff now because it has gotten so polarized and these people have gotten much more careful about what they say. But, there is still some good stuff there. These items don't get put into mainstream media. Or at least not till much later. I cannot remember the discussion group and it was a long time ago. But, I've never forgotten it because it was so indicative of what is wrong with the deficient way Americans find out the truth. They just usually get the standard line from whatever party wants to put it out.
ExDem, what do you think of the fact that the prosecutor (US Attorney Frederick Black) who was going after Jack Abramoff a year ago in Guam for irregularities got fired the day after serving subpoenas and was replaced by a republican actually recommended by the lobbyists who worked for the same officials Black had been investigating?
And now, the head prosecutor in the current Abramoff investigation has been nominated for a federal judgeship which would terminate his influence in this second attempt to prosecute Abramoff.
Seems to me they couldn't fire both prosecutors without looking pretty guilty. So they fired the first and promoted the second. Ends up the same way: both prosecutors gone, case closed.
Do you even know about this? How informed are you guys? I'm not attacking. I'm asking.
Posted by: joanie | January 27, 2006 at 08:57 PM