take your answer off the air...

  • HorsesAss.Org: the straight poop on WA politics & the press
    progressive brilliance from the guy who pointed out Tim Eyman's nascent horse's-assedness
  • Talker's Magazine
    The quirky talk radio trade mag. Check the Talk Radio Research Project- it's not very scientific, but places on the top 15 talkers list (scroll down to Talk Radio Audiences By Size)) are as hotly contested as Emmys (and mean just about as much).
  • The Advocate
    No, not THAT Advocate... it's the Northwest Progressive Institute's Official Blog.
  • Media Matters
    Documentation of right-wing media in video, audio and text.
  • Orcinus
    home of David Neiwert, freelance investigative journalist and author who writes extensively about far-right hate groups
  • Hominid Views
    "People, politics, science, and whatnot" Darryl is a statistician who fights imperialism with empiricism, gives good links and wry commentary.
  • Jesus' General
    An 11 on the Manly Scale of Absolute Gender, a 12 on the Heavenly Scale of the 10 Commandments and a 6 on the earthly scale of the Immaculately Groomed.
  • Howie in Seattle
    Howie Martin is the Abe Linkin' of progressive Seattle.
  • Streaming Radio Guide
    Hellishly long (5795!) list of radio streaming, steaming on the Internets.
  • The Naked Loon
    News satire -- The Onion in the Seattle petunia patch.
  • Irrational Public Radio
    "informs, challenges, soothes and/or berates, and does so with a pleasing vocal cadence and unmatched enunciation. When you listen to IPR, integrity washes over you like lava, with the pleasing familiarity of a medium-roast coffee and a sensible muffin."
  • The Maddow Blog
    Here's the hyper-interactive La Raych of MSNBC. daily show-vids, freakishly geeky research, and classy graphics.
  • Northwest Broadcasters
    The AM, FM, TV and digital broadcasters of Northwest Washington, USA and Southwest British Columbia, Canada. From Kelso, WA to the northern tip of Vancouver Island, BC - call letters, formats, slogans, networks, technical data, and transmitter maps. Plus "recent" news.
  • News Corpse
    The Internet's chronicle of media decay.
  • The Moderate Voice
    The voice of reason in the age of Obama, and the politics of the far-middle.
  • News Hounds
    Dogged dogging of Fox News by a team who seems to watch every minute of the cable channel so you don't have to.
  • HistoryLink
    Fun to read and free encyclopedia of Washington State history. Founded by the late Walt Crowley, it's an indispensable tool and entertainment source for history wonks and surfers alike.

right-wing blogs we like

  • The Reagan Wing
    Hearin lies the real heart of Washington State Republicans. Doug Parris runs this red-meat social conservative group site which bars no holds when it comes to saying who they are and who they're not; what they believe and what they don't; who their friends are and where the rest of the Republicans can go. Well-written, and flaming.
  • Orbusmax
    inexhaustible Drudgery of NW conservative news
  • The Radio Equalizer
    prolific former Seattle KVI, KIRO talk host speaks authoritatively about radio.
Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 02/2005


« OPEN THREAD: the Bryan Styble Show | Main | Limbaugh cleared of drug charges: still can't get it up »

July 04, 2006


The Anti KIRO

Styble's first hour seems to be his on-air response to the blatherwatch board...

people dislike my show for this...

people like my show for that...

Bizarre....I thought Styble didn't care what people thought.


Ew! I'm watching Kirby. He's gotten older . . . He's speaking before Young America's Foundation which is a high school leadership audience. He's sweating . . . it's trickling down from his nose and it looks like his nose is running down his upper lip!

He's telling everybody that Arabs don't understand why they are behind . . . geez, what ignorance to be spouting to high school kids! He's giving them a history lesson. Was this guy a history professor or something? Can you imagine Kirby Wilbur giving kids a history lesson on the Middle East and Islam?

Just another know-it-all American.


I use pepper jack cheese on my Zell Miller pie...mmmmmmmmmm


"Happy 4th everyone. Be sure to dress appropriately! "


Mr. Mumbles has never been a teacher -- he doesn't have the intellectual furniture (neither does Frank Shiers and maybe that's why he isn't allowed in a classroom any more); he's a has-been real estate appraiser or something like that.


Happy Independence Day! This is truly a great country and what a wonderful day to celebrate that - something we can all agree upon!

Edmonds Dan


Kirby has a BA in History from the UW, and teaches US history and government for a homeschool co-op.

He did work in the King County Assessor's office in the early 80s.

The Anti KIRO

Kirby Wilbur is a guy like most talk show hosts that failed in the business world and became a broken record of repeating the same garbage over and over again...he's a dangerous man with very little knowledge of how the world operates.

Anyone can steal stuff from Ambrose's Undaunted Courage and play it if like it's he's an expert on Lewis and Clark. The guy couldn't hold his water in the business world...just like Hannity, Monson, Shiers, etc.

Get over yourself Edmonds Dan...the King County Assessors office has been replaced by a website...there you go for gravitas you IDIOT!


A BA in history? Gee, that's impressive. Sort of like a BA in sociology, drama, English and communications! (I'm dissing myself here so no sh** please.) At least, Michael, you are using yours . . .


Good one, Sparky!

Edmonds Dan

My, the vitriol! Someone asked if he taught history, I was just pointing out that he did...

By the way, he left the KC Assessor's office (which isn't just a website - who do you think does property value adjustments? A little web-bot?) in 1985, formed his own company, and after doing a few stints as a fill-in host on KVI became their morning guy in the mid 90s.

In between - those 10 years - he ran his own business. Now, I don't know if you run your own business (I do) but it's awfully hard to stick around if you don't at least turn a profile more years than not. So he was successful enough for 10 years of run-time.

You may not like his politics; that's fine. But he's been amazingly successful as a local - and sometimes national - talk radio host. Give the guy some credit for being around for over 10 years in a market that's seen a lot of turnover.

However, that would mean you would have to admit that a "gasp!" conservative actually did something well!


Not vitriol, Edmonds Dan, amusement. You're right that he has found his niche in radio. It is a feat to have lasted for so long although he is on a Fisher station which gives its employees a long time to fail . . . which he has not, I agree.

Still, to see him on CSpan teaching Middle East politics to high school students seems a stretch.

Perhaps he is the right's answer to Thom Hartmann. Afterall, it is from Thom that I learn much of my political history.

Edmonds Dan

Thank you Joanie, for a reasoned posting. My second post was more about the vitriol posted by the Anti KIRO; if you interpreted it as about you, please accept my apologies.

I find it rather amusing to use journalists or editorialists at all for serious educational duties at all; for a viewpoint on the politics in the Middle East it makes sense - to me - to have political commentators. But for hard-core education, I'd rather see someone with a bit of a different bent.

Thanks again,

Edmonds Dan


'ceptin thom gets it right...

The Anti KIRO

No virtiol just facts Mr. Edmonds Dan!

What do you believe are reasonable credentials for being a talk show host:

1. A failed businessman??? Wilbur
2. A hack-job sportscaster??? Monson
3. A past his prime shock jock??? Ron and Don
4. An oldies 45 spinning DJ that fills in the dead spots because nobody else is available??? Shiers
5. A college drop out carpenter??? Hannity
6. A guys who writes a blog from his basement??? Goldy
7. The guy you drank a beer with you at the sports bar last night??? NY Vinnie

Give me a break! You guys put all these professional failures on pedestals and listen to their words as if they were Nostradamus. The medium is broken and failed. It is a dangerous way for the average citizen to get news. It plays to the "dumbing down of America" crowd.

These guys don't know anything about foreign affairs or public policy. This is exactly why we have the incompetent government that we have today.

The Anti KIRO

No virtiol just facts Mr. Edmonds Dan!

What do you believe are reasonable credentials for being a talk show host:

1. A failed businessman??? Wilbur
2. A hack-job sportscaster??? Monson
3. A past his prime shock jock??? Ron and Don
4. An oldies 45 spinning DJ that fills in the dead spots because nobody else is available??? Shiers
5. A college drop out carpenter??? Hannity
6. A guys who writes a blog from his basement??? Goldy
7. The guy you drank a beer with you at the sports bar last night??? NY Vinnie

Give me a break! You guys put all these professional failures on pedestals and listen to their words as if they were Nostradamus. The medium is broken and failed. It is a dangerous way for the average citizen to get news. It plays to the "dumbing down of America" crowd.

These guys don't know anything about foreign affairs or public policy. This is exactly why we have the incompetent government that we have today.

Geov Parrish

Perhaps I'm missing something, but the only "qualification" a talk show host needs, at least on a commercial station, is the ability to get good ratings. In that sense, whether you like their politics (or trust their information) or not, Wilbur, Hannity, etc. are qualified. They've been successful at their jobs. Period.

A talk show host entettains; he or she is a moderator for the opinions of guests and callers; and, *lastly*, if he or she so chooses, somewhat more informed than the average citizen if they make the effort because it's part of what contributes to their show. That's all. There's no requirement that they be political experts or even particularly bright. It helps, but it's no job requirement. Getting good ratings is.

Me, I think it's a healthy thing that someone like Kirby or Goldy with zero radio experience, someone with opinions and a winning personality but no "expertise," is part of the media mix. We've gotten too accustomed in this country to devaluing our own opinions if they're not backed up by some or another degree or credential, or they don't match what's on teeeveee. Hearing a voice on the radio that could be the reasonably informed, reasonably personable and witty guy next door is profounddly democratic. I think it's healthy. If you're getting all your news and forming all your political opinions based on the beliefs of such people, though, you're an idiot. And if you think companies like Entercom or CBS feel any obligation whatsoever to provide political education or balance, you're hopelessly naive.

We're on our own so far as becoming informed citiens in a democracy; political talk radio can help, but we each need to make our own judgments as to who's a credible source of political wisdom. (Personally, even when I disagree with him, I respect Thom Hartman''s opinion a lot more than Dori Monson's.) As for the rest, well, it's the entertainment business. What's Britney's credentials, exactly? Get over it.

The problem isn't any specific host; it's that our media outlets in this country have almost entirely been given over (NPR included) to the pursuit of money.


When hosts purport their "opinion" to be fact, we have a problem. Ask any person who works two jobs a day or even a week (plus weekends) how much time they have to stay informed. We aren't all as lucky as you . . . whoever you are.

Of course, radio like TV and newspapers contain entertainment. But, infotainment/so-called political talk is a little different category. . . and I'm not sure your "caveat emptor" should necessarily be the bottom line.

In the town square, everyone had an equal chance to be heard. Not so on the radio . . .

Also, I heard this weekend on Thom Hartmann that Reagan had actually given the airways away. Well, we oughta take 'em back and demand that broadcasters do provide balanced news and talk. We would all benefit from it.

I guess we see the value of this medium differently. You seen to see it in dollars and sense. I see its value in its ability to feed a robust democracy.

I hope others post their opinions on this cause I'm interested in your thoughts.


"dollars and sense" - LOL! Make that "dollars and cents, please!" I think I'm providing the right with a new motto - lord forgive me!

Edmonds Dan

The Anti KIRO,

Any documentation that Kirby was a failed businessman? Any at all? Or is this just your opinion...


This is one that Thom got wrong. President Reagan did not give away the airways; you have always had to pay for a license to broadcast, and it is not cheap at all. This continues to this day.

In fact, there is an ongoing debate about auctioning new bands of spectrum. For just one such auction, the FCC is looking at auctioning off exclusive, non-permanent access to a 10 MHz band centered at 1.9 GHz, that may bring in 5 billion dollars for a 20 year license. Considering there are 100 such bands at 1.9 GHz, there's the potential for an average of 25 billion dollars revenue per year over the next 20 years for these auctions.

Rather, what I believe Thom was probably trying to refer to was that President Reagan vetoed a bill that would have codified the Fairness Doctrine:


The FCC - I believe rightly so - decided that forcing broadcasters to seek "balance" in coverage impinged on their first amendment rights. Congress wanted to force broadcasters to provide "balance", and President Reagan wisely vetoed the bill.

My concern with the Fairness Doctrine is who decides what is balanced? What is "fair"? Is Fox News balanced? What about CNN? ABC/NBC/CBS? How much time would each need to give to "the other side" to reach balance? Who decides?

For example, I don't think it's a stretch for anyone to assume I'm a conservative...:) I watch 60 minutes, but see a STRONG left-lean in their bias. Would 60 minutes have to hire X number of card-carrying Republican producers and reporters to ensure that there is an equal number of right-leaning stories?

Rather than the mess that such "searches for balance" create, I agree with President Reagan's reasoning that the explosion in media outlets makes balance in any given channel irrelevant; there are enough channels present that you can find balance overall.

For the same basic reasons I am also opposed to the McCain/Feingold Campaign Finance Bill, and was very disappointed when President Bush did not veto it, and the Supreme Court upheld it.

The variety and breadth of media and advertising available to candidates today make attempts to regulate them moot. It serves the incumbent MUCH better to have limits placed on financing, since they come in with a known name. Rather than helping promote political growth and turnover, I believe it will serve to keep the status quo.


Thanks for the info . . . I knew about the veto and the balance issue. Hartmann put it another way as I wrote above so will look further to confirm.

Yes, you make the arguments I would expect from a conservative perspective. We discussed this not too long ago and my take on it is that fair and balanced does not impede the notion of free speech at all. In fact, it seems to me that it enhances free speech by increasing access.

Conservatives are against flag burning . . . does free speech only apply when conservatives think it should? What is your position on flag-burning?

Regarding all your questions about how to provide balance: well, like everything in life there would have to be rules. I don't think that making rules is beyond the ability of intelligent people representing all sides. I think conservatives forget that without rules, we have anarchy. Rules are that unacknowledged part of any society that makes it civil. Whether it be on the playgound, conducting elections, tax rules, parliamentary rules, dinner table rules, behavior-in-church rules, theatre ettiquette . . . I know, I'm getting silly. But, I think you get it. We have rules for everything. So, what's the problem with rules for media?

A quick response to 60 Minutes: I see investigative journalism as a means by which average people have the means to out tyranny and corruption. I think 60 Minutes is held to the standard of facts. The Rather incident proves my point, not yours. He presented "facts" that were disputable and paid the price. I think that happened only because people saw the story unfold, heard the voices of the witnesses to the events, and were given concrete evidence to consider. I agree that there is always a point of view . . . but I don't agree that the point of view is necessarily liberal vs. conservative. If looking for truth is now a liberal/conservative effort, we are in trouble. 60 Minutes looked for truth (from their point of view) and their facts are in dispute.

But, I will end by pasting a response Stephen Schwartz posted last time we discussed this. I thought it was a very insightful and articulate response - much better than mine!
"Rush is a success because he appeals to a large audience of sedentary spenders as well as some lefties who enjoy the sado masochistic thrill of being abused by a radical. Air America is working to the extent it has found talkers who can present (and pervert) the left message with the style of Limbaugh.

The blogs offer a compromise .. w/o a profit motive there is a lot more chance for free speech here than on commercial TV."

You might read our posts on that thread . . .

Edmonds Dan


Thanks again for the reasoned and calm discussion! Can't believe it, civility discussing politics - what is the world coming too, eh? :)

Flag burning - I am against an amendment making it illegal, but I am not against prosecuting those doing the burning if they are deemed to foment violence or unrest.

Personally, rather than burn the flag - which is a symbol for ALL of us - I'd say if you disagree with the current administration burn an effigy of the individuals.

Just like I will never attack the office of the Presidency; that office is the penultimate representation of our amazing form of government. The person holding the office may be taken to task, but still the office must be granted respect.

About the 60 Minutes thing; it's more than the "Rathergate" made up memos. It's the general way most of the media reports are presented. Bernard Goldberg's book "Bias" is quite enlightening. From an avowed liberal, Democrat supporter.

For example, today's North Korea missle launches. Wendy Sherman on CNN was consistently stating the launch today was a direct result of the failure of the Bush administration. Never mind that North Korea gained the nuclear bomb under the Clinton administration, nor that the Taepodong 2 used guidance systems gained from China, which were acquired by China during the Clinton adminstration. In essence, Ms. Sherman laid the entire situation with North Korea at the foot of the Bush administration, and completely ignored the critical role of the Clinton administration in this situation.

Additionally, Ms. Sherman works for Madelyn Albright, who stands to lose a LOT of legacy with the failure of her North Korea negotiations.

Reliance on obviously partisan people, without regard, and without rebuttal, and without question leads to an extremely one-sided conversation.

Add in the 2004 Pew study where journalists self-identify as liberal at a roughly 65% higher rate than the public at large, and conservative at only 20% of the general public. Journalists self-identify as liberal.

Re-instituting a fairness doctrine would mean that we would need to eliminate approximately half of all journalists and replace them with conservatives. Is this what is really desired? Is this freedom of the press?

Personally, I believe that we should leave it as is; yes, there will always be bias. If Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and others succeed, it is a sign that enough people in the US agree with them and find them a valuable source of information that they should stick around.

Conversely, the failure of AAR would indicate that either it is poorly implemented or that there aren't enough people who have the same viewpoint to support it (I think it's predominantly the former, but a good amount of the latter as well).


Regarding flag-burning, I agree with you it is a matter of free speech. Let's leave it at that. We are not discussing criminal acts which are already addressed by laws. As for fomenting unrest . . . I'd have to think about it. Not sure the Founders would agree with you. In the end, you have a right to your opinion.

Respect the office? That's a loaded statement. I think the "office" is the man sitting in it. I think you are parsing here and that is irrelevant to me. If it wins you points in your head, so be it.

I was watching a documentary on Jefferson over the weekend, and he warns that we must maintain constant vigil on government. It is not to be trusted. That includes the office of the pres. I consider it my duty to attack and disrespect government when it deserves to be. I am not, as you can tell, immersed in political correctness nor do I allow anyone else to do my thinking for me - not even the president. Nor do I respect the current resident of that office.

Regarding Goldberg, I have not read his book but have heard him frequenlty speaking before groups and on panels about his book. I do not regard him as liberal. The examples he gave on these occasions were unimpressive to me. Beyond that, I can't comment.

Regarding Albright, CNN, etc. . . . I'm sure that everything that happens has tentacles reaching back several administrations. To me, the proof of that is the Iranian overthrow of the Shah which happened during Carter's administration but which had roots back in Eisenhower's administration and his culpability in putting the Shah in place.

My point is not to debate every little political event; my point is that your anecdote is just that: a snapshot of your opinion about an event. You could also say that 9-11 was Clinton's fault for not confronting terrorism better... But, the Clinton administration did warn the Bush adm. and Bush chose to ignore it. So, who's most guilty? I'm not passing judgment. You want to?

I'm not going to get in a pissing match with you on who did what That would be futile. Partly because neither one of us knows the whole story about anything, and because even if we knew it, we'd probably still interpret it differently.

Any administration can do only so much. If you wish to nit-pick, it can be done on both sides. I prefer to operate in the here and now. Do you think Bush has done a good job in foreign policy? Has he maintained good relations with our partners? Has he paid attention to the business of government? Did he respond to the early warnings of a probable attack? Katrina? Afghanistan? Iraq? If you do, we would just have to agree to disagree.

A 2004 PEW study (which I've linked many times but am not at home so cannot do so now) also said that people who watched FOX were least informed about Iraq. There was also a recent study reflecting a negative image held by most of the world toward the US -

Does it surprise you that most journalists self-describe as liberal? It doesn't me. Writers, thinkers, artists are often liberal. Business majors are conservative generally. We all know that. It's been researched over and over. That is why journalism has rules! See, another example of why we have rules!:) I guess that you are saying that people can't work to eliminate that bias in their reporting? That's what editors are for. And some newspapers are liberal and conservative by design. When CNN went to Ms. Sherman, what were they looking for? My opinion is that they were wanting to know what her opinion is on why Korea thinks it can do such a thing now. Not what their status was ten years ago. That would be a contrived attempt to place blame. IMHO, they want the skinny on the here and now.

As for replacing so-called liberal journalists with conservatives, that's just silly. Again, that's why we have rules. Those rules are part and parcel of any school of communications at any university that dispenses a degree in journalism. Also, since most media is owned by conservatives, I would think there is a built-in filter for such infractions.

Finally, I didn't say that the hosts themselves had to be half and half. I suggested that balanced simple insured that differing points of view were aired. That would mean getting guests who represent those points of view.

You really make it much harder than it needs to be. And, you are arguing again an earlier point that media doesn't have to be liberal/conservative. It just needs to provide access to all points of view. I, personally, never see Greens or Libertarians represented in the media. They should be. I don't expect them to be the journalists, for heavans sakes. I expect Russert, Hannity, O'Reilly, Monson, Medved, et al., to provide a forum for discussion/conversation reflecting different points of view. That way, if someone is lying/spinning/omitting, be it conservative or liberal, they can be confronted. To me, that is what I call "free speech." I honestly think we might have viable third and fourth parties if they had any real access to media. The only time you see 'em is at election time.

Finally, AAR is not necessarily floudering. Michael has posted arbitrons showing AA being competitive and beating KIRO at certain times. It is a relatively new venture and seems to be rising in popularity. I think your comment makes a judgment without looking at the entire picture. That is exactly what I object to in media these days.

Now, you can take any sentence I've written here and spin it. I know that. But, this is the best I can do. Before we went into Iraq, I sat in my classroom with my broker (also a parent of mine- I teach his kids) and said, "Bill, there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq." He is a conservative as are most brokers! He just looked at me like I was crazy. Then he asked me how I knew. I told him about Scott Ritter. I told him my common sense told me that a man over sixty years of age with a country, a palace, and all the money he'd ever needs wasn't about to screw it up. I told him his son-in-law who defected told officials that Hussein had gotten rid of all of them after the gulf war. Officials didn't believe him, the guy went back to Iraq and got executed by his father-in-law. I think I'm a pretty average liberal - actually, I'm a BHL, but never mind. I am in no hurry to send kids to die. I had listened to a lot of people who knew more than I did. I used some common sense. And I had some history on George Bush - easily found on the internet. I do not give a pass to our democrats in Congress. They should've known.

But, it still bewilders me that with so much evidence of lying, spinning, omitting, you conservatives still buy the line of your president.

Well, I guess we've run the gamut (SP?) and Michael is probably having another heart attack! Sorry Michael. The check's in the mail!

That's about all I can say although I know if you respond, I'll want to respond to. But, I don't think I will.

Enjoy the fireworks!


By the way, I notice you said you'd "rather leave it the way it is." I'm sure you would! (LOL)

The Anti KIRO

Edmonds Dan...you just don't get it!

Are you suggesting Wilbur had a successful business and left it for radio? I am not gong to try and prove a negative. You show me that he was a success.

No! He had a failed business and worked all his political hack contacts in order to get himself a radio spot.

These talk show guys may get ratings but the airwaves are OURS! You can't go on the public airwaves and promote opinions as fact. All of Hannity listeners STILL BELIEVE that there were WMD's in Iraq. It's his opinion, not fact and it's wrong.

You are sad Edmonds Dan.

Edmonds Dan

Fair enough, just a few things:

1. No WMDs? 1.8 tons of enriched uranium, 500 shells loaded with chemical weapons. 1500 gallons of chemical weapons. And on and on...

2. I have no problem with calling the government on the carpet when needed; at the same time I have no problem giving the government the reins to the problems it was Constitutionally elected to do, such as national defense. If you do not like what's happening, the solution is set in the Constitution - vote a new administration in.

I know it is vogue to condemn the President and the administration in general for lying to get us into the war; can you point to one lie that President Bush told that was not also told by all leading Democrats?

And if not, then why not take the Democrats to task as well? Why not cry "Bush and Hillary and Kerry and Ried and Pelosi lied, people died"? After all, all supported the resolutions on the same information. And all, by virtue of their positions, are equally complicit in the execution of this war.

THAT is the bias I see. If you are against the war, great! Then hold the President to task for what you belive is wrong. But hold the others - including those on the liberal side of things - to the same standard. I expect you to also condemn those Democrats listed above, as well as President Clinton and his administration for creating the US policy of regime change in Iraq.

3. Blaming 9/11 on the Bush Administration. Nine-11 Commissioner and former U.S. Sen. Slade Gorton asked Clarke directly: "Assuming that all (your recommendations) had been adopted, say, on Jan. 26, year 2001, is there the remotest chance that it would have prevented 9-11?" Clarke's answer was emphatically, "No!"

Essentially, if Bush IMMEDIATELY adopted the recommendations of the Clinton administration as soon as he possibly could - his inauguration - it would not have prevented 9/11.

So, holding the Bush administration to task for the attack of 9/11 while not also holding the Clinton administration to the SAME level of "accountability" is quite disingenuous, in my humble opinion.

4. Thank you for recognizing the inherent liberal bent of most in the media. Most of the media and NEWS reporting has a strong liberal slant to it; changing the Fairness Doctrine will mean a lot LESS liberal bent to the news.

Personally, I recognize the bias in the media, and enjoy alternative views as well. On my car radio I have KVI, KTTH, KIRO, and KPTK programmed in, and I do listen to them all.

However, I do not want to see the Fairness Doctrine re-imposed because it will require some body, somewhere, to decide for me what is fair and what is balanced.

What is your reasoning to support the Fairness Doctrine?

5. Success of AAR. It's working - somewhat - here and in Portland. Losing a lot of other stations and apparently Garofalo as well. Overall I do not think it's completely dead, but it's a fairly ineffective network so far, and unless it can get local stations to develop local talent, it will end up like KTTH - no real local focus, just rebroadcasting national shows, which is a sure-fire way to kill a talker.

6. Fireworks. I watched some around the neighborhood, and the Q13 coverage (I have an antenna, and don't get channels 4 and 5, and 7 is showing some Dr. Phil firework spectacular!). The shows looked good, but I hated the Q13 video coverage - who cares what the mortars look like when launching, and whoever decided that you need a tight-close-up shot of fireworks should be fired! It's a big whole-scene thing, not "look at this little part of the entire picture painted"... Q13 needs to learn a few things about large-scale-even video coverage!

Now it's time to push off to bed... Until later!

Edmonds Dan

Anti KIRO,

Apparently Kirby was a regular caller to KVI shows, and was offered the chance to cover a few open slots, and worked his way into a full-time position. Perhaps his small business - essentially himself - was successful, but it was more lucrative and fun to be a talk radio host?

If someone is paying their mortgage, but has an opportunity open up where they can make a bit more money, or earn the same in a job they would prefer do to, does that mean they were a failure before?

You've made the accusation - Wilbur was a failure. The onus is on you to back it up. Unless you simply can't, are just making things up?

Funny, that's what the left accused the Bush administration of doing. And called him a liar for it. Will the same standard apply to you?

Edmonds Dan

Oh, and Anti KIRO, about now WMDs?

You sure you want to stick to that claim? There's a link to the Washington Post and Al-Jazeera both confirming nearly 2 TONS of enriched uranium in Iraq.

You sure you want to go down the no WMDs path still? So far we've found over 500 WMD violating items, and more are still being found...


1. That's right. No WMDs. Old, out of date chemical but no WMDs. That is correct.

2. A. Neither do I as long as the reins are Constitutional. There seems to be doubt about that.

B. There are other ways of dealing with a corrupt administration: censure, impeachment, revolution . . .

3. A. You didn't read me very well. I said I did not give the dems a pass. Have you said that about any conservatives?

B. The dems say they got part of the information. I think enough has come out to show that was true. Perhaps you're listening to too much conservative radio?

C. If you have to hold someone accountable, I suggest you back up about sixty years and look at Yalta which is where we helped divide up that area. That is, if you are really honest about assigning equal and honest blame . . . that was FDR. I can say it. I look for truth, not a defense of my side. But, I prefer to stay in the here and now. If Clinton left Bush a mess, my observation is that he's certainly made it messier!

4. Don't thank me. I'm not doing you any favors. I'm observing what research shows to be factual . . . just don't spin my words into the admission that the news is slanted left. You see . . . that's what we're debating. Who spins? Who omits? So far, not me.

5. Fairness doctrine - already answered above. Everything on the table in full view and can be confronted. More access to otherwise excluded sides of issues Libs and Greens and anybody else that wants in the game. It doesn't have to be my party you see.

6. AAR - so you say. Might be, might not be. I don't know. Rush's numbers are down as is most conservative radio. O'Reilley's numbers are down. What's with that? Your sounding judgmental here and I wonder at your credentials for such expertise?

Nightie night.


"Nightie night."

Very nice. Sending Joanie to the showers early.

Game/Match to Edmonds Dan.

PS: Joanie, if Saddam didn't have those WMD's why didn't he just let the inspectors come in and do their job without all the fun and games. And if Bush was really so horrible to have lied to get us in to Iraq wouldn't he have then made damn sure we had found 'WMDs' ie planted a few here and there to give us an 'ah-hah' moment.
Yeah yeah Sparky, I know that your going to throw in your two cents worth with a 'I agree with Joanie' so it's duly noted for the record.


You know what, PutS. I knew it was you. I even said something and then erased it because I didn't want to diss somebody else of it wasn't you.

I thought it was an okay debate but sorry, wait till morning and you'll see that you never got out of your box.

It was the "push off" that pretty much confirmed it. I'm used to your pretentious talk, you know like "spot on."

Nightie Night.


Actually, I was,once again, going to tell Joanie she is wasting her time...

I had a fabulous evening while you and EdDan decided to drag out ALL the old conservative talking points...you guys crack me up!

So stay up all night if you want to and tell each other yet again how bad liberals are...I am off to my comfy bed to get some sleep.


You got Puts on the brain. You really should take your own advice on Puts. Which makes me suspect that when you say you don't listen to Dori that you really do.
Anyway, I am not Edmonds Dan but I am highly complimented that you thought I was.

In fact, just to be fair I will stay off posting for at the summer so you can rest easy. See you in September.

Also, for the record, I am not AS or KS. Merely PS aka Puts.
Ask Blam. He can read the different IRC numbers.


Hey, PutS, never one to leave a question unanswered:

Hussein doesn't like people tellilng him what to do anymore than anybody else does. He had to save face. . . that has also been thoroughly acknowledged if you listened to anything but Fox . . . You know. in Iraq, Saddan was the DECIDER.

and you're assuming that Bush was smart enough to do that. He expected to find them. Also, haven't you seen his comic relief where he jokes "over here? nope, not here. over there? no, not over there. . . " You're the only one I know that hasn't seen him do it. You're a little behind on the game aren't you?

Besides, we all know he didn't invade Iraq for WMDs anyway.

Where in the world have you been, PutS?


Well, PutS. Either way it did sound like you. So I guess I'll never know. LOL. Thanks for the fun.


One more thing, PutS. IRC numbers - I said I was posting from another computer. I was. So mine would have been different too. Doesn't prove you weren't Edmonds Dan. I think you were . . . :)


Sparky, you are partly to blame for my patience and endurance tonight. I was determined to try to engage without getting frustrated or emotional. So, how'd I do?


Yeah, those crappy, stupid, dense carpenters...and masons, and door technicians, and dock workers, and fencing installers...they're so...dumb...so gross...so ehwww, no education there, no BRILLIANCE like some socioligist, or English major. Pussy.


You did fine Joanie. Not sure why you want to argue with people who still think there were WMDs and that Bush didn't lie..lol
Are the conservatives so desperate that they have to drag THAT out again???
Stodge Charger was right...we are winning!

Edmonds Dan

Hi all,

I don't know who PugetSound is, but I'm not him.

A few questions, though...

1. How can you keep claiming "no WMDs" when we've found nearly 2 tons of enriched unranium, over 500 shells loaded with chemical weapons, and over 1500 gallons of chemical weapons in drums?

2. Why did we go into Iraq if not for the reasons the President outlined - stability of the region, elimination of a state sponsor of terror, and elimination of WMDs (remember, WMDs were just one of the reasons presented).

3. What statement did President Bush say that was a lie?

These questions should be really easy to answer, all based on hard facts.

You know, like if we found any banned weapons then there were WMDs...

Oh, and one bonus question:

5. If Halliburton is so evil and so are no-bid contracts, then why not the howls of anger from the Left when President Clinton awarded such contracts in Kosovo and Bosnia?

styble is Bizarre!

well the over baked brain on the over night ! The one the only Styblehead radio its not funny its really bad radio !

The Anti KIRO

The fact that there are still people out there that believe Iraq had WMD's is truly frightening.

We are clearly seeing the effects of an education system that has trailed the leading industrialized nations for the past 20 years.



Ah, EdDan, you are a conservative! You take the flimsiest of evidence and hang on tight. Fox News - for reasons cited earlier - has little credibiility. It is not a source I trust. FOX watchers were least informed about the link between Hussein and Osama. Speaks for itself.

1. Washington Post article raised as many questions as it answered. No WMDs there. In your imagination, perhaps. The iranium and the factory did not constitute WMDs nor were they a a threat to the US.

The obvious question: if they had WMDs, why didn't they use them?

Surely, the finding of WMDs would constitute a bigger story than you've been able to link.

2. Reason for Iraq invasion: neocons and desire to change middle east; strategy for controlling middle east oil - not just Iraqs but all middle east oil; Bush's personal angst regarding Hussein and assassination attempt on daddy; according to Palast and subject of latest (I think) book - Saudis, BP, Bush & Blair have interest in controlling middle east oil production esp. with Saudi oil having peaked. Remember, the Bin Ladens are close friends of the Bush family;

My personal opinion? Bush is a bully and he thought he could knock Hussein off easily. After all, Korea is a greater threat to US, has WMDs - the real kind, and such a mission would probably have enabled us to get the rest of the world involved. But that was little bigger job than he wanted or thought he could tackle. Also, it would have taken diplomacy, not his strong suit. He is, afterall, the decider. Also, he is quoted as saying that presidents who are strong commanders-in-chiefs leave powerful legacies and that is important to him.

Funny, you conserves think you are smarter than everybody else not only in America but the world. Well, our mess in Iraq might have been the last laugh for the world . . . if it weren't so tragic. Ånd please, don't respond with the nit-picking few troops that were sent by the few partners (many bribed) that we have. It is American lives and Iraqi lives that are being wasted.

Finally, you do what you must do to make your argument. I'll let web sites speak to his lying for me. If that isn't enough, so be it.

You asked for one, here are a couple:

"We gave him (Hussein) a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in."

Bush Press Conference 7-14-03

Truth: UN inspectors went into Iraq to search for possible weapons violations from December 2002 into March 2003.

"VIDEO: Bush Caught In Lie About Snow Resignation"

The fact that you need to qualify and define "WMDs" to make your point makes my point. They weren't there.

I have to laugh. Sparky keeps telling me that there is no reasoning with your guys. She's right. You'll spin, skew, redefine, omit, target any little item that you need to make your point in order to win. You'll respond to items that help you and ignore others.

I don't think I've ignored any of your points except the 9-11 commission comment which I honestly forgot but doesn't change a word I've said. What have I said that would change because of the 9-11 comment? Being informed (which the Bush admin. was not) should be expected of any administration whether it changes the outcome or not. Disagree with that?

And I'm not answering the Haliburton charges because that is another long post and not worth the time because you will selectively read it just as you did this one.
Suffice it to say there may be a difference in the accountability since in Kosovo and Bosnia Haliburton wasn't working for a former CEO with stock in the company.

My points about conservative media ownership, editors, rules, deception in the forms of omission, spin, forgery, looking to place blame rather than discussing issues in the here and now and other points go unresponded to because they are uncomfortable and prevent you from staying in your box of belief. Not once have I defended a democratic administration. Your whole argument is a defense of an administration. I prefer to talk issues. So be it.

Yes, I thought you were PutS because you sound like him. Your arguments are at least a bit more linear than his were. He and I would go in circles, chasing our tails and I would find myself having to respond to an already-responded-to item. It was frustrating.

You, PutS and PeFi should get together at Ray's, have a couple martinis and compare fictional notes on Saddam's obvious relationship with Osama, how the economy is doing so well because you see people shopping, and how Afghanistan and Iraq are shining models of democracy after our much needed and effective interventions.

No sarcasm here. I really think you would enjoy the conversation. You and I would tire of each other quickly.

My posts are longer than yours because I answer your points. You do not answer mine. Instead, you nit-pick and parse. That can go on forever. I think it is out of your need to defend the administration and control the discussion to that end. I enjoy discussing issues. So I expect another post questioning my answers to your questions . . . I'm going to try to avoid getting sucked in again. (LOL)

Enjoy the Fifth.

And PutS, I know . . . game/set/match to EdDan. It is clear you've never played chess or tennis.

We liberals have a sense of humor.

BTW, one more link cause I think you should read it. Actually, everyone should read it. It articulates the view most of us liberals have of conservatives. It was informing to me and might be informing to you if you want some understanding of why we are unable apparently to communicate.

"George W. Bush is Not Incompetent - Food For Thought From the Rockridge Institute" You have to scroll down the page quite a bit. This is thanks to Andrew.

Edmonds Dan

Again, Anti KIRO, you just spew a party line... Never trying to actually learn yourself?

Here's a BBC article about 1.8 TONS of enriched uranium, and another 500 tons of uranium ore. Does enriched uranium qualify as a WMD? Dirty bombs require it, and that's a lot of material.

Here's a Fox News story about another 500 chemical weapons found.

Richard Miniter, an internationally recognized expert on terrorism blows the whole "NO WMDs!" argument out of the water with his book, Disinformation.

So, what qualifies as a WMD? Does enriched uranium qualify? Do chemical weapons qualify? What is a WMD?

And apparently the entire Clinton administration - and all the senior Democratic leaders - believed in WMDs...

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

And it goes on and on...

So, two questions for you:

1. What is a WMD?
2. What did President Bush say that was a lie?

Simple, just two little questions... Care to answer?


Oh ExDan, again avoiding questions:

Why didn't they use them when we attacked?
The Clintons and the Bushes are politicians. They believed. But, the Bushes did not listen to the pentagon, Joseph Wilson, Blix and Ritter, and the rest of the experts. Again, you are bent on defending an administration instead of talking issues. I discuss the issue. And the Clintons did have a program going that didn't kill everybody.

Why quote a president when he was wrong? What's the point? Why did you have no confidence in Blix, Ritter, Wilson?

I've answered both. You do argue in circles.

Now, what about the points/questions I've raised?

Edmonds Dan

OK, one at a time...

1. FOX News not trustworthy to you? Then I get to discount ABC/NBC/CBS/CNN/MSNBC...:) Where did FOX News lie? Perhaps the mere fact they have actual conservative AND liberal hosts is the reason for distrust? Alan Colmes, Susan Estrich, Ed Koch, Pat Caddell, and many more liberal, Democratic commentators and hosts reside on FOX. Any conservatives at ABC? NBC? CBS?

2. So, the presence of 1.8 tons of enriched uranium - perfect for dirty bombs - and the finding of 500 shells filled with sarin gas doesn't constitute WMDs. OK. So we know that nuclear and chemical weapons aren't WMDs, according to you.

3. Why not use the WMDs when we invaded? Because Saddam probably thought we'd stop short like we did in the first war. Using WMDs would sign his death warrant; not using them and he probably (wrongly) believed we would leave with him weakened, but still in power. Either way, he had to know it was a matter of how far we wanted to go, not whether or not he could stop us. His military simply could not come close to matching ours, so don't give us any more reason to remove him than absolutely necessary.

4. Iraq invasion. Read the quote I posted above from Ms. Albright; the Middle East is crucial to us, and stability there has been a US stance for decades. How is our stabilizing the Middle East wrong?

If we were there for oil, well, that certainly hasn't happened! And of course, if we wanted $40/barrel of oil, we should look North to Canada and the oil sands. Wait, we are! There's more oil in the Alberta oil sands than the entire proven reserves AND what's been pumped in all of Saudi Arabia.

Saddam was a targeted supporter of terrorism, and was recognized as such by the Clinton administration. So President Bush was continuing a Clinton administration policy - regime change. Condemn President Bush, but have the intellectual integrity to also condemn President Clinton in the same sentence.

5. North Korea. Yeah, diplomacy worked there! Thanks to the negotiated treaty between the Clinton administration and North Korea, the North Koreans now have nuclear weapons and - with help from missle and guidance technology transferred to China during the Clinton administration - are working on ICBMs. Yeah, that's a glowing example that one-on-one diplomacy can work. Perhaps President Bush's approach may work better?

6. Conservatives think they're smarter. Nah, just better informed...:) Seriously, it's a matter of looking at history, and trying not to repeat it. When has appeasement worked? We left Saddam in after the Gulf War, and that didn't work. We tried unilateral diplomacy with the North Koreans and that didn't work. Perhaps it's time to try something else?

7. Your "Bushlies.net" post. How about straight from the mouth of Hans Blix?

These reports do not contend that weapons of mass destruction remain in Iraq, but nor do they exclude that possibility. They point to a lack of evidence and inconsistencies which raise question marks which must be straightened out if weapons dossiers are to be closed and confidence is to arise. They deserve to be taken seriously by Iraq, rather than being brushed aside as evil machinations of UNSCOM.

Essentially, Hans - in his 2003 report to the UN - could not adequately confirm or deny presence of WMDs in Iraq, and that - if you read the report - Iraq is not doing what they agreed to do in assisting confirmation of the destruction of the weapons. Or, as Mr. Blix put it:

"Paragraph 9 of Resolution 1441 states that this cooperation shall be "active." It is not enough to open doors. Inspection is not a game of catch as catch can. Rather, as I noted, it is a process of verification for the purpose of creating confidence. It is not built upon the premise of trust. Rather, it is designed to lead to trust, if there is both openness to the inspectors and action to present them with items to destroy or credible evidence about the absence of any such items."

8. "Suffice it to say there may be a difference in the accountability since in Kosovo and Bosnia Haliburton wasn't working for a former CEO with stock in the company." Unfortunately, you've been misled. This article pretty much eliminates the lies regarding Vice President Cheney's financial ties to Halliburton. They're aren't any.

9. "Not once have I defended a democratic administration. Your whole argument is a defense of an administration. I prefer to talk issues. So be it." OK. What should we do with North Korea? What should we do with Iraq? So far, I've only seen attacks. This started with a simple CORRECTION of a lie about Kirby Wilbur's background; an attack by Anti KIRO on Kirby, that - to date - he has yet to back up. It's nothing but attacks.

So, let's get to issues. What to do about Iraq now? Not ruminating on what you would have done in the past - what to do NOW?

10. "My posts are longer than yours because I answer your points. You do not answer mine. Instead, you nit-pick and parse." I'm sorry, I believe I pull out the salient points - the crux of the matter - and address it directly. Brevity is what I strive for.

11. "George W. Bush is Not Incompetent - Food For Thought From the Rockridge Institute" Correct. He's been quite successful in execution of his agenda. Dumb people don't succeed like that. So your problem isn't with just the man, per se, it's with the conservative viewpoint and agenda? Then perhaps those on the Left should focus on that, rather than trying to demonize one man.

Clearly - regardless of what you do - he will be in office until late January 2009. And won't be after that. Perhaps the zombie-like focus on the person is the biggest failure of the political left?

Edmonds Dan

Why didn't they use them when we attacked?

As I stated in my follow-up post, because using them would guarantee Saddam's removal; he was probably believing we'd do what we had done in the first Gulf War, and had done since then. Attack, push back, but stop short of removing him. It was a survival tactic to NOT use them.

The Clintons and the Bushes are politicians. They believed. But, the Bushes did not listen to the pentagon, Joseph Wilson, Blix and Ritter, and the rest of the experts.
Hans Blix certainly confirmed that things weren't going well... He wanted more time to verify, which IMPLICITLY says he doesn't know if WMDs are present or not. Oh, and he EXPLICITLY said so as well...

Joseph Wilson? You mean the same Joseph Wilson who reported that Iraq may have been trying to purchase yellow cake from Niger, in his report to the CIA?

Scott Ritter - where to start? About as reliable in my view as you think FOX News is in yours.

Again, you are bent on defending an administration instead of talking issues. I discuss the issue.

OK, then discuss the issue. What do we do with Iraq NOW? What do we do with North Korea NOW?

And for the Anti KIRO - any proof about Wilbur's failure as a businessman?

You see, all I see from you on the left is constant attack attack attack. No debating the issues, just pointing out what you would have done differently. Hey, guess what? Hindsight is 20/20! I'm sure ALL administrations would do things differently if they knew then what they know now...

So, no going back to the past, what would you do NOW, going forward? What's your crystal ball say?

And the Clintons did have a program going that didn't kill everybody.

OK, so the bombings by President Clinton didn't kill anyone? What about Kosovo and hundreds of civilians killed every year? Afgahnistan, Pakistan, Serbia, Sudan, heck he even bombed a Chinese embassy!

Why quote a president when he was wrong? What's the point? Why did you have no confidence in Blix, Ritter, Wilson?
Because I believe he was right. And I believe the statements by Blix and Wilson back him up.

Now, what about the points/questions I've raised?

Perhaps you can answer mine:

1. What would you do about Iraq NOW?

2. What would you do about North Korea NOW?


Iraq - follow Murtha's plan, set time table and get out.

Korea - after six year's of neglect, it is hard to know. But, I'm guessing this administration will put their heads together and try to come up with something.

Now, for the record, I did not vote for Cllinton. I think he was very bad for the country. I think Bush is bad for the country.

Regarding Anti-K and attacks? red herring cause I'm not Anti-K.

Haliburton - still an issue of accountability. Concede the issue of stocks/pay. Can you say for sure Cheney will never profit from Haliburton in the future? Quid pro quo? Remains to be seen.

You didn't read the Rockwell link, did you?

The Kosovo/Bosnia thing was much different. You know that. Try to argue apples and apples. Back to Clinton . . . sigh.

Ritter not reliable? A republican Marine who was there?

Wilson: trying to buy? I think Wilson has been very clear about the whole incident.

You are getting emotional EdDan.

What would you do about Iraq?

What would you do about Korea?


One more question, EdDan. What are your credentials for dissing Ritter?


We should have never gone into Iraq. The administration should not have gone against the rest of the world and invaded Iraq. Yes - Saddam is an evil character, but the US should not have invaded. Bush may not have lied, but he certainly was selective with his words and with the intelligence.

Diplomacy is the way countries need to go. We can do better. We need to set a timetable and withdraw. Iraqis need to stand on their own feet, without our troops in their country.

The comments to this entry are closed.

April 2013

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30        

Tip Jar

Change is good

Tip Jar

Twitter Updates

    follow me on Twitter

    pacific nw talk stations

    • KIRO 710ESPN Seattle 710 KHz
      Games and sports-blabber
    • KIROFM 97.3
      Multi-format: news and nearly all local talk. This is where classic KIRO AM news talk radio went... hopefully, not to die. The home of Dave Ross & Luke Burbank, Dori Monson, Ron & Don, Frank Shiers, Bill Radke, Linda Thomas, Tony Miner and George Noory.
    • KUOW FM 94.9
      Seattle's foremost public radio news and talk.
    • KVI am 570 KHz
      Visit the burnt-out husk of one of the seminal right-wing talkers in all the land. Here's where once trilled the reactionary tones of Rush Limbaugh, John Carlson, Kirby Wilbur, Mike Siegel, Peter Weissbach, Floyd Brown, Dinky Donkey, and Bryan Suits. Now it's Top 40 hits from the '60's & '70's aimed at that diminishing crowd who still remembers them and can still hear.
    • KTTH am 770 KHz
      Right wing home of local, and a whole bunch of syndicated righties such as Glennn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Medved, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Lars Larsony, and for an hour a day: live & local David Boze.
    • KPTK am 1090 KHz
      Syndicated liberal talk. Stephanie Miller, Thom Hartmann, Ed Schultz, Randi Rhodes, Norman Goldman fill in the large hole to the left on Northwest radio dial.
    • KLFE AM 1590 kHz
      Syndicated right-wing 2nd stringers like Mark Levin, Bill Bennett, Mike Gallagher, Dennis Prager, Dennis Miller and Hugh Hewitt inhabit this timid-voiced neighbor honker for your radio enjoyment (unless you're behind something large like Costco).
    • KOMOAM
      News, traffic, Ken Schram and John Carlson.
    • Washington State Radio Stations
      Comprehensive list of every danged AM & FM station on the dial.
    • KKOL am 1300 KHz
      Once a rabid right-wing talker, except for Lou Dobbs, it's all business....