Cynical Nation

"Huh. How do you like that? After all that time spent cultivating my informant within Air America, I have to find about this from Karol. Guess I need better sources."

Don't feel bad, my American Idol mole told me that Kellie Pickler was a lock for one more week.

BTW, WLIB dropped to 0.8 share in the Arbitron Winter '06 (January, February, March) book from 1.4 in Fall '05.

Its not a big deal. Air America will be fine. Look whats happening at the right wingnut stations: Rush Limbaugh is arrested and going to jail.

Eric Logan would like to remind you that Air America is alive and well on XM Satellite Radio.

"Its not a big deal. Air America will be fine. Look whats happening at the right wingnut stations: Rush Limbaugh is arrested and going to jail."

Actually, no. He's rather specifically not going to jail. For a $30K "reimbursement" and a promise not to get arrested for 18 months, the Palm Beach State Attorney has agreed to stop harrassing Limbaugh. Rush didn't even have to plead "guilty" to the charges the way Sandy "Pants" Burgler did.

" the Palm Beach State Attorney has agreed to stop harrassing Limbaugh"

So when the police and the prosecutors go after illegal drug use they are harassing the drug dealers and drug users??? Is that a component of the new republican philosophy of corruption?

I'm libertarian on drug use. I think the War on Drugs has been a disaster and all U.S. forces should be withdrawn immediately.

If you want to know what the Repbulican philosophy is on the subject you will have to ask a Republican.

And yes, I agree that $30K "reimbursements" to a State Attorney is corrupt. I'm very disappointed in Rush for making paying that bribe.

Oh for God's sake grow up. Limbaugh was caught red-handed having committed multiple felonies, the Bush family protected him, and finally he bought his way out.

Rush is a criminal. He committed multiple felonies. He is a drug addict, and participated in the corruption of other individuals to illegally obtain his drugs.

Typical of all hypocrite Repuglicans, he can't admit to his mistakes like a man. Instead he can only weasel, lie, and bribe, like a true Right Wing worm.

Everything anyone needs to know about conservatives or the Republican party is right in our faces every day: criminal behavior, corruption, lies, bribes, influence peddling ...

Holy crap, Barry, you sure do get some left wing nutjobs leaving comments on here.

Holy crap, Barry, you sure do get some left wing nutjobs leaving comments on here.

Nope. I think the opposite. There are quite a few wingnuts visting here. But it is hard to believe that so called "conservatives" will be defening drug users like Limbaugh. The republican party of today is extremely corrupt and his supporters (and some republican-like libertarians) tolerate it.

I have to give credit to Barry though because he has been very critical of the republicans of today, as he should.

Maybe one of the right-wingers here can explain to me why it is so important to you that all dissenting voices be silent. We on the left don't try to get Limbaugh and Hannity taken off the air. We don't start petitions to have Bill O'Reilly replaced with Phil Donahue. We don't pore over the sales figures of Ann Coulter's books to find ways to spin left-leaning books as being better sellers. So why is it so important that your delicate widdew ears not be tainted with anything that doesn't fit your worldview?

If you don't like Air America, don't listen. Very simple. But this Air America deathwatch that's been going on for two years now is just a bit pathological. The attempt by Matt Drudge to brand Crashing the Gates as a flop because Nielsen says it's sold some 3600-odd copies after barely a month, when 98% of all books published in an average year sell 5000 copies or less, is equally pathological.

What the f*** do you care, anyway? You don't like it, don't read it. You don't like it, don't listen to it. Why the intense need to have these other views removed from the public sphere?

I haven't seen such silliness since the Great Titanic vs. Star Wars Box Office Wars of 1998.

And just for the record. Air America is a great radio station. I listen to it daily. And I dont feel like an "ultra left extremist". The problem with the wingnuts is that they have lost common sense and they can not understand how far to the extreme right they have ended. It is kind of sad to see people supporting the "conservative" corruption.

Welcome to my world, Helo. ;-)

Actually Jill, EVERY Conservative radio host has complained, not only of ungrounded complaints to their stations, but regular protests outside their broadcast hubs and death threats from crazed Leftists...it seems most of them have come to acknowledge that dealing with such rabid radicals, more or less comes with the territory, along with the higher ratings.

The demographics that account for this discrepancy are clear, "A nationwide survey by pollsters Penn, Schoen, and Berland -- who represent Bill and Hillary Rodham Clinton, among other clients -- found that self-described liberals make up only 16 percent of the population, compared with 36 percent who call themselves conservatives and 47 percent who say they are moderates."

http://www.theneweditor.com/index.php?/archives/2536-Emboldened-Democrats-Court-Partys-Left-Wing.html

Those demographics along with the inane tact employed by Leftists, of constantly scolding their listners and bashing America, are why few people tune into Liberal interactive venues. It's as simple as that.

Simply put, "Nobody likes a harpy or a scold."

But again, what has AAR's poor ratings to do with Limbaugh's drug addiction woes?

Limbaugh has always opposed the Rockefeller drug laws, so has his primary fill-in host Walter E Williams.

I'm of a different mind than either Williams or Limbaugh on the drug issue, but I too recognize that the current "war on drugs" has failed.

The answer to me is certainly NOT, "giving in and just letting people do/ingest whatever they want."

Again, that's LICENSE, NOT LIBERTY.

I'd probably go more the Arab route on drug crimes - caning for users and public beheadings for dealers. Not only would it add an unprecedented level of risk to the equation, it would also create public spectacles that would give some of the more rambunctious among us, pause for thought, and some of the more easily amused, some much needed free access entertainment.

"Maybe one of the right-wingers here can explain to me why it is so important to you that all dissenting voices be silent."

Nobody is calling for the silencing of Air America. Maybe you can explain to us why it is so important that left-wing propogandists be held above criticism. We have every right to express our opinion of Air America -- It's in the Constitution.

"We on the left don't try to get Limbaugh and Hannity taken off the air. We don't start petitions to have Bill O'Reilly replaced with Phil Donahue."

Yes you do. Perhaps not you personally but your side campaigns relentlessly to silence voices of which you do not approve, including petitions, letter writing campaigns, challenges to FCC licenses and media organizations devoted to monitoring and challenging the right of leading conservative voices to express their opinions on the air. Not to mention incessant demands for the fairness doctrine to be reinstituted for radio talk shows.

If you think Phil Donahue should be on the air, then by all means petition media outlets to give him air time. The fact is that his last two attempts were humiliating failures -- his ratings compared to his time-period competitors were not only an embarassment, but deteriorated further with each show -- and even his long-running syndicated show was clobbered by Chicago new-comer Oprah Winfrey when the two shows went head-to-head.

"We don't pore over the sales figures of Ann Coulter's books to find ways to spin left-leaning books as being better sellers. So why is it so important that your delicate widdew ears not be tainted with anything that doesn't fit your worldview?"

Why is it so important to you to hang your arguments on ridicule "(delicate widdew ears)" instead of simply standing on objective facts and well framed opinion?

"If you don't like Air America, don't listen. Very simple. But this Air America deathwatch that's been going on for two years now is just a bit pathological."

Or perhaps just a personal point of view. I can't help noticing that you guys are ready to quote every fact and figure of Ann Coulter's career since she left high-school. What's that obsession all about?

"The attempt by Matt Drudge to brand Crashing the Gates..."

If you don't like Matt Drudge, ignore him -- very simple.

"...as a flop because Nielsen says it's sold some 3600-odd copies after barely a month, when 98% of all books published in an average year sell 5000 copies or less, is equally pathological."

Drudge simply reported a fact. If you think that is "pathological" we have to ask you why you are so afraid of facts.

"What the f*** do you care, anyway? You don't like it, don't read it. You don't like it, don't listen to it."

And you are ranting on the blog because...

I mean: What the f*** do you care what we think and say?

"Why the intense need to have these other views removed from the public sphere?"

WTF!?!?! Who is removing or even advocating the removal of these views from the public sphere. The only one who has come here with the purpose of shutting up dissenting opinion is you, Jill. We were just having a discussion when you stormed in here demanding silence.

"I haven't seen such silliness since the Great Titanic vs. Star Wars Box Office Wars of 1998."

Then you obviously weren't paying attention to this year's Academy Awards controversies.

Nicely done, wf. I hope you aren't actually expecting a response, however. ;-)

WF,
You are wrong. In fact, very wrong. What Jill wrote is generally correct. Several people on the extreme right have been attempting to silence liberal voices in the media. As an example...Bill O'Reilly has been calling MSNBC to fire Keith Obermann. He has also asked Fox News to fire the liberal guy that works on FOX (the short guy with the beard in the Saturday evening show, I forget his name). The same guy (O' Reilly) has been threatening "liberal bloggers" with lawsuits for possible "defamation". Yes, I have heard him once doing that on the "Factor".

Traditionally, the extreme right has been attempting to diminish opposing voices, not only here, but in Europe too. With Air America there are these malicious constant rumors that it will close, that they have no money, etc, etc. Sorry, but the far-right has been behaving in an antidemocratic way in many instances in this country, in a way reminiscent of LePen and his likes in France. If I were you, I would not be proud to call myself a "conservative". Anyway, cheers.

"Bill O'Reilly has been calling MSNBC to fire Keith Obermann." (BW)

Ironically enough BW, THIS is NOT true.

Bill O'Reilly began calling for Phil Donahue's return to MSNBC, as Donahue's ratings, as poor as they were, were still better than Oberman's.

Oberman was a great sportscaster on ESPN. He and Dan Patrick were exceptional. It's a shame what he's turned into - a pompous, self-possessed, whiner (in other words a typical Lib).

O'Reilly voiced his OPINION that Dan Gabler a weekend roundtable guest is terrible (prone to exaggeration and reckless with spouting misinformation) to that Show's host, as is his right and anyone else's who cares to comment pro or con.

The "Lefty blogger" that O'Reilly threatened to sue was Mike Stark, who is actually quite demented.

A quick insight into Stark's insanity can be found in the following message from his website, a message in which he compares a woman’s fears of a terrorist attack on the U.S. to the nazi hatred for the Jews in 1939.

This guy is not just another despicable hysteric, he’s very likely a terrorist-sympathizer. Little wonder O'Reilly was genuinely concerned over Stark's "stalking" behavior.

Here's that message;

“Usually, I’ll use this blog to post the calls that I make. Occasionally, I’ll come across something that I had nothing to do with, but just needs to be heard (like the Lieberman/Hannity lovefest)...This audio falls into that category.

"It comes from this morning’s Tony Snow Show. This woman, from Iowa, had me cracking up. Her fear of the terr’ists was so profound...so all consuming...so complete...She’s from Iowa. Osama couldn’t find Iowa if it dropped on his head.

"This woman makes me fear for humanity...I mean, OK...Y’all are gonna point fingers at me and chant, in unison, “Godwin’s Law!”, but I don’t give a shit...If this woman is so easily trained to fear a bunch of goat herding cave dwellers from half a world away, well, what do you think she would have been saying about Jews if she had been living in Germany in 1939?”

http://www.callingallwingnuts.com/2006/02/20/what-were-up-against/

In other words, this guy Mike Stark, equates a woman’s legitimate fears of terrorist attacks by Islamo-fascists, here in the U.S. (we’ve already had two major attacks in NYC in 1993 & on 9/11/01 and dozens of terrorist cells broken up within the U.S. over the past few years) to a hatred of the Jews by the nazis!

Mike Stark is a very, very SICK and twisted individual and very possibly a dangerous one as well.

O'Reilly is, at best, a very moderate Conservative, the "radicals" or "extremists" are those who currently oppose his campaign to make "Jessica's Law" a national one.

Not one of the Liberals who've openly opposed O'Reilly on judicial discretion concerning child predators has been able to make a coherent argument in defense of that viewpoint.

I'm DEEPLY disappointed.

I CAN make such an argument, but my views are, in fact, far more "Conservative" than O'Reilly's on that particular issue, as again, I'd go "Arabic" on this issue too.

The Iranian method of dealing with a child rapist as chronicled in a local NYC newspaper about six months ago really impressed me - a proper and horribly debilitating scourging, followed by the mothers allowed to come up and punch, kick and spit on their children's rapist, followed by the convicted child predator being hung from the end of a crane by a slip knot.

That's real DETTERENCE, one predator at a time and the only proven cure for pedophilia.

Bill O'Reilly began calling for Phil Donahue's return to MSNBC, as Donahue's ratings, as poor as they were, were still better than Oberman's.

Nope. He was calling for Donahue's return to replace Oberman. You know why? Because Oberman has chosen O'Reilly as the "worst person in the world" repeatedly.

Just for the record Oberman is the very best in MSNBC and his show has higher ratings than any other MSNBC political show (including Hardball). Most importantly, the IQ of Oberman is several dozen points higher than O'Reilly's (beyond the expected liberal-conservative difference). Oberman is a highly intelligent and sophisticated individual. O'Reilly is NOT. Cheers.

HUGE difference between calling for Donahue's return and Oberman's firing - O'Reilly NEVER called for Oberman to be fired, only for Donahue to be given a chance, since Donahue'd racked up the best ratings against him.

If you can find any audio of O'Reilly calling for Oberman's firing, not merely Donahue getting back his old spot, but the words "MSNBC should fire Kieth Oberman," please link to them, as O'Reilly claims such a thing doesn't exist.

Oberman WAS a great Sportscenter anchor, but he's clearly in over his head doing news/commentary.
His analysis is consistently shallow, his style stilted and dopey segments like "The Worst Person in the World" are simply juvenile, and would've been beneath the old Kieth Oberman of Sportscenter.

He's like a great comic actor who tries to do dramatic parts and fails, but is unable to accept his failing and keeps on trying to do dramatic roles instead of going back to his strength.

Like I said, O'Reilly is a moderate, at best...certainly a tradionalist, but so are something like 75+% of Americans "Tradionalists."

His so-called "opponents" have allowed O'Reilly to cop the moral high ground with his campaign to make "Jessica's Law" the law of the land, removing much judicial discretion from child predator cases.

Like I said, I can make an argument against that (a legal argument, that I'm not inclined to go into right now, since no Libs have been able to make it so far), but the problem O'Reilly's opposition now find themselves in, is due to their allowing him to have the child-predator campaign to himself for so long.

Now, those who agree come off as "Johnny-come-lately's" and those opposed come off as, well, "pro-pedophile."

If Oberman were a worthy adversary, he'd at least have garnered better ratings against O'Reilly than Phil Donahue did, but so far...NO.

I wonder why?

Maybe Oberman is just too darn smart to get ratings.

Ya think?

HUGE difference between calling for Donahue's return and Oberman's firing - O'Reilly NEVER called for Oberman to be fired, only for Donahue to be given a chance, since Donahue'd racked up the best ratings against him.

Oh really? And in what capacity does O'Reilly suggest who should be hired in MSNBC? Does O'Reilly care about MSNBC ratings? Give me a break. He has put MSNBC in his "black" list on his site and you know it.

I will repeat what I wrote above:

"The IQ of Oberman is several dozen points higher than O'Reilly's. Oberman is a highly intelligent and sophisticated individual. O'Reilly is NOT."

And I will also ask you. Have you ever heard a liberal recommending to FOX which conservative/wingnut commentator they should hire?

It seems like you're capitulating on my original point - that O'Reilly merely suggested that MSNBC should give Donahue another shot, since Donahue's last ratings were still higher than Oberman's current ones.

He didn't say anything about what MSNBC should do with Oberman.

Maybe moving him to another time slot would help Oberman. It might be easier for him to get ratings against, say, Greta Van Sustern, rather than O'Reilly & King.

Look, if Oberman was really all that bright, he'd probably have figured out a way to get some ratings by now, don't ya think?

This penchant for "IQ boasting" on the part of most Liberals smacks of rampant insecurity.

You wouldn't believe the number of Liberal folks who've tried to convince me of what a "brilliant economist" Paul Krugman is. I always reply, "You mean the guy that O'Reilly cowered into a whimpering pile of jelly on Tim Russert's show?"

They always reply, "O'Reilly just proved he was a thug. He didn't win the argument. Krugman is really brilliant."

"Oh yeah," I usually retort, "then how come Paul Krugman can't get arrested as an economist. He has to make his living writing political commentary instead of practicing the craft of economics."

And for the record, Paul Krugman, as wrong as he is politically, is a lot less dangerous as a political commentator than as an economic one.

Paul Krugman and Kieth Oberman may well be bright fellows, they're just wrong-headed and pompous to boot. It's too bad that so much of what they KNOW, just simply is not so.

JMK,
It seems that you can NOT answer the questions I asked you and you evade. Let me try again:

1. In what capacity does O'Reilly suggest who should be hired in MSNBC? Does O'Reilly care about MSNBC ratings?

2.Have you ever heard a liberal recommending to FOX which conservative/wingnut commentator they should hire?

These are simple questions that deserve simple answers.

Regarding the IQ business, if we use as base for comparisons the I.Q. of the conservative leader of the republicans (GWB)who became president to the IQ of the last democratic leader that made it to the presidency (Clinton), the difference is enormous in favor of people who think liberally. I would not be surprised if Clinton's I.Q. is higher by 100-120 points (literally).

Those are not valid questions BW, they're like asking why some people like listening to birds sing.

Suffice to say, Bill O'Reilly has as much right as ANY American to kibitz about, and in his case gloat about the poor ratings of his competitors and to wonder why a guy (Oberman) with worse ratings then the fellow he replaced (Donahue) is still on opposite him.

I'd chalk it up to a harmless tease on O'Reilly's part. He's also made fun of Larry King relinquishing the top ratings spot in Cable News/Commentary to himself.

So, O'Reilly has the same "capacity" any American has in commenting upon who MSNBC hires and the ratings garnered by them. Anyone is entitled to some "idle speculation."

As to IQ, Richard Milhouse Nixon had one of the highest IQs of any President (146). By comparison Mohammed Ali had a purported 96 IQ.

Who was the better communicator, who'd you rather have selling for you, if you were in marketing?

In GW's case, I believe he was fortunate not to have had to go up against Clinton (the ONLY Dem to win the WH in well over a quarter century).

GW WAS fortunate he got go up against the charisma-challenged Gore, who somehow screwed up having Bill Clinton's coat-tails...in Gore's case, the more he said, the less folks liked him...and the star-crossed Kerry, who had the unenviable position of having to run against HIS OWN RECORD!

Kerry called Clinton's bombing of Iraq in 1998 "Not nearly enough," and suggested that a full scale invasion of that country be at least tabled...way back then.

Why do the Dems insist on putting up kooks and dufuses like Mondale, Dukakis, Gore and Kerry?

God only knows, but they do Republicans a big favor every time they do.

What the Dems NEED to figure out is America's political demographics. The reults are very clear; "A nationwide survey by pollsters Penn, Schoen, and Berland -- who represent Bill and Hillary Rodham Clinton, among other clients -- found that self-described liberals make up only 16 percent of the population, compared with 36 percent who call themselves conservatives and 47 percent who say they are moderates."

http://www.theneweditor.com/index.php?/archives/2536-Emboldened-Democrats-Court-Partys-Left-Wing.html

And the recent Battlkeground Poll on the topic is equally compelling;

Battleground Poll 2006
(Few Real Moderates)

D3. When thinking about politics and government, do you consider yourself to be:
Very conservative 18%
Somewhat conservative 41%
Moderate 2%
Somewhat liberal 28%
Very liberal 8%
Unsure/refused 3%

Again, let’s conflate those categories:

D3. When thinking about politics and government, do you consider yourself to be:
Conservative 59%
Moderate 2%
Liberal 36%
Unsure/refuse 3%

And let’s look at the percentages of “very conservative” and “very liberal” of “conservative” and “liberal,” respectively:
Very conservative 18%
Very liberal 8%

So long as the Dems keep on courting the radical Left, they're doomed.

Bill Clinton KNEW that you had to run Right to appeal to America. That's why he helped start the DNC, to move that Party to the Right.

How come none of these other Dem "geniuses" have been able to figure out what Bubba knew all along?

JMK,
After all this, you still did not answer my questions. For question #1, your answer was not acceptable. You said what O'Reilly did was ..." a harmless tease on O'Reilly's part . He certainly did not sound like that.

Regarding the second question, you still did not answer. Let me try again:

Have you ever heard a liberal recommending to FOX which conservative/wingnut commentator they should hire?

And I will add one more question. You mentioned that the IQ of Nixon was 146. How much do you think is the IQ of Dubya?

Both those questions are nonsensical, BW. They ARE indeed like asking why some folks like to listen to birds sing.

Turner and Murdoch were in the vanguard of those who view news and commentary, the way sports are viewed, as "just more entertainment."

And that's ALL it really is, when all is said and done. This idea that news and media people hold some sort of sacred public trust and should seek to shape and guide public opinion responsibly, is absolutely idiotic.

It's idiotic because these folks DON'T really shape public opinion and their ONLY real responsibility is to get ratings and make money for their employers.

I DO know that there are no rules in love and war and Fox, MSNBC and CNN are all at war, competing for ratings. Thus O'Reilly has every right to try and get under a competitors skin.

Blatant intimidation worked for him against Krugman, when they jousted on Russert's forum and this little tweak has seemed to unnerve Oberman.

All that just makes O'Reilly a good competitor in my view.

As to why Liberals haven't given similar recommendations to FoxNews, I don't know, maybe Liberals simply weren't smart enough to come up with that ploy.

It's not at all outside the realm of posibility. I mean you yourself have acknowledged, even boasted about Liberals scoring high on IQ and low on common sense, so it very well could be due to that.

I mentioned the IQ of BOTH Richard Nixon and Mohammed Ali...and I did that to show that test scores like that often overestimate mere test taking ability, while underestimating things like street smarts, the "gift of gab," and common sense.

Nixon's high IQ score did nothing for his communication skills, nor his charisma - he lacked both. In fact, Watergate just proved how little common sense he had, as well.

McGovern was no threat at all, so the Nixon camp didn't need any "dirt" on that guy. McGovern's campaign was a complete train wreck. One of the things he promised was a guaranteed income for all Americans.

This turned into a public relations disaster when someone showed up at one of his rallies and asked him if he could get his year's worth up front, "in case you don't get in." McGovern flipped the guy the bird and it was caught and replayed on National TV!

You have to feel real bad about that kind of staggering ineptitude.

That's why it was such incredibly poor judgment and a complete lack of any common sense on the Nixon team's part to seek out "damaging information" on McGovern. Hell, McGovern was his own worst enemy.

Personally, I don't care all that much about test scores, when it comes to politicians - doctors, yes, politicians, not so much. Give me a Reagan over a Carter any day...and yes, give me even a G W Bush over a Gore or a Kerry any day.

We dodged a bullet in 2000, just as we dodged a bullet in 1980 when Reagan put Carter out of his misery and out of the White House.

Heh, it's great how we "dodged the bullet" of peace and properity under Clinton for the endless war, corruption, and huge corporations writing the laws of Bush.

Yeah, way to go.

The right wing media presents out of control price gouging at the pump as "supply and demand", which is idiotic. Supply and demand has nothing to do with profit. Record profits come from gouging.

Even someone as stupid as a dittohead can figure out the if Exxon were merely passing along their increased cost of doing business, their profit would stay about the same. Gas prices would rise, not corporate profits.

The right wing media, owned mostly by huge corporations now, feeds America the horse shit that it's supply and demand.

Every time you fill up you are paying a huge 100% Bush Tax that goes directly into Big Oil pockets, and then into Republican cofferes.

Bush has raised taxes, only the money hasn't gone to the government, it has gone to the wealthiest few and paid for the Republicans to stay in power until they have successfully changed America into Mexico -- no middle class, just rulers and serfs.

We dodged the bullet that was AlGore in 2000, Clinton wasn't an option, mouse.

Besides, it's NEVER "gouging" when you sell your product at market prices.

While it's true that domestic crude can be taken from the ground in the U.S. for about $20/barrell, it's still worth over $70 on the world market.

The U.S. Congress COULD refuse to allow U.S. Energy companies to sell domestic oil in the U.S. for over $20/barrell and those energy producers would simply sell Americans imported oil, and ship the domestic stuff overseas for $70+/barrell...as their shareholders would demand.

The current world SUPPLY of oil has gone up, it's much higher than it was just twenty years ago, BUT world DEMAND has outpaced it, thanks to India's and China's rapid industrialization.

The industrialization of places like India, China and Brazil is good for all of us, even though it will drive up energy prices in the short term.

Ultimately they'll be better trading partners and more connected and interdependent upon the global economy.

America's domestic SUPPLY has suffered an artifical shortage due to our short-sighted environmental-agenda that's stymied Nuclear power plants, sidetracked new refinery capacity and barred drilling off our coastal waters and in ANWA.

Guys like Lee Raymond of Exxon-Mobil should be lauded instead of villified. He did right by his shareholders, which was his job. He saw the increasing world demand and he supported America's environmental agenda that resulted in our own artificial domestic shortage and his company is now reaping the benefits, after years of meager profits.

We're now faced with two mandates - (1) build more refinery capacity and (2) scuttle that kooky enviro-agenda and commence with domestic drilling off our coastal waterways, and anywhere else oil reserves may be found.

The WORLD PRICE of OIL is RIGHTFULLY SET at around $70/barrell right now, due to a skyrocketing world demand.

It WOULD BE EGREGIOUSLY WRONG for Exxon-Mobil, Chevron-Texaco or BP-Amocco to sell oil for less than the market price.

At least you have the sense to remain anonymous when you post such inanities. I can't imagine anyone with any sense putting their name to such drivel.

We dodged the bullet that was AlGore in 2000, Clinton wasn't an option, mouse.

Besides, it's NEVER "gouging" when you sell your product at market prices.

While it's true that domestic crude can be taken from the ground in the U.S. for about $20/barrell, it's still worth over $70 on the world market.

The U.S. Congress COULD refuse to allow U.S. Energy companies to sell domestic oil in the U.S. for over $20/barrell and those energy producers would simply sell Americans imported oil, and ship the domestic stuff overseas for $70+/barrell...as their shareholders would demand.

The current world SUPPLY of oil has gone up, it's much higher than it was just twenty years ago, BUT world DEMAND has outpaced it, thanks to India's and China's rapid industrialization.

The industrialization of places like India, China and Brazil is good for all of us, even though it will drive up energy prices in the short term.

Ultimately they'll be better trading partners and more connected and interdependent upon the global economy.

America's domestic SUPPLY has suffered an artifical shortage due to our short-sighted environmental-agenda that's stymied Nuclear power plants, sidetracked new refinery capacity and barred drilling off our coastal waters and in ANWA.

Guys like Lee Raymond of Exxon-Mobil should be lauded instead of villified. He did right by his shareholders, which was his job. He saw the increasing world demand and he supported America's environmental agenda that resulted in our own artificial domestic shortage and his company is now reaping the benefits, after years of meager profits.

We're now faced with two mandates - (1) build more refinery capacity and (2) scuttle that kooky enviro-agenda and commence with domestic drilling off our coastal waterways, and anywhere else oil reserves may be found.

The WORLD PRICE of OIL is RIGHTFULLY SET at around $70/barrell right now, due to a skyrocketing world demand.

It WOULD BE EGREGIOUSLY WRONG for Exxon-Mobil, Chevron-Texaco or BP-Amocco to sell oil for less than the market price.

At least you have the sense to remain anonymous when you post such inanities. I can't imagine anyone with any sense putting their name to such drivel.

We dodged the bullet that was AlGore in 2000, Clinton wasn't an option, mouse.

I dont know what bullet you think we dodged. All I know is that the country is at the edge of destruction, and the whole thing started with the election of Bush in 2000. I think instead of the "decider", he should be calling himself the "destructor".

What "edge" are YOU talking about?

The 1st Quarter projections for 2006 are in (http://www.bea.gov/bea/newsrelarchive/2006/gdp106a.pdf) and they have us at a 4.8% increase in GDP (MONSTER), the Dow is nearing 12,000 (a record high) and without the anchor that is Oxley-Sarbannes, we'd be looking at almost 15,000 for the Dow. Unemployment is under 5%, with welfare rolls across the country at near record lows (NYC's welfare rolls stand at 402,000, the lowest since 1964), inflation is about 2.8% and interest rates are around 6%.

No STAGFLATION here.

If it's not the economy you're talking about, then WHAT?!

The war with global Islamo-nazism?

That didn't start after 2000.

Wars don't begin the date WE GET INVOLVED, they begin when our enemies attack us.

Globalized Islamo-nazism and the rogue states that have harbored, supported and sponsored it (Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Syria, etc) have been at war with America and the West since 1991. Dozens of U.S. targets were hit by the Islamo-nazis during the 1990s.

We were already at war. It's just that the naive and the sleepy among us just didn't realize it back then.

Twenty more years of hard fighting, if we're fortunate BW, OK, maybe twenty-five more at the most and this threat will be behind us.

If we'd had AlGore at the helm during the Clinton recession of 2000-2001 (the NASDAQ imploded in the Spring of 2000), we'd have had no tax cuts, thus no recovery, only a deepening as the Dow followed the NASDAQ down, as the Summer of 2001 scandals (Enron, Arthur Anderson, etc) broke and then deepened even further by 9/11/01.

With Gore we WOULD most likely be facing STAGFLATION now - skyrocketing interest rates and unemployment due to the lack of capital infusion for jobs creation, creeping inflation and sky high taxes.

We'd most likely be looking at 1978 redux right about now.

And on top of that, it's extremely doubtful that a Gore administration would've done anything more than talk (negotiate) with the enemy after 9/11/01.

In other words, they'd still be at war with us, while we'd still be trying to ignore them, hoping they just go away.

No, we SHOULD'VE engaged this war ten years ago...Bush at least did what was necessary, Gore would've been a disaster.

Bush at least did what was necessary

Yes, he did what was necessary to destroy Iraq, destroy our relationships with our European allies, destroy the infrastructure of the country on how to deal with disasters, and destroy medical research. He also did what was necessary to create the largest deficit in the history of the country and destroy the economy. He has left nothing standing. He has done a great job in his role as the "destractor".

The war against Islamo-nazism and their rogue nation supporters (Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Iran, etc) was a HOT WAR long before 2000, BW!

We were already bombing Iraq back in 1998, when John Kerry complained that the Clinton bombing campaign was "not nearly enough" and sought to table plans for a full invasion back then.

This war was declared on us back in 1991...we just didn't fully engage it until after 9/11/01.

"Destroyed our relations with the Europeans?!"

Where'd you get that?

In Germany, Schroeder is already GONE.

In France, Chirac's on the way out.

Even Canada's elected a Conservative in the wake of radical Islam's "war on the West." And a Conservative (John Howard) won re-election.

Europe is bracing for the inevitable - a mass deportation of Arabs and Muslims...I can't wait.

The appeasers, the Chirac's and the Schroeder's are being swept aside by the Nationalists who want to preserve European and Western integrity, with the slogan, "We don't need no steeenkin' Muslims!"

With the Dow pressing 12,000, inflation low (2.8%), interest rates low and unemployment miniscule (below 5%!) WITH welfare rolls across the country at near record lows (NYC's welfare rolls is at just over 400,000, the lowest in over forty years!)...could you even imagine a better economy?

What happened to all those folks wistfully wishing for and predicting a disastrous economy under Bush? Where'd they all go?

We're at war, BW and we'll just have to all buck up for it (those deficits). There's still a couple decades worth of fighting to be done...unless (A) you really believe that America's going to turn to the appeasers/negotiators in 2008 or (B) that another administration even COULD stop a war the enemy has no intention of quitting on.

No, we're in this one for the real long haul, BW.

MORE BAD NEWSS on the AAR front:

"After someone with access to early Winter 2006 Arbitron radio ratings results leaked them to Matt Drudge, Air America Radio can't possibly be happy. **Update below: Drudge understated losses**

While basic, overall audience figures will be released at 5pm today, Matt was slipped a copy of specific breakdowns this morning, bringing bad news for Franken & Co. For setting advertising rates, these quarterly numbers are especially important.

Normally, much of this information isn't disclosed to the public.

Almost immediately after the Drudge flash was posted, the Radio Equalizer's in-box was stuffed with readers wondering if we had the rest of the story.

For WLIB-AM, Air America's temporary New York City home, Drudge reports this:

the just released radio Winter Book [Jan-Mar 2006] from ARBITRON shows AIR AMERICA in New York City losing more than a third of its audience -- in the past year!

Among all listeners 12+, it was a race to the bottom for AIR AMERICA and WLIB as mid-days went from a 1.6 share during winter 2005 to a 1.0 share winter 2006.

During PM drive, host Randi Rhodes plunged to 27,900 listeners every quarter hour, finishing 25th place in her time slot, down from 60,900 listeners every quarter hour in the fall.

A network source says the radio ratings released today do not reflect the overall growth of the broadcast.

"The demos are better, and listerners trust AIR AMERICA to give them the real truth on issues and the Bush presidency," says the insider.

Just who is the crazy "insider" who won't put a name to these outlandish claims?

Later, another leaker posted this on the New York City radio board, where broadcast professionals chat about the business:

The numbers I am hearing for Air America are worse than that.

The figure I have for 12+ is that they dropped to a 0.8, from a 1.4 in the last book.

They lost almost half their audience in every daypart.

The 25-54 numbers are just as bad, with huge drops around the clock.

As far as Rhodes, here are the 25-54 numbers for afternoon drive:

WABC - Hannity -- 2.6

WLIB - Rhodes -- 1.0

WOR -Hennican/White -- 0.7

What Drudge didn't mention: Air America's temporary lease extension for WLIB-AM runs only through August, while options for a new Big Apple home range from bleak to hopeless.

Still being considered: Microsoft billionaire Paul Allen's failed Sporting News Radio outlet, with a signal far weaker than WLIB's.

Please return for a great deal more on this still-developing story.

Update: Confirmed -- WLIB falls to an overall 0.8 from 1.4. This is ugly.

Slight gains for Air America in Los Angeles, but still just a 1.0 share. Flat in Chicago with a miniscule 0.7. These are tiny, tiny numbers for a network that's now had plenty of time to catch on.

Small piece of good news for Air America: the 1.0 Los Angeles finish slightly cuts the amount it has to pay Clear Channel to have its programming carried on KTLK.

New York radio poster takes on the pro-AAR spin here. Plus more at BoreAmerica.

Some bloggers such as Viking Pundit and others are wondering why Drudge actually understated Air America's New York City losses."

http://radioequalizer.blogspot.com/2006/04/air-america-radio-wlib-randi-rhodes-al.html

On a POSITIVE note AAR beat out WOR's Hennican & White, the two Liberal hosts who replaced the aging Bob Grant!

Oh wait a minute, that only proves that Liberals can't even get ratings when they're actually on REAL radio stations.

OUCH!