Air America Radio has NOT failed.
Submitted by kevin22262 on October 14, 2006 - 4:26pm.
AAR | air america | democratic | progressive | talk radio | Democratic politics | Soapbox
I decided to take my comment to Mitch and make it into a blog entry.
Tell me one buisness, especially in a new field (this is a new way of pushing progressive radio) that has not struggled in the first few years.
We do not have the luxury of waiting for individual stations and owners to pick up the few syndicated progressive shows. Most of the owners are righties and we needed to make a big splash and a big push. This is what they did.
Yes.. they could have had better planning and more money.
There are many buisnesses out there now that are working through bankruptcies and are not failing. Before we had the bankruptcy laws changed on us, individuals could use this tool to get back on their feet when they had problems, this did not make them failures.
Air America Radio may become more of a syndicator but they will survive.
The fact is that Progressive Talk has NOT failed and that even the individual shows like Ed Schultz has AAR to thank for the spread of their shows. If it was not for AAR we would not be hearing Ed, Thom Hartmann and many others right now.
Support AAR and push advertisers to support AAR and push the money people of the left to support AAR.
Here is the link to my original post that kevin22262 is responding to:
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/8996
DOCUMENTATION & ANALYSIS: Air America Radio Files Chapter 11 Bankruptcy
My response is that Ed Shultz is very good and he has a lot of well thought out things to say in my opinion!
Randi Rhodes is filled with hate and mentions many conspiracy theories that she cannot tangibly prove. I would also go on to say that she is hurting Democrats more than she is helping them as far as winning elections in red states and swing states are concerned!
If average red state, swing state, moderate, and independent voters heard things like this from Randi Rhodes, who do you think they would they more likely vote for in an election (even assuming that she is right about the actual facts about what she is saying)?
I would say without any hesitation that most red state, swing state, moderate, and independent voters would vote for an imperfect Republican who they would at least consider to be in the mainstream and who they would perceive as being the lesser of two evils compared to a Democrat who is running to the extreme left, who is identified with Randi Rhodes, and who they would perceive as being completely out of the mainstream:
http://www.therandirhodesshow.com/live/
"It’s Friday, ya bastards!
The Republican Party owes every US solider an apology..."
http://www.therandirhodesshow.com/live/node/3359
"I'd be in shock if I was still capable of that reaction after five and a half years of lies, distortions, disingenuousness, and judgment so bad it makes Hitler's invasion of Russia look like a damn good idea."
Democratic Candidates who are identified with people like Rhodes are more likely to lose elections and not win them because elections are won and lost in the center. Being associated with this kind of behavior from Rhodes is how a candidate will lose the vast majority of important center voters that they need to win!
Rhodes is also doing as much damage to civil discourse and efforts to unite the country as Rush Limbaugh is doing on the other side. Two extremes do not equal one right, they only help to make the problem of division in the country even worse!
Restoring civil discourse and uniting the country have always been and continue to be top priorities of Gen. Clark!
AAR has also on purpose advertised themselves as being "lewd and crewd" and "irreverent." That, along with Al Franken's and Randi Rhodes' foul language, is way out of the mainstream of nearly ALL red state, swing state, moderate, and independent voters!
All Democrats running in red and in swing states would have to run as far away from Rhodes and Franken as possible if they wanted to have any chance of winning their races. Could anyone ever picture someone like Harold Ford in TN (a red state) or Jim Webb in VA (a swing to light red state) being identified with AAR and at the same time have any serious chances of winning statewide? I would say NO!
No serious candidate for President in 2008 could ever win a national election if they were ever identified as being associated with the Rhodes and Franken wing of AAR because they would be perceived as being far out of the mainstream which would cost them huge amounts of center voters!
Elections are mainly won and lost in the center and any Democratic candidate who is associated with the Franken and Rhodes wing of AAR would lose those center voters very quickly!
I would even go on to say that anyone on this board ever publicly used the same kind of foul language that Franken and Rhodes use on a regular basis and kept on making claims about Republicans that they could not tangibly prove as being true would not be perceived as being credible by most people here and they would probably at some point in time be banned for profanity if they did not stop using foul language on a regular basis here in public (which is exactly what Franken and Rhodes do)!
If that would be the probable case here on this board, then how would the Franken and Rhodes wing of AAR ever be able to seriously compete with Rush Limbaugh or ever hope to win over red state, swing state, moderate, and independent voters?
The answer in my opinion is that they would NOT and that is a main reason why AAR did fail!
If AAR ever does come back, then they will have to go in the Ed Shultz direction and NOT in the Franken and Rhodes direction if they are ever going to have a chance of being a serious competitor with Rush Limbaugh and help Democratic candidates running in red states and in swing states win elections!
AAR HAS FAILED because it never was a serious competitor with extreme right wing talk radio to begin with. All the Franken and Rhodes wing of AAR has done so far is help some people vent their anger but they have done nothing that I can see to help any serious candidates actually win races in red states or in swing states!
I hope that the Ed Shultz wing of AAR will continue on and get stronger because that is a voice of common sense and reason that can appeal to many red and swing state voters!
Keith Olbermann of MSNBC is the best host/commentator that there is out there now in my opinion because he is both credible and entertaining at the same time!
I fact check him just like I do anyone else and he passes the credibility test as far as I am concerned. I wish that there were many more Keith Olbermanns out there now who I think could effectively combat Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, and company if they had enough media power to do it!
I have made some serious suggestions that Democratic leaders might be able to do to effectively fight back against Rush Limbaugh and extreme right wing talk radio:
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/8558#comment-135188
I gladly welcome any comments and feedback and I am always open to any FACTS that might prove me wrong about anything that I have said!
I don't personally believe that red state, swing state, independent or moderate voters (or even liberals for that matter) would be influenced to vote one way or another by anything that Randi Rhodes has to say.
...fascist is, as fascist does, mr. preznit
I get a chance to listen to Franken occasionally...and have never heard him use foul language. The few times I have heard Randi...she is a bit over the top - very passionate - but again, I have not heard foul language. Wouldn't they risk being fined by the FCC?
Impeach Cheney First!
I can't take Randi for long, Franken seems to be weak on facts, but I don't feel they lie either.
I believe Randi's screaming works for some people who feel her outrage. I just can't take her for too long.
I'm sorry they are in trouble and I hope they can work this out. They are a voice for the left.
I miss Mike Malloy. I listened to him more than the others.
They are both STRONG on facts. They both have people on board just to do research and fact check.
What I do hear at times is they do a mix up on facts when they are in a rant.
We all do this.
use swear words - on Friday she says - it is Friday you bastards... does that count?? Franken doesn't swear but he uses bathroom humor once in awhile in his voice characters... he does the character of an old woman who is explicit about sex kind of modern version of vaudville....
Al Franken is so conservative DLC I find him kinda boring
and Randi I know so well having listened to her.... she comes on late in afternoon where I am all the Stephanie Miller and Thom Hartmann rants have me worn out so my adrenal system has had it by Randi time... you can't find anybody except Thom and Randi who do such careful homework and really really fact check everything 2x before they say it......
the bankruptcy I believe is because of one of their early investors who was apparently business or ethically challenged and they have to untangle from that ... but I am under the impression that they are on sound footing otherwise... but this comes from old info ... I haven't been tuning into AAR in awhile since Jeanenne (sp? ) left the Sam Sedar show
I don't know where all this AAR complaints started I am not going to search the threads but if you want raunchy why don't you all research AARNOLD.... the only reason you don't hear new stuff these days is because they have layers of PR keeping his gropinator and worse stuff secret.... he has a closet full of laundry
"The election will rest on whether Democrats can tie local Republicans into the failures and incompetence of the White House and Congressional Leadership." Wes Clark Oct 11 2006
AAR is great. Thom Hartmann is fabulous. Sam Seder is actually very good. There is such a varity of shows that there is bound to be at least one for anyones taste... except neo-cons and mitch.
AAR in Seattle ... remember they are local stations.. does not bill itself as "lewd and crewd" and "irreverent."
If you want some foul language then here is some... Your fucking analysis of the shitty problem they have themselves is slanted to the right. It can be fixed.
You are making things up while saying you "fact check".
AAR in Dallas, TX (which used to be on 910 AM before it went off the air) always advertised itself as being lewd, crewd, and irreverent.
Here is where Al Franken openly uses the words "fearlessly irreverent:"
http://www.airamerica.com/alfrankenshow/about
About The Al Franken Show
Weekdays 12:00-3:00pm
"On Air America Radio, Franken delivers three hours a day of fearlessly irreverent commentary, comedy, and interviews."
Have you also seen all of the foul language that Al Franken uses in the books that he writes?
As for your language, that speaks for itself and does not dignify a response from me!
The bottom line is that "fearlessly irreverent commentary, comedy, and interviews" will NOT help Democratic candidates to win races in red and in swing states and is a liability to Democratic candidates if their GOP opponents can clearly connect them to being associated with that kind of stuff!
You do not help the Democratic party.
Just because your local AAR station bills themselves as what you say does not mean all do. Plus... you are in dallas, TEXAS.
By the way, did they go off the air because the were bought by a neo-con christian group? This has been happening across the country. They are doing this to keep stations away from progressive radio.
of the "foul" language used by Al Franken; Randi gets a "bastards" in there now and then. The truly obscene language comes from the lying lips of Limbaugh, OLielly, Hannity, and so on.
Why?
They have other jobs.
But you also prove a point... we are not all the same. Yes some red staters may like Ed because he is less offensive to there red ways but others of us need a little fire! I personally like Thom Hartmann the best and Al. Al has gotten a little dry without Kathrine (sp?).
I personally heard Randi Rhodes say on the air that she told Dennis Prager to go f*** himself after being a guest with him on CNN Larry King Live.
The transcript of that program that they were on is right here (Ed Schutz was also on this show and he did a GREAT job in my opinion):
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0605/12/lkl.01.html
CNN LARRY KING LIVE
Panel Discusses Week's Top Stories
Aired May 12, 2006 - 21:00 ET
Heading north on the highway today, my dial surfing landed on a right-wing talk show hosted by a female (I didn't catch name, but it might have been Laura Ingram.) MrZ wanted to change the station but I wanted to hear what the republicans were talking about.
It turned out to be a steady rant of anti-Clinton, anti-Burger, and poor but brave bush. I was struck by how much it sounded like the opposite side of the coin. Except for this: rather than discuss the specifics of North Korea or the war, the discussion focused on the destruction of various personalities.
I only listened to ten minutes, but I didn't hear foul language if I don't count the references to men's pants.
There is no AAR available in my area, but I have listened to Franken and Randi. It is of course against FCC rules to use foul language and they don't. Franken is basically a DLC Democrat who initially supported the war. He continues to support our troops with his many voluntary trips to perform at bases whenever he can. Randi is an AirForce veteran, and while she does interrupt too much, she often snags some great interviews with prominent Democrats. When she has been confronted with controversial subjects that are not backed by data, she says so.
It is my understanding that AAR had a poor business model. Maybe they had no choice since most radio today is owned by the right-wing making syndication difficult.
Note: Rush Limbaugh is a liar and has been a pharma-head, but Dick Cheney et al don't hesitate to go on his show. Savage is a nut-job hate monger who is poisoning the American psyche.
You have not converted a man because you have silenced him.--J. V. Marley
I might have passed this discussion by until I read your response, and as I said, I had recently listened to right-wing radio. The common denominator is that both sides tend toward selective information. Nevertheless, I often do an internal check to see if I'm guilty of the same limited vision that drives the right. What I've concluded after looking at the present state of world is "no." Attacks on Clinton were based on some imagined threat and driven by an attempt for personal destruction. In our world, the threat is real.
I understand that the right-wing will vilify anyone who dares to disagree with them. What I don't understand is why the right feels no compunction to move away from their craziest mouthpieces like Coulter, O'Reilly or Rush. In comparison whenever the right voices criticism about someone like Michael Moore, the Democrats run for cover. MM is a film maker who does extensive fact-checking. Not liking the facts he chooses doesn't make him wrong or a monster. The AAR team is for the most part "mild" mixed with snark. Thus, the republicans promote and increase their media voice while we disparage ours. Stupid. Stupid. Stupid.
BTW, I did catch a bit of AAR while I drove. The Young Turks were interviewing Lieberman's campaign manager. He was treated with respect, allowed to make Lieberman's case, and the Young Turks asked important questions.
You have not converted a man because you have silenced him.--J. V. Marley
We can not let Mitch and others get away with crap like this. I am not sure if he is really a Dem or just a "concern troll".
Whatever he is I totally disagree with how he goes about things. Seems like he thinks if he writes long blog post and comments that people will think he is all fact based. Seems like all he did was to spread the neo-con repulican talking points.
The Public record kind that people can't dispute...
You said:
"No serious candidate for President in 2008 could ever win a national election if they were ever identified as being associated with the Rhodes and Franken wing of AAR because they would be perceived as being far out of the mainstream which would cost them huge amounts of center voters"
And yet...:
Sept 11th, Wes Clark guests on the Al Franken Show http://securingamerica.com/node/1450
April 5th, Al Franken guest is John Kerry
Oct 2nd, a rebroadcast of John Edwards on Air America with Gore Vidal "Politically Direct"
Senator Hillary Clinton on Air America - Politically Direct
August 11, Al Gore appears on Air America and was a previous phoned in guest on Al Franken show
April 3rd, Al Franken Guest : Gov Bill Richardson
April 19, Gov Mark Warner on the Al Franken Show
_____________________________________________________
Then you said:
"Could anyone ever picture someone like Jim Webb in VA (a swing to light red state) being identified with AAR and at the same time have any serious chances of winning statewide?"
And yet...:
April 11, 2006
Jim Webb Appears on Air America Radio
Introduced on Fighting Dems Segment by Markos Moulitsas
Jim Webb appeared on the Fighting Dems segment of The Majority Report on Air America Radio. You can listen to the segment here.
http://www.webbforsenate.com/press/primary_index.php
__________________________________________________________
More facts-- Here are some more of those "out of the mainstream", extreme left, losers associated with Air America:
Al Franken Guests during a recent one month period
Christopher Dodd
Rahm Emanuel
Pat Buchanan
Norm Ornstein
Paul Reickhoff
Paul Krugman
Walter Mondale
Nancy Pelosi
Ned Lamont
John Dean
Rabbi Michael Lerner
Rep George Miller
Richard Perle
Christine Gregoire
Ted Kennedy
Bill Richardson
Barbara Boxer
And some of Randi Rhodes' recent guests include:
Rand Beers, former American counterterrorism adviser who served on the National Security Council under Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush.
Senator Byron Dorgan
CIA Veteran Larry Johnson
John Dean - Nixon White House Counsel
CC Goldwater (Barry's granddaughter)
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid
US Air Force Colonel and Exec Director of VetPac Richard L. Klaas
That's some impressive list that would not exist without AAR. I'm sure Rush wouldn't give those folks any airtime.
You have not converted a man because you have silenced him.--J. V. Marley
I mean what excatly did we set out to do when we started AAR? We wanted to get the Dems back in office, we wanted to compete with Rush Limbaugh and have a voice of reason that could stand up the RRR attack machine. In those goals aside from Ed Shultz of course AAR failed to live up to our expectations, it floundered badly.
Are Franken and Rhodes so far left that the would turn most people off. Maybe, maybe not, but the fact remains they just never created the enthusiasm that we needed or expected.
In the TV market Keith Olbermann has been huge and his following is growing, AAR never acheived that. Why? Well it's no doubt that Keith Olbermann is very rare and exceptional.
Keith has the perfect blend of serious hard news, silly light moments like oddball to keep you from becoming too depressed about the state of the world, and shrap, witty and intelligent commentary just right.
For some reason Franken was never able to strike that balance, and Al Franken is for better or worse the public face of AAR.
Franken is a comedian, a fine comedian, but he is still a comedian. Can you imagine Dave Letterman being treated like Dan Rather. We never beat Rush because Democrats don't want nor need radio personalities. We don't tune into radio to get mad, we go online and blog our frustrations at Daily Kos.
Is the idea of competing with Rush for control of the airwaves dead? Of course not, but we can either accept that our strategy to knock Rush and RRR off the top isn't working. Or we can develope our own version of Bush's Iraq war syndrome, a total divorce from reality.
There a reason Keith Olbermann did so well and AAR is struggling and it would be wise to find out exactly what it is, and exploit it. And honestly I think half of why Keith Olbermann did so well is... Keith Olbermann.
If only we could clone him...
Keith and Al are much a like. Do you really think the entertainment and comedy sections in Countdown look good to some who want "serious"?
Al is respected amongst the dems. He uses comedy to keep it from being dry.
AAR was brought about to give a different voice for people. Up until then you had all right wing all the time.
Do you really listen to AAR?
You say we never beat rush? He does get beat in certain markets but over all.. no.. not yet. I seriously believe that he, hannity and coulter should be in jail for some of the things they have said and done.
AAR has never acheived a huge following? Keith has?
Keith's following is recent and a big part of the help has been YouTube. You only need to tune into one cable station to help his ratings. His ratings are still low when compared to others but yes they have gone WAY up and I am glad.
What would happen to his ratings if he was canceled from ONE cable station... the one he is on.. his ratings would go to ZERO.
AAR has had to deal with neo-cons owning most of the media.. radio.. in this country, right wing religious groups buying up stations to keep progressive radio off the air and yes some bad management.
People are tuning in. Plus all talk radio has peaks and valleys in listeners that follow election cycles.
Mitch says; "Randi Rhodes is filled with hate and mentions many conspiracy theories that she cannot tangibly prove"
While we're waiting for Randi to prove her "conspiracy theories"...whatever they may be... would you mind tangibly proving some of your theories, such as:
"Democratic Candidates who are identified with people like Rhodes are more likely to lose elections and not win them because elections are won and lost in the center. Being associated with this kind of behavior from Rhodes is how a candidate will lose the vast majority of important center voters that they need to win!
Rhodes is also doing as much damage to civil discourse and efforts to unite the country as Rush Limbaugh is doing on the other side. Two extremes do not equal one right, they only help to make the problem of division in the country even worse!"
Do you have the stats handy on those "facts"? Or are they conspiracy theories?
We now live in a nearly factless world. Not that there aren't any facts, but that the PROOF everyone is screeching for from the sidelines to define them as facts gets smeared, "debunked" and discredited right before it slips off the tongue.
"Your expert is partisan. Your expert is funded by Soros, or Viguerie, or Ailes", or whichever party demon one digs up in a quick Google association. "Your expert is bunk".
Therefore- ergo...no credibility there. "Your facts are false, your theories are not proven". Rabid extreme polarization has led us down a shaky path where no one is willing to afford anyone else an iota of credibility who's not cheering for their team. In reality-- what DOES constitute an unimpeachable, unbiased source these days? You say Keith Olbermann. Do you have any idea how laughed off of any right wing site you would be quoting him? Even a centrist right site, if there is such a thing. I love and cherish Keith, but little does it matter that we find him a good source. Many on the imaginary other aisle side see no difference between Keith and Randi and Michael Moore and Cindy Sheehan. They are all equally wild eyed moonbats to a Malkin. They rank right up in the insurgency scale with University Professors (gasp!) to a Horowitz. They form the front lines in the Culture Wars to an O'Reilly.
It's hard today to find ONE single outlet-- any media source-- that this schizophrenic bush-divided country today could ever agree upon as a decent unbiased news source. NOT ONE.
That is the saddest commentary of all. Remember when "60 Minutes" or the New York Times was respected? They've been constructed to be the source of open ridicule and mocking now. The BBC is called anti-semetic. AP and Reuters are scoffed at from the right.
As for AAR. Bankruptcy today in corps- no big deal. They can go on like the airlines. They forgot to add a loophole in the bankruptcy bill that would make exceptions for Dem companies...
As for Randi and Al and the gang... We need their voices desperately if we want to maintain the democratic part of democracy.
One day we may just wake up to no Randi Rhodes, and no Keith Olbermann. It's not that far out of the realm of reality.
They could end up in the same bonfire as the Dixie Chicks CDs.
Calling BillORights man!
I miss the 20th Century.
In 1945, the Supreme Court declared that
“the widest possible dissemination of information from diverse and antagonistic sources is essential to the welfare of the public.--- a free press is a condition of a free society.”
There are many different types of dems. I know people that LOVE Mike Malloy and others that can not stand him. I am closer to the last part. Randi backs up everything she says. You can find all of her info on her website with docs and links to back it up. Sometimes she goes off but so do we all. My fav right now is Thom Hartmann but others find him dry.
Different strokes for different folks.
By the way, do you really listen to Randi's show? She gets politicians, red staters, military, etc. who call and agree or disagree with part. We need the rable rousers like Randi to wake people up. We need people like Thom to educate people. We need people like Al to educate and entertain. We need all aspects not just dry politics all the time, that gets boring and turns people off. We need to sustain this even when we are in power without going down the road of limpball and that crowd by being mean and lieing ALL THE TIME!
I have read you before and many times you say good things but sometimes, like with this, you sound more like a "concern troll".
I suggest you check how many top name politicians have been on Randi's show.
We need them all not just the ones you may like or just the ones I may like.
Why in the hell do you keep saying AAR has failed? Turn on your RADIO... OK? AAR is STILL there! Can you hear?
Randi and Al get good ratings and BEAT rush and that crowd in various markets.
By the way, I know people who don't like Ed Schultz because they think he is boring or that he does not "do" enough. He takes calls and lets people talk. That is his main strength. He does not speak for all people "left of the dial" because he is more of a moderate leftie.
Maybe that is who you are but we are NOT all like you.
Wake up.. the media is controlled by the neo-cons and it is a fight to just get as far as we have gotten.
it was announced this morning on Fox... that should be combined 90 IQs
"The election will rest on whether Democrats can tie local Republicans into the failures and incompetence of the White House and Congressional Leadership." Wes Clark Oct 11 2006
http://www.therandirhodesshow.com/live/node/4356
It’s Friday, ya bastards!
"Renowned psychoanalyst Dr. Justin Frank offers some insight on our Torturer in Chief."
Things like this will help GOP candidates drive MANY disillusioned Republican, moderate, and independent voters to the polls to vote against any Democratic candidates who are clearly associated with this!
Different Democrats can go on AAR for occasional interviews which is one thing. It is another thing for a Democratic candidate to be openly associated with this and think that AAR will actually help them to win races in red/swing states and dictricts!
Could anyone honestly picture Gen. Clark ever publicly saying things like "It’s Friday, ya bastards!" or calling Bush "our Torturer in Chief?"
The answer to that question is a very definite "NO!"
That kind of stuff may help some people to vent their anger but it will NOT help to win elections for Democrats in red/swing states and districts. It will cost Democratic candidates their credibility to many people if they are openly connected with this!
The bottom line is that Democrats MUST be able to WIN ELECTIONS in order to take back power. Democrats taking back power in at least one branch of Congress is the ONLY WAY how to actually change the things going on that are wrong in this government that we are ALL so upset and angry about!
So you don't like Randi Rhodes. Fair enough. But to say anyone openly associated with her could never be elected in red/swing states is as "over the top" as she is.
I know of Democrats who voted for George W Bush in 2000. I bet those people didn't see themselves as voting for someone that Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter championed.
Voters don't lodge their votes as a slap in the face to media personalities they hate.
The media no doubt influences elections and plays a role in turning people off certain candidates -- but your analysis of how and why it happens is way too simplistic.
Air America Radio is a great rallying point for Dems and I hope it survives whatever financial problems it's having. I'm not a huge fan of Franken as a radio personality but he's hardly a threat to the viability of Dems in elections.
As for Randi, people having a strong dislike of her goes with the territory. She's a polariser as are most big talk radio stars.
Personally, I think she's a dynamic radio talent and used to listen to her regularly until I got onto an internet connection contract that limits my bandwidth usage per month. I regard her as one of the best and most unique broadcasters I've ever heard and I've had a long professional association with radio.
She isn't going to lose any election for the Dems either.
A few out-of-context quotes from Franken or Rhodes are the least of the Dems media worries.
You'd be taking them to the Better Business Bureau if you bought a washing machine the way we went into the war in Iraq. Wes Clark, CNN Aug 17 2003
don't lose the forest for the trees .... just cuz you don't like the left ranting.... on radio.... I am streaming now..... it is the 'juice'
11.7.2006 Deliver us from evil for Thou are the power and glory forever.
I think you are a republican because what Randi said is in no way bad. Only if you are a hard rightie would this seem bad.
What is this big thing you have about appealing to red staters? Yes we need to draw "reagan dems" back to the fold and we need to draw independants back to the fold but we and they are NOT all the same!
Some of the more red and independant ones like Ed and Al but we need to feed the base and the base is NOT all of you!
Is gdub not our "torturer in chief"? Think of what the rightie neo-cons on radio call Clinton.. both of them... or Pelosi, Reid, etc.
Wake up mitch!
I think their future may be on satellite radio. It seems that just when they get a radio station working, the station is sold to some Christian broadcasting network (the same thing seems to happen with Ed Schultz). Frankly, I can never get their signal in NJ, so satellite radio or the internet are the only ways I can listen to them.
On the other hand I think they need some radio people to run the station. They had a great morning show "Morning Sedition" with Mike Maron, they never promoted the show, and they cancelled it. The Young Turks is a great radio show also, and hopefully they can keep them.