Air America's problem is that they are trying to inform and entertain an audience that doesn't exist except in their imaginaitons. I listen to WLW radio (The Big One) in Cincinnati. Darryl Parks, the program director, hosts a Saturday show. He has mentioned several times AA's problems.

Last Saturday he told of how Ed Schultz on Air America bad mouthed him (Darryl) for an hour one day. The only re-action Darryl received was a co-worker calling to tell him that Ed was bad mouthing him. If Ed had any listeners you would expect Darryl to get some hate mail or something, but he got nothing.

As for Al Franken, he used to be a decent comedian. I tried to listen to him one day and he was horrible.

Posted by DADvocate at October 13, 2006 11:32 AM

A few months back the news said they were repaying the money borrowed from that charity in NY. It was supposedly in escrow. I hope it got repaid in time.

Some people at that charity have apparently copped a plea to avoid any jail time.

Rathergate.com had a little news about it. But another intriguing story seems to not interest the national news media.

Posted by K at October 13, 2006 12:34 PM

Courious that you would mention "bankrupting America" and assign that canard to the Democrats. What's happening now, with the Repubs running the shop?

Posted by James S Melbert at October 13, 2006 04:04 PM

Did I forget to mention that when Clinton (Boo, Hiss) was in charge, there was actually a plan to pay down the national debt? From riches to rags, that's the republican way.

Posted by James S Melbert at October 13, 2006 04:18 PM

James, please give me a list of all the exhorbitant spending bills that the Democrats opposed. There is a greater list of those that they encouraged. Nevertheless, the Republican Party today is not the party of conservatives. They're acting like old Democrats. One of the biggest problems with our national deficit is that the Democrats adopted huge spending programs in the past that will never go away and that just increase.

Regarding Bill Clinton, he's always talking about plans he drew up--whether it has to do with terrorism, the deficit, energy, or what have you. Why didn't he implement these wonderful plans rather than criticize the next administration for trying to handle things that he didn't plan on handling himself?

However, I do remember his taking the "peace dividend" courtesy of President Reagan and gutting military spending in favor of entitlements (whoever came up with that word for free money?). In addition, Clinton pushed through a major tax increase including taxing social security benefits that previously were not taxed. If more taxes is within his plan (and you know that they are), then "no thanks."

To tie this into Air America, I wouldn't be surprised if the Democrats, if they got into power, would try to roll it into NPR--not that there's a lot of difference.

Posted by Woody at October 13, 2006 05:32 PM

Air America: never heard it, won't miss it...

Posted by civil truth at October 13, 2006 06:07 PM

Woodster - just have a moment to type an idle thought...the phrase `gutting the military' tends to be a catchphrase that tends to be taken out of context. Consider what we're spending this year (next year?) alone...what, 495 billion or so? And that's before Iraq. Ever stop to think what that works out per taxpayer (the question is rhetorical, considering your avocation :) )? I figure something like $2500 per.

Well, supporting 850 military bases in som 160 countries worldwide does have its cost.

Hard, though, not to think what else we could do with the money.

On a related note, I really think you might appreciate the documentary `Why We Fight'. It's terrific, and might give some insight why I view Dwight Eisenhower as one of the truly brave and prescient presidents.

Oh, and hello to Civil Truth...nice to see you still posting here.

As to Air America...ho hum. They never did have the talent and focus to give us what we need, a true alternate voice.

Posted by jim hitchcock at October 13, 2006 06:21 PM

Just saw Woody's last post...little difference between NPR and A.A??? Are you kidding me?Pretty obvious you never listen to NPR.

Oh well, there's still hope for your son...:)

Posted by jim hitchcock at October 13, 2006 06:23 PM

Jim, on gutting the military, that reference pertains to Democratic presidents vetoing or opposing the building of more ships or planes and not providing enough to maintain existing ones. The Republicans often have come into office having to build back what the Democrats let deteriorate--and it takes a while to build up again, which is a slight inconvenience if you have to go to war.

On NPR, I sometimes listen to it in the morning when I take my son to school and he wants to be a smart alec by turning to that station, which is not a pre-set button. He laughs at my continual comments ridiculing and correcting the liberal commentary, which doesn't take much effort.

Posted by Woody at October 13, 2006 09:31 PM

Nice try James. The deficit as a percentage of GDP is actually on the low side. As to Clinton's "plan," that is simply untrue. There was no advance prediction of the surplus, which showed up on the basis of the tech bubble. Clinton said he had a plan for everything, but nothing got done. At the moment, deficits keep showing up smaller than expected.

Now, as to failure to rein in spending, you are quite right about the Republicans. It's only in comparison to Democrats that they look any good. Against any principled standard they look terrible.

Jim, the projection of what else we could do with the money other than spend it on the military is an illusion. If we didn't have a military, we wouldn't have a country with an economy. If we wanted to choose to be a poor nation, then perhaps no one would be much interested in us, and we wouldn't need to defend ourselves. You might as well say "Just think what we could do with all that money we spend on the police."

As to NPR, "Marketplace" isn't so bad.

Posted by Assistant Village Idiot at October 13, 2006 10:03 PM

Franken's new mockumentary tanks at the box office, too.
("What mockumentary?" you ask?.... Eggzactly.)

Posted by Jeremayakovka at October 13, 2006 11:37 PM

Interestingly, many who defend Air America never even listen to it for the same reason conservatives don't or they just never heard any of the programs, but because they were liberal, they assumed Air America was advancing their cause. Nothing could be farther from the truth. I had the opportunity to listen a couple times and they never discussed issues, they only denigrated others who were discussing issues. There was little or no substance.

Posted by Oyster at October 14, 2006 06:18 AM

Oyster, that's what I noticed. I listened to AA occasionally before they pulled the plug in my city, and the programs consisted of the most illogical, delusional accusations and attacks against President Bush.

Regarding liberal solutions, once at Marc Coopers, I challenged the liberal commenters to propose their solution to a problem for which they didn't like the way President Bush handled it. They didn't, so I kept asking. More silence by them and more follow-up by me. Finally, one said that he wouldn't answer me until I answered some stupid question that he posed--just a dodge. Lesson? Liberals talk loud and talk big, but they offer no real solutions.

There just aren't enough professors' lounges tuned in to build the audience of a radio network whose programs consist solely of that.

Posted by Woody at October 14, 2006 08:22 AM

Not discussing the issues is one thing I noticed about AA. The first time I listened to AA Rhandi Rhodes talked for her first 20 minutes about how Bush, Rove, and others would be happier if they had sex with her and enjoyed her large chest.

I never have heard her make any decent points about any issue. Plus, her voice is horrible. If the CIA forced prisoners to listen to it it would be considered torture.

Posted by DADvocate at October 14, 2006 08:39 AM

Say AVI, you allow as how "The deficit as a percentage of GDP is actually on the low side." My son always tries that on me. SO what happens when the GDP falls? Or will it never fall?
Next, you allow as how "As to Clinton's "plan," that is simply untrue. There was no advance prediction of the surplus, which showed up on the basis of the tech bubble. " This is also a favorite of my son. So if it was only a fiction, why did one of dubya's main plans was to distribute the "surplus" back to the taxpayer? Which he did, and all he repubs said AMEN!!

Posted by James S Melbert at October 15, 2006 11:07 AM

Woodrow, your statement "please give me a list of all the exhorbitant spending bills that the Democrats opposed." They opposed nearly all of those that were sponsored solely by republicans
That is typical of your brand of polarized politics. You have switched the subject of blame to the Democrats, and even you know that the congress was the lapdog of the republican party.

But you know what? I am some 84+ years of age. I suspect that another 5-6 years will do me in, so I am seriously considering switching to the republican party. I can spend my remaining years not giving a damn about people less rich than me. I will subscribe to the party line, "I have mine, screw you jack!"
Isn't that how it works? Pay for government? In your dreams Phil. Oh I know, lets starve the Government, that will reduce the size. Get rid of welfare, that is a total waste of my money, because I have never used food stamps.
Hey! sounds good. Where do I sign up?

Posted by James S Melbert at October 15, 2006 11:22 AM

"They opposed nearly all of those that were sponsored solely by republicans"

James, and that is NOT "your brand of polarized politics?"

Laughable. Now, I happen to agree with you that the current crop of repubs are spending like a bunch of drunken sailors and have taken them to task for it in a number of posts, but the basic point of a great economy engineered by tax cuts (which no single democratic politician says "no thanks, I'll pay higher taxes") is not being reported by the MSM. For example, in the NY Times noted the surge in the market with a sub heading of "poor are hardest hit" If a search of the clinton headlines of say 2000 (before the bubble burst) no mention of poor to be sure. Finally, read this post for more detail on how the rich were actually better off under clinton than under bush.... Engram-Backtalk

Your son is right and you can't stand it can you?

Posted by GM at October 15, 2006 01:52 PM

James, an exhorbitant spending bill to a Democrat is anything for the military and national defense.

Posted by Woody at October 15, 2006 05:04 PM