Is Harriet Miers still available?

Can you say, Sex Scandal? I knew you could.

I wonder if this has anything to do with the Brent Wilkes-Duke Cunningham thing?

Oh well, I'm sure the truth will come out soon enough -- Hooray for "leakers."

In the meantime -- "Another one bites the dust!"

Can you say "Oh my god there goes a drunken Kennedy"?

Could you republicans please go more than one day without an embarrassment? I am so backed up that I can not keep track.

-Bush, the anthem should be sung in English unless I am pandering to Hispanics, and than it’s OK.

-Cheney insults Russia.

-Laura Bush, I do not see anything wrong with singing the anthem in Spanish, unless my husband thinks otherwise, and than I am against it.

-Rummy, I am not in the intelligence business.

-Rummy, I never said that I knew where the WMD were, other than when I said that I did.

-Frist, here is $100, now shut-up and fill up your tank.

-Goss resigns under the cloud of the growing hooker scandal.

All this in just three days? A wealth of riches.

Porter Goss did what he came to do and now he's leaving. Simple story. The so-called "hooker scandal" is a complete concoction of the media.

And of course you ignore how the new generation of the Kennedy dynasty is making itself even more of a mockery right before your very eyes.

"Porter Goss did what he came to do and now he's leaving"

oh that is total BS. according to Bush today, he implemented a "5-year plan". how is quitting just over a year into a five year plan "doing what he came to do?" spin spin spin.. .

Barney, you forgot the firing of Mary McCarthy for leaking classified information she never had access to. State dept was all over the giant threat to national security created by Cynthia McKinney when she shoved a cop, so whats taking so long to file charges for TREASON??

The plan is in motion, it doesn't require Goss to be there to oversee it any more. This isn't that big of a deal. Really. You liberals see skeletons in the closet everywhere. Probably because you have so many in your own.

"Porter Goss did what he came to do and now he's leaving"

oh that is total BS. according to Bush today, he implemented a "5-year plan". how is quitting just over a year into a five year plan "doing what he came to do?" this was totally unexpected, even to the administration. spin spin spin.. .

Barney, you forgot the firing of Mary McCarthy for leaking classified information she never had access to. State dept was all over the giant threat to national security created by Cynthia McKinney when she shoved a cop, so whats taking so long to file charges for TREASON??

You nattering nabobs of negativism! This is not the Titantic this is the Hindenberg.

Poor ole Porter giving up his government job after such a short time. Why would someone give up a dang good job like this? Why now?

This is quickly descending thru comedy into real serious stuff. Why is he leaving?

-Joe

sorry for the double post!

"This is quickly descending thru comedy into real serious stuff. Why is he leaving?"

Bush snubbed him when he passed him over for National Intelligence Director. He stayed to make sure that what he needed done was done, and now he's leaving. He's an old man, it's time to get on with his life.

So, what is your favorite moment of the Goss era? Here is mine.

“The jobs I’m being asked to do, the five hats that I wear, are too much for this mortal,” …. “I’m a little amazed at the workload.” (Goss 3/05).

Now he will have more time for hookers.

I found a better one:

“Goss has also blocked a House Intelligence Committee investigation of the Valerie Plame affair, glibly remarking "Somebody sends me a blue dress and some DNA, I'll have an investigation."…”

Me thinks that someone in Justice has a blue dress with Goss’s DNA written all over it.

"Cheney insults Russia." - Barneyg2000

Russia is the single greatest threat to the United States. In my opinion, Cheney did not go far enough. Russia is the single greatest supporter of all of the major terrorist supporting states. Russia is very likely the most powerful country on earth. It is high time someone stood up to Russia, however before we can stand up to them we must recognize the threat. I'm not sure the Bush adminstration gets it. One of the things Cheney was expressing concern at was Russia's use of their vast energy supplies as blackmail to get others to bend to their wishes. I think he also pointed out what he percieves as Russia's backsliding on Democracy and he also tried to reassure the Russians they have nothing to fear from us. I hope by this willingness albiet feeble at this time to stand up to Russia indicates that the Bush administration finally recognizes the threat Russia poses. Unfortunately I'm not optimistic. I think the media is to busy bashing the President to notice the threat posed by Russia.

Now he will have more time for hookers.

So too will you, Baloney, once your reach puberty and your big sister tells you all about the birds and the bees.

Shoe, don't waste your time with these kids. The first four posts were made by morons who are too stupid to do the jobs that illegals come here to do. You have Ash-breath, Saliva, and Baloney, the Three Stooges of B4B. Sorry Moe, sorry Larry, sorry Curly, I insulted you.

You have Ash-breath, Saliva, and Baloney, three window-lickers who have nothing better to do than pollute a good blog. We've lost some good bloggers here because of them. Do as I do, and you'll feel better.

Wow, I've insulted the Three Stooges and mentally handicapped people in one post. As I have a soft spot in my heart for both, I feel bad. As for the asshat kookbats who troll here, I feel nothing but contempt.

A kookbat, a rope, and a tree. Hey Baloney, why don'cha go make yourself a swing...

I’m a victim of circumstance!

"Me thinks that someone in Justice has a blue dress with Goss’s DNA written all over it."

Methinks you're a partisan hack blowhard with an over-heated imagination, Barney. Not only do you have no evidence of Goss's involvement in any sex scandal, you don't even have a reasonable suspicion of it. Even TPM Muckraker – a site that breathlessly reports every wild conspiracy theory about Goss – admits that all it has is rumor; that there’s lots of contradictory information out there; and that they don’t really know what the real reasons are for Goss leaving yet:

POST #1:

Goss: Claims I Partied With Wilkes Are "Flatly Untrue," "Horribly Irresponsible"
By Justin Rood - April 28, 2006, 4:22 PM

I called the CIA this morning to get their reaction to Ken Silverstein's piece in Harper's that seems to put Goss in the poker-and-more parties thrown by Brent Wilkes. The parties were held in the Watergate and Westin Grand hotels -- and a third hotel, I'm hearing, which hasn't been reported yet -- as well as at the house of Kyle "Dusty" Foggo, a longtime friend of Wilkes' who is now #3 at the CIA.

After a long series of off-the-record phone calls with CIA spokespeople, I was finally given an on-the-record comment -- about Goss. Speaking on behalf of the director, CIA spokeswoman Jennifer Millerwise Dyck said, "This is horribly irresponsible. He hasn't even been to the Watergate in decades."

When I asked if Goss had attended Wilkes' parties at the Westin or other locations, Millerwise Dyck repeated the denial. "It's horribly irresponsible. Flatly untrue."

She declined to answer questions about Foggo, but promised another spokesperson would call me and take my questions.

POST #2:

Barr: Hookergate to Blame for Hasty Goss Exit?
By Paul Kiel - May 5, 2006, 2:38 PM

As we mentioned before, former Congressman Bob Barr (R-GA) was the first on CNN to mention a connection to Brent Wilkes' prostitution ring as the reason behind Porter Goss' sudden resignation. Here's the transcript:

* * *

Reporter: Are you saying the director himself [was involved in Wilkes’ prostitution ring], congressman?

Bobb Barr: I can't imagine that. I know Porter, I've known him for many years and I can't imagine him part of that.

POST #3:

Goss Departed Over Foggo?
By Justin Rood - May 5, 2006, 3:49 PM

Here come the rumors.

Over at Warandpiece.com, Laura Rozen says she's hearing that Negroponte, or possibly the White House, gave Goss the boot, and it was sudden. That fits with what I'm hearing: that Goss didn't jump, or at least not without a nudge.

Rozen says she's been told Goss' departure "may have to do with how Goss handled a management issue concerning Foggo."

I've heard it a bit more bluntly: Goss was told to fire Kyle "Dusty" Foggo, his troublesome Executive Director, and Goss refused. That's what we're hearing now from knowledgeable sources. But there's a lot of contradictory information. We'll bring you more as the picture becomes clearer.

POST #4:

Sources: Foggo Was A Problem, But Not the Only One
By Justin Rood - May 5, 2006, 4:51 PM

More rumors:

Foggo was a problem for Goss, sure, but he wasn't the only problem, I'm told. There were a few, and they got to be too much.

There's been a drumbeat for the past few weeks that Goss would be leaving -- and it was louder than the Goss-is-leaving drumbeat folks have heard for the past year, two sources said. The crescendo came in part because several of his close aides have found ways to leave the director's office in the last few weeks, or put out feelers to find something new. "The whole group was out fishing" for new jobs, a former CIA official told me, "and the whole world knew it."

Other problems added to his trouble: Two sources told me that the President's discreet and influential Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board has been interviewing CIA officials and others over the past several weeks, as part of a larger investigation. My sources didn't know or wouldn't tell me what the panel was examining, only that "a lot" of the people it talked to "were unloading on the director."

Source: http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/cats/porter_goss/

So as usual, Barney, your comments are childish and not to be taken seriously.

Jpl, the director of the CIA resigns on a Friday afternoon without any prior warning, and without a press conference or explanation, and the Prez has basically nothing to say about it? I am sure that this was planned wayyy in advance.

Another great job of communication by the administartion.

Barney,

Don't you wish just once the administration would be upfront and hones about something? All clues point to the fact that he was in essence fired, and his turfwar and rivalry with Negroponte was causative. Hey we all understand politics. The prez would get a lot more respect if he just came out and told it like it was.

bush, now wants the General who oversaw the warrantless spying on American citizens at the NSA, in charge of the CIA. And he reports to the "butcher" of El Salvador and Guatemala, Negroponte? bush and the boys march closer to the edge of the cliff every day. Peace

Ash, you want the prez to say: “Hey my hand-picked guy can’t get the job done, so we are replacing him”? Bush can’t think of one single mistake he has made. Not one!

So now we have:
-Goss
-Meyers
-Brown
-Mc Cellan

Why should congress approve any of this guys nominations in the future? The level of incompetence is staggering.

Bush's approval is up to 43% in Rasmussen. That's a significant increase up 7% in the last two weeks.

Kennedy Scandal still going big on the un-MSM (very surprising).

"The prez would get a lot more respect if he just came out and told it like it was."

HA!

And we are supposed to believe you because....?

You know as well as everyone else that it would only serve as fodder for those of you who are grinding their axes and sharpening their knives in eager anticipation to plunge it into the President's heart.

The President has come out and "told it like it was" on many, many issues. All he gets from you and your pitiful ilk is disrespect and scorn. If the President said the sun is coming up tomorrow, you'd find a way to twist it into some sort of conspiratorial lie, just like you do with everything else the President or anyone in his Administration says...

He "told it like it was" to the American public on the Iraq issue. Look at how far THAT got him!

He "told it like it was" on the economy. See how much "respect" he's gotten from you and the drive-by media?

He "told it like it was" on how the fight is going against al Qaeda. You send your shrieking minions to the blogsites, to the airwaves, to the print media, to the campi, to the Halls of Congress to "respectfully" disagree - usually using words that aren't fit for public discourse.

We all understand that your parallel universe is comprised of a hateful, irrational and anti-patriotic cadre of socialists and anarchists posing as "patriots." You seek to undermine this country by supporting and enabling our enemies. You are awash in a sea of denial and irrelevance. When your assertions are rebutted or refuted, you simply re-shriek the charges or change the subject - usually resorting in the process to attacking the person who had the AUDACITY to question your line of so-called reasoning.

There are many significant issues upon which I disagree with this Administration. I have made those disagreement known to them via phone, fax, and e-mail. But I have always ALWAYS tried to do so in a manner which confers some degree of dignity and deference to the office. That's far more than you or your brain-dead comrades have shown, based upon what I read in your various and sundry posts. Occasionally, you slip into a semi-cordial mode, but that lasts as long as it takes for you to read what you posted. Then, you quickly rebound to your hateful, irrational, and ludicrous rants.

dbogan, “He "told it like it was" to the American public on the Iraq issue.” “..recently sought uranium in Africa..” Is that what you were referring to? Or may from his administration “…smoking gun is a mushroom cloud..” "we know where the WMD are, there in Tikrit.."

Bush has done so well with the truth, that even 45% of conservatives think he is dishonest.

Barneyg,

I don't feed trolls. Don't you have a "patriotic" flag-burning, Bush-bashing rally to attend tonight, or are you waiting for a refill for your meds?

But the allegation that Saddam “..recently sought uranium in Africa..” was TRUE, jerk-off. Of course Leftie liars like you have tried their best to transform Bush's statement into Saddam "recently BOUGHT uranium in Africa," which is probably false, in order to convince America that Bush lied. But Bush DIDN'T say "bought" -- he said "sought" -- and the biggest liars by far on this issue are you, Joe Wilson, and your traitorous fellow travelers on the Left.

"I am sure that this was planned wayyy in advance. Another great job of communication by the administartion."

Sorry, Barney, sarcasm like that doesn't cut it. As far as I can see, NO ONE has claimed this was "planned way in advance," and NO ONE has claimed this is "another great job of communication by the administration." So you're just shooting down straw arguments that no one has made, and making arguments ("this is all about a sex scandal") that no one can support. You're pathetic.

"...So you're just shooting down straw arguments that no one has made, and making arguments ('this is all about a sex scandal') that no one can support. You're pathetic."

JPL,

That's all that Barneyg, maf53, Ash, muiergeo, and the potty-mouths on the left have - their own addled perceptions of how "Bush lied" on any given issue. They nurture one another's sociopathic rage and feed on each other's pathological conspiracy theories in setting up false arguments. Then they bash anyone who DARES to call them on it. When directly challenged to prove their vapid talking points, they usually change the subject, or like Barney and the Zoo Crew does so typically, engage in a caustic sarcastic orgy of spewing vile and vitriol on the President, the Administration, and anyone like you or I, who comes to their defense.

"Pathetic" barely scratches the surface. They're beyond "pathetic." It seems that in coming to this blogsite in particular, they seek to reinforce each other's paranoia by focusing on those of us who support our President, our Troops, and our Country. They are beyond the reach of reason. If you've read any amount of their cumulative verbal feces, you can easily see that they are tied to a dogma that precludes anything and everything they hear from the President, this Administration, or anyone who supports the views expressed on their behalf as a concerted conspiracy whose aim is world domination, subversion of American rights and freedoms, and an attack upon all freedom-loving and peace-loving peoples of the world. Blah. Blah. Blah.

Equally dogmatic in asserting their claims, they clearly believe that just because they SAY it's so, makes it so. No amount of fact will ever sway them. They get further incensed and enraged when their constructs are either knocked down completely, or shown to be false in any way, shape or form. And if they are pinned down to precisely offer irrefutable fact to their "Truth" as uttered by them, they generally refrain from doing so. After all: they SAID it was so. Therefore it IS so.

For them, their world view is the only correct one. Everyone else is an idiot, a "bushbot," a "neocon," or "right winger" or other less savory monnikers. They're willing to nuance every syllable, comma, and period in "proving" their points to the sane people who scoff at them. But when it comes to accepting our ideas, they are completely black and white in their "analysis" and/or "response." We are "wrong" and they are "Right." End of sentence. End of discussion.

If that's not sufficient, they either a) change the subject; b) ignore the request because, after all, they SAID it was so. Nothing more needs to be added or amplified upon; or c) engage in hostile name-calling under the guise of witty repartée.

I have never run across a more self-loathing and anti-patriotic bunch of intellectual midgets in my life. But for people like Ricorun, Mark, Almiranta, keefer, Matt, A-10, bearmanUSMC, NC Cop and others who are willing to provide feedback (instead of attacking) to our collective opinions, I would have left this blogsite a long time ago. Thanks to those who are honestly debating (as opposed to demogoguing) the issues, I have come to modify some of my initial impressions. I believe that some of my feedback has also helped others to re-examine their opinions in a rational and respectful manner.

Despite the "flies in the ointment" like Barney and his crew of self-loathing misfits, this blogsite is a good venue to touch base with people who are honestly interested in debating the issues of our time.

The Zoo Crew's favorite defense is that we're calling them unpatriotic when they state their "valid" opinions. They imply that there is some menacing air of oppression when their "arguments" are dismissed or refuted. They have a right to their opinions. We have a right to dismiss them. I'm not questioning their patriotism, because I feel that there's no question about where their allegiances lie. I question their sanity, their moral depravity, and the methods through which they make them known.

Michael Savage is right: "Liberalism is a mental disorder." If you don't believe him, just read some of the posts by Ash, maf53, SickofLies, and their circle-jerk of cronies. That will undoubtedly confirm Michael Savage's postulate.

In a time of universal deceit telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

George Orwell

"In a time of universal deceit telling the truth is a revolutionary act."

I couldn't agree more: In the 21st century world of lying leftists, conservatives are the only true revolutionaries.

Hey Barney,

Do you there is a regular poster on this blog that has gone bananna cuckoo?

"Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

George Santayana

Watch the 2003 documentary, "Weather Underground." It's about the generation of leftists in the 1960s and 1970s who are your kindred spirits. You will see how far they (and your) political thoughts will bring this country.

Your "patriotic dissent" is not unique in any way, shape or form. You haven't even begun to go down the path toward anarchy that your political assertions will inexorably lead you.

The philosophy of the left, when fully implemented, will tear this country apart, consuming you in the process.

Let's see: (I just gotta love it!) You quote Michael Savage? I can't stop laughing. What a maroon. Quick, gulp another glass of kool-aid, gargle with it. Maroon.

Speak of the devil.

I love my wife.

"Michael Savage is right: 'Liberalism is a mental disorder.'"

dbogdan: As long as you're talking about post-Kennedy liberalism -- that is, post-JOHN F. Kennedy -- I agree completely! After JFK, liberalism took an unfortunate detour down the very dark path of illiberalism, anti-Americanism, anti-male-ism, anti-Westernism, anti-Christianity, anti-capitalism, anti-democracy, pro-elitism, pro-hedonism, and intolerance of disagreement, and it has never looked back. It is TRULY a mental disorder, and I'm afraid it won't be cured until I and the last of my generation -- the baby boomers -- have gone to our rest. In the meantime, we've got to fight it and expose it every single day for the disease it has become.

Hey Ash -- I'll bet Vladimir Ilyich Lenin was surprised when history proved his political philosophy was bankrupt, too. So you're in good company. In the same way, the next 40 years will show that liberals like you were nothing but useful idiots for Osama bin Laden. Get used to the junk heap of history.

Well JPL I'm sure not going to get sandwiched between you two guys, you sound much too fond of each other.

Michael Savage is a raving lunatic. He's the right wing answer to Randy Rhodes. Excuse me for a second I have to sneeze (my liberalism disease, you know) It might interest you to know that I too am a baby boomer and have never sold out to the greed of uber capitalism and me first ism that passes for Republicanism today (oh Lincoln would roll over in his grave).

I lived the era of the Weather Underground. I protested at Washington University (no I did not throw any cherry bombs at the police and military jack booted thugs- thats my story and I'm sticking to it- in case the CIA is monitoring this cyberspace) I saw poorly trained military kids shoot unfortunate college kids at Kent State (the best news photo of all time, btw) I saw Daly's police henchmen busting heads on the streets of Chicago. I saw Nixon resign in disgrace. So I don't have to watch a documentary to understand protest or the vital role it plays in balancing out our society.

It is the very protests that are now picking up steam (Ray McGovern, the 346 former generals that are calling for Rummy's tummy, Helen Thomas- bless her heart) The bluff is no longer effective. It won't be long before we have the troops home.

"useful idiots for Osama bin Laden"

That may well be. But what about the big kahuna, big cheese, numero uno idiot, aka President Bush?

First he let's the bin laden family leave immediately after 9-11. Then he say's "Well, frankly I just don't think to much about him (Bin Laden). That might be the response you would get from a pseudo bully who has been punked by a rich camel jockey. If I'm in the junk heap of history, it will be him (numero uno bufoon) that I squat and take a dump on!

Ash,

Such an erudite and pithy repartée! No need to see any documentary - your mind is already made up!!

Thus proving my - and Michael Savage's - point.

Liberalism is a mental disease...

And again, spinning around wildly to change the subject and toss epithets at the President and Commander-in-Chief. True to form and just like I stated in an earlier post!!

You're so predictable and beyond pathetic...

"peak of the devil.

I love my wife."

Your wife is the devil?

Hey Ash -- Sorry, but you can't out-Vietnam-era me. My freshman dorm room in Harvard Square was tear-gassed in spring of 1970, and I ashamedly admit I marched in at least one anti-Vietnam war march in those years. But we were useful idiots for the Communists then, and those who protest the Iraqi war today are still useful idiots, but this time for Islamic terrorists. Our generation's mistake was to think that the failings of Nixon, Daly, and other 1960s leaders made America and Western civilization evil. I no longer believe that, but it sadly appears that you still do.

Regarding the current protests, do you seriously think they're "now picking up steam"? If so, think again. They're a JOKE. NO ONE except the hard left takes them seriously. They're NOTHING like the protests of the 1960s and 1970s. The demographics have changed dramatically. The leftist anti-American baby boomers are in radical decline. Of course, that decline isn't what makes them wrong. They're wrong because their philosophy is infantile and stupid. But the fact that they're in decline means they will ultimately lose. Thankfully.

Regarding Lincoln, your invoking of his legacy makes me want to puke. Lincoln was REVILED and MOCKED by 19th century liberals. They thought he was stupid, they HATED his commitment to military action against the Confederacy, they protested against his suspension of civil liberties in wartime, and they committed VIOLENCE against the military draft. I'm afraid you're citing Lincoln for the wrong side of this debate.

But let me close on a note of harmony: I agree that Michael Savage is a raving lunatic. If there's a difference between us on this, it's that I think even raving lunatics are right now and then. And when Savage called modern liberalism a mental disease, he happened to be right.

Ash's response falls squarely and completely within the realm of their limited abilities as I explained above.

"For them, their world view is the only correct one. Everyone else is an idiot, a 'bushbot,' a 'neocon,' or 'right winger' or other less savory monnikers. They're willing to nuance every syllable, comma, and period in 'proving' their points to the sane people who scoff at them. But when it comes to accepting our ideas, they are completely black and white in their "analysis" and/or 'response.' We are 'wrong'" and they are 'Right.' End of sentence. End of discussion.

If that's not sufficient, they either a) change the subject; b) ignore the request because, after all, they SAID it was so. Nothing more needs to be added or amplified upon; or c) engage in hostile name-calling under the guise of witty repartée.

"Michael Savage is a raving lunatic." falls into the category of response c) engage in hostile name-calling under the guise of witty repartée.

"I saw Daly's police henchmen busting heads on the streets of Chicago. I saw Nixon resign in disgrace. So I don't have to watch a documentary to understand protest or the vital role it plays in balancing out our society." falls into the category of response b) ignore the request because, after all, they SAID it was so. Nothing more needs to be added or amplified upon.

"It is the very protests that are now picking up steam..." also falls within the category of b) ignore the request because, after all, they SAID it was so. Nothing more needs to be added or amplified upon." Forget about facts. Forget about historical accuracy. Ash SAID IT WAS SO. Therefore, it IS SO. End of sentence. End of discussion. I just love your self-serving assertion of absolute truth. BECAUSE YOU SAID IT WAS SO!

"Speak of the devil. I love my wife." falls within the rubric of a) change the subject. What does loving your wife have to do with the subject at hand?

No matter. You change the rules of discussion as you see fit. Forget rebutting the points being discussed. Just "pull it out of your butt" as you see fit.

And last, but by no means least, your response, "That might be the response you would get from a pseudo bully who has been punked by a rich camel jockey. If I'm in the junk heap of history, it will be him (numero uno bufoon) that I squat and take a dump on!" falls into the arena of scurrilous name-calling, c) engage in hostile name-calling under the guise of witty repartée.

You're a real gem, Ash.

Mr. Rudd gave the famous Port Huron Statement of the weather underground. 1. Every family should have housing. 2. Every person should have a job if they desire to work. 3. Every person should have clothes on their back. 4 Every person should have food on his table.

You right wing fanatics still don't get it, it is not about 'me' it is about 'us'.

Without G.W. Bush or Jesus Christ the 2nd American revolution has begun.

So, why did Porter quit a super federal job, private limo, executive jet, all the perks.

This could mean less than 30% for poor ole GW when the real truth comes out about this festering sex scandal.

-Joe

-Cheney insults Russia.

This shows you whose side Baloney2000 is on. Actually, it shows you how deficient Baloney2000 is when it comes to intellect. Baloney's IQ is lower than my golf score...

eefer,

what's wrong with an iq of 124?

"...I agree that Michael Savage is a raving lunatic. If there's a difference between us on this, it's that I think even raving lunatics are right now and then. And when Savage called modern liberalism a mental disease, he happened to be right."

On the point of Michael Savage's sanity, I happen to disagree. And let's compare the Air America audience numbers with Michael Savage's radio audience. No comparison. Air America is in a freefall death spiral. Hell, even their flagship station in New York City - a bastion of liberalism - is dropping Air America. Their audience share - already phenomenally low, is also in a nosedive this past quarter. And what about commercial break time? How many paid advertisements do you hear on Air America? I thought so. Nada. Zip. Zilch. Do you know why? It's because Air America PAYS its affiliate stations to air their tripe.

Michael Savage's audience is approximately 10 million per week, carried on over 350 independent stations nationwide. He has paid advertisers to fill in his commercial break slots. His rating have grown for the past several quarters, even as talk radio as a group has seen some slumping - particularly after the Terri Schiavo fiasco of March/April of 2005. He is the author of 4 best-selling books, the latest of which, "The Political Zoo," is enjoying solid sales despite any marketing other than his own syndication efforts, surpassing Ted Kennedy's book that has been aggressively promoted by the drive-by media. Michael's views are extreme in many, many instances. That's for certain. But is he a raving lunatic? I don't think so. But I'm not a psychiatrist, either.

But you're entitled to your beliefs. I'm sure that Michael Savage would support that statement, since I've heard him utter that statement many, many times. I appreciate the fact that he doesn't hold his arrows for one particular party. He shoots at both parties with equal fervor. In that respect, his integrity seems more unimpeachable than, say Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity. Lately, though, I have been hearing outright criticism - sometimes pointed - of the Republicrats by both Rush and Sean. Perhaps they're looking at Michael's audience share numbers and seeing that they need to be more competitive in the arena of ideas...

dbogdan.
If you think that Rush doesn't tweek both parties then you aren't listening..
and if you think he looks at Savage's...numbers..and adjusts what he thinks or says..then you are a fool!!!!
More competitive......puleeeeeze!!!!!

JPL I wasn't trying to out Viet Nam era you. The only difference between us is that I was and still am not ashamed that I was involved in protests at Washington U (St. Louis). Again I did not throw cherry bombs at the authorities. I may have cheered when the ROTC building burned, but that's not a crime.

I am afraid you may be right about the level of protests going on now. While 60 something percent disapprove of the administrations handling of the war, there just seems to be little interest in getting out and actually doing something about it. I lament the laziness of todays youth. I suspect the results in November will be a saner way to protest. The times they are a changin'.

There is nothing new about young radicals growing up to be wealthy elders and deciding to preserve the status quo (conservativism). The main problem as I see it today is that the media is so timid and ineffectual in getting the truth out. While I don't go so far as to say there is a right wing bias to the news, I do think they are intimidated and do not ask the questions that need to be asked. Except for Seymour Hersh, Helen Thomas and recently Ray McGovern.

Hopefully a balance will be reached. Let me also close on a note of conciliation, I think Al Franken is also a lunatic. Maybe the best thinkers of the day are Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart.

"...While 60 something percent disapprove of the administrations handling of the war, there just seems to be little interest in getting out and actually doing something about it. I lament the laziness of todays youth. I suspect the results in November will be a saner way to protest. The times they are a changin'."

In my opinion, today's youth is no more lazy than the youth of yesteryear. Their voting percentages have changed very little over the past 30 years, according the the few articles I've read. The last election cycle initially seemed to be a harbinger for change before the election, but despite the best efforts of a variety of popular musicians, Hollywood elite, and liberal Democratic partisans, the "vote or die" campaign simply fizzled, like it usually does with the youth. They are probably no more or less apathetic than the youth before them. When it comes down to it, I'm embarrassed that the percentage of people who voted in the last three Iraqi elections surpassed the percentages of people who voted in our last three elections.

I disagree that the times they are a changin.' To me, it's shaping up to be more of the same, tired system of "choose a 'D' or choose an 'R.'" Either way, we get more of the same tired, oligarchic mish-mash. It's time for a third party to rise to the occasion and call the failed, corrupt politicians on both sides of the aisle what they are. Unfortunately, I see little chance of that happening, since both the "Ds" and the "Rs" have locked up their monopoly on power via the election requirement on a state-by-state basis, gerrymandering districts to tilt the outcome of the elections to the incumbent holding the seat, and by the corrupting influence of money in the process of the campaign.

As for Steven Colbert and Jon Stewart, it is my opinion that these self-proclaimed comedians are simply political hacks in a comedian's outfit. I find little of their so-called humor to be funny. In most instances, I find it offensive that they are dumbing down the issues so that they can make ratings out of disingenuous dissent. In the process, they are part of the problem as to why the youth of America will probably stay home in droves this coming election. By excoriating the President and his policies, they offer a substitute outlet for the anger and frustration that is clearly out there among all sectors of society. Instead of laughing at their lame jokes, people should direct their energies to writing letters, making phone calls and faxes, and demanding accountability out of their ersatz representatives on Capitol Hill. But laughing at lame jabs diffuses the anger and frustration, and discounts the need to actually DO SOMETHING about what people are feeling. In that respect, these "best thinkers of the day" are contributing to low voter turnout because they clearly send a message that it doesn't matter whether people vote or not. It's easier to lampoon them once they're in office versus voting them out and electing someone who shares a common political philosophy - no matter which side of the aisle you're on.

"There is nothing new about young radicals growing up to be wealthy elders and deciding to preserve the status quo (conservativism)."

Actually, my case is a little more complicated than that common stereotype (and I admit it's pretty common). I was fairly conservative before college. I even supported U.S. involvement in Vietnam, as a necessary fight against the spread of Communism. But then during one of those all-night college freshman bull-sessions, a classmate told me various "facts" which I later learned were false, to support his argument that the U.S. was actually on the "wrong side" in the Vietnam conflict. That we were in fact supporting the "bad guys." I became convinced. After that, I opposed the war, and even rallied at least once against it. But the aftermath of U.S. withdrawal from Vietnam -- the North Vietnamese invasion of the south, the fall of Saigon, the hundreds of thousands of South Vietnamese "boat people" fleeing the new Communist regime, the hideous "re-education camps" and executions for hundreds of thousands of South Vietnamese, the subsequent seizure of power in Cambodia by the vicious and murderous Communist Khmer Rouge, the Khmer Rouge's subsequent forced relocation of millions of Cambodians from cities to the countryside, and the resulting genocide of about 2-1/2 million Cambodians (about 40% of the entire population) -- convinced me that my freshman year all-night bull session host was full of shit. I changed my mind about the U.S. involvement in Vietnam to a belief that we absolutely should have fought that war to win it, and have never looked back. My conversion back to conservatism therefore had little or nothing to do with "growing up to be a wealthy elder." When I saw the light, I was still young and poor (and sadly, I'm still not wealthy). My re-conversion resulted from my extremely sad witness to the tragic consequences of American cowardice and betrayal of an important ally; I saw that we had the ability to overcome North Vietnamese agression, had promised to so so, but lacked the will, and that millions of innocents suffered and died as a result. I really don't want to see that happen again, and that's one reason I think liberal Dems are hopelessly misguided on current American policy in Iraq.

"Let me also close on a note of conciliation, I think Al Franken is also a lunatic."

OK, Ash, you got me there. Despite our differences, you made my day with that comment. Franken was a college classmate of mine. I thought he was a total arrogant jerk then, and still think he's a total arrogant jerk. And since about 90% of my friends today are liberal Dems, and most of them think Franken is God, it's extremely refreshing to meet a liberal Dem who believes Franken is a lunatic.

"Let me also close on a note of conciliation, I think Al Franken is also a lunatic."

OK, Ash, you got me there. Despite our differences, you made my day with that comment. Franken was a college classmate of mine. I thought he was a total arrogant jerk then, and still think he's a total arrogant jerk."

I disagree with Ash when he states that Al Franken is also a lunatic. He's more like what JPL said in calling him "a total arrogant jerk." To the extent that Michael Savage seems to dismiss anyone who strongly disagrees with him, I believe that he also falls into that same category. But in the talk radio business, it seems that large egos are part of the dynamic. It takes a large and relatively impervious ego to take to the airwaves and state opinions that are controversial and sometime incendiary. That's part of what drives audience ratings.