It is no secret that I dislike Rush Limbaugh and the likes of Hannity and Savage. I believe they have done more harm to this country than we can accurately assess. "Ditto Heads" are called that for a reason--they let Rush tell them what to think. When someone with a political agenda has three hours a day, five days a week for decades to tell people that the opposition party are demons and enemies, it's no wonder we have been a divided nation.
But perhaps talk radio's influence is coming to an end. This piece in The Boston Globe spells out the whys and how of Rush's waning days as Demagogue in Chief of the conservatives.
ONE MORE note on the significance of the presidential election of 2008: It's the first one in more than 30 years on which talk radio had no major impact.
Perhaps the Carter-Ford contest in 1976 was the last in which talk radio was so irrelevant to public opinion on candidates and issues. In retrospect, 1979 (the year the Iranian hostage crisis began) and 2004 (the year of George W. Bush's reelection) may well be regarded as bookends of talk radio's greatest influence on American politics.
Consider some of the major stumbles this year by the medium's 800-pound gorilla. Rush Limbaugh vigorously promoted three separate political objectives over the past year, all of which failed: derailing John McCain's quest for the Republican nomination, sabotaging Barack Obama's drive for the Democratic nomination by fomenting Republican crossover votes for Hillary Clinton, and ultimately stopping Obama's march to victory in the general election. Contrast this with the impact talk radio once had on local taxes, the impeachment of Bill Clinton, congressional pay raises, a mandatory seat belt law, etc.
What happened?
Most radio people hate to discuss the primary factor: overall use of their medium is in decline. Although the trend is affecting news and talk (including public radio) less than music programming, it is inexorable.
Alternatives to broadcast radio have proliferated - satellite, netcasts, downloads, blogalogue, iPod entertainment, cellphone updates. As a result, younger listeners largely ignore talk radio, and its existing audience is calcifying.
New ears - even middle-aged or senior ears - are vital to talk radio's influence because they are attached to brains that are available for persuasion, rather than brains that have already made a choice. In other words, if Limbaugh and Michael Savage (not to mention Rachel Maddow, Ed Schultz, and other more recent adventurers in talk) fail to attract many new listeners, they end up talking only to those who agree with their opinions, and thus have a smaller chance to affect the ideas of the electorate in general.
Beyond the shift in media usage are three factors of content and style.
First, news-and-comment television has gradually usurped talk radio's position as the destination of choice for freewheeling opinion. Keith Olbermann and Bill O'Reilly are the major faces of the form, but news with an edge now defines the programming on Fox News, MSNBC, and CNN. Talk radio, even when its sounds stimulate imaginary pictures in the minds of listeners, is low-def.
Second, American listeners no longer expect talk-radio hosts to be reasonable - or even rational. Most listeners now assume that when they strike a talk show as they cruise across the dial, the talker will be a (sometimes rabid) promoter of a particular point of view.
Third, talk radio no longer even pretends to be a "town meeting of the air." The telephone call itself, which was a primary reason for the form's wide acceptance, has become an inconvenient appendage to most programs. Hosts, along with the usually inaudible producers, programmers, managers, and owners, ordinarily do not perceive callers' contributions as valuable use of airtime.
Phone calls from listeners once occupied 40 to 50 percent of a typical program. A host would often spend five to 10 minutes, and sometimes much more, with an individual caller, if the caller's ideas warranted it. Past paragons of talk familiar to many Bostonians - hosts like Jerry Williams, Paul Benzaquin, and David Brudnoy - actually argued with their callers. They asked them questions like, "What makes you say that?" or "Why do you feel that way?" This led the majority of listeners, the people who never made calls themselves, to value the medium as a place they could sample the ideas of others - even if they didn't agree with them.
But there's no going back, even if a modern host wanted to try. The American mass audience is dispersing, and talk radio, if it is to survive, will have to adapt to a nichified world.
Steve Elman worked for WBUR for 30 years. Alan Tolz is executive vice president and chief operating officer for Marlin Broadcasting. They are the authors of "Burning Up the Air: Jerry Williams, Talk Radio and the Life in Between."
32 comments:
Good info Shaw. In Los Angeles, Michael Jackson was a longtime talk show person who was low key, and dialogued with his guests.
He has since been canceled. Of course there is still Dennis Prager, conservative and religious, but rational, intelligent, and not bombastic as some of the others are.
Our big shows in Las Vegas are all pretty loud and extremely partisan.
I would like to believe that talk show radio was declining but realistically I think it has more to do with who the candidate was for the conservatives and the standards by which his campaign was run (while low they were not as low as a true Rove run campaign)
I also think that the economy cut into the funds available to the Republicans from business people...thats one thing good about greed...when it hurts themselves they cut back! With people like the Swift boaters and T Boone Pickens off on other things Rush and gang had no financial incentive to spew their hate...
Just look at the conservative blogs and you will see that nothing has changed the hate and stupidity is still there...
"But perhaps talk radio's influence is coming to an end."
the key word in that statement is "perhaps"
that would indicate hope and change for you, wouldn't it?
and dave, of course they are partisan. that is the intent of programs such as those. it draws an audience and that means profits for the radio station.
and remember, a portion of the audience are the opposition too.
I think part of the difficulties talk radio had in political influence this year was that they were more ambitious this year than previously. They overreached and got nothing.
This question from Think Progress was very timely concerning talk radio:
Am I the only one who’s confused by all this conservative organizing against the re-imposition of the “fairness doctrine” on talk radio?
I understand why they oppose that move, but why are they putting so much energy into blocking something that nobody is trying to do.
A Fairness Act bill was submitted in the House in 2005, but it only 16 cosponsors. No such bill was submitted in the last conference.
Barack Obama opposes reintroducing the Fairness Act. And speaking as a paid-up member of the vast left-wing conspiracy, nobody on our side is getting any marching orders about this.
I guess they need something to talk about on the radio shows, but I’d just focus in on Obama’s plan to turn the United States into a socialist dystopia.
The Boston Globe is a really good source, all eight people that read that paper should know what is popular. What is that stock of theirs worth these days?
As a disclaimer, I listened to Rush from 1989 until 1991.
Hi two dogs,
This is how you describe yourself on your own blog:
I am a self-absorbed, egotistical, loud-mouthed, crazed lunatic.
I try not to encourage lunatics on this blog.
However, I understand there are lots of meds on the market for your psychological ills.
Shaw, sorry, I will cease to comment if that's your druthers, but still The Boston Globe is a great reference for what is actually happening.
And I have been clean and sober for quite some time now, the voices are not as loud as they were. You should try it.
two dogs,
I get all my best information from my voices.
;-)
And if what you say is true, I salute you for your success!
shaw,
"Am I the only one who’s confused by all this conservative organizing against the re-imposition of the “fairness doctrine” on talk radio? "
excuse my ignorance but what does your post or any comments have to do with the "fairness doctrine?"
i don't know about anyone else in here but that was the furthest thing from my mind when reading your post or any comments until you brought it up.
i was under the impression that the post was about the relevance of these programs to elections. was i mistaken?
The subject of the Fairness Doctrine is related to talk radio.
I've read on many conservative blogs that there is a concern that President-elect Obama will rei-institute it.
It was the elimination of the Fairness Doctrine that allowed the emergence and the dominance of conservative talk shows.
Shaw, conservatives aren't really concerned about Obama's ideas, we know that they are really bad. But, with Henry Rivera as the FCC Director, (Google him) the reinstating of the FD is a very real possibility. Don't worry, Air America will get grants and PBS will still get its unconstitutional funding. Conservative shows that actually contribute to the economy like Rush and Hannity will have to move their operation outside the US, but running money makers out of the country is the foundation of the Obama economic plan.
...but running money makers out of the country is the foundation of the Obama economic plan.
two dog, you swee' thang! Whachoo talkin' about?
Obama has stated that he'd give tax breaks to companies that did not ship job overseas.
And he also wants to encourage the auto companies, once the backbone of the US economy, to develop "green" technology for new cars--so Americans will buy American again.
Green technology is a loser. Obama's whole idea is to tax corporations and jack income taxes up to pay for social programs. Or have you been napping?
The Fairness Doctrine should be reinstated. It is disappointing that Obama doesn't support this.
Green technology is a loser.
And you base this opinion on what evidence?
Obama's whole idea is to tax corporations and jack income taxes up to pay for social programs. Or have you been napping?
Not only are you the one who's been napping, but I do believe you're actually in a coma.
You deliberately refuse to acknowledge that:
Obama wants to give tax breaks to companies that keep JOBS HERE IN THE US, AND THAT UNLESS YOU'RE MAKING OVER $250/K A YEAR, YOU WILL RECEIVE A TAX BREAK.
And the reason you willfully ignore these facts is because __________.*
*fill in the blank.
Shaw, obviously you are a young person. What that young people that support Obama fail to realize is that when his ideas have been tried around the world, there has only been one outcome. Historical records are there for intellectually curious people. Skyrocketing unemployment, lower wages, closing businesses, and rising poverty. With that TRUTH behind us, because you will have to admit it in a few years, let's tackle the other glaring thing you ignore.
Barack Obama is a politician from Chicago. He hails from the most corrupt political machine in the country. In other words, he has no problem at all lying or cheating to get elected. Name the opponents that he has had in any of the campaigns to date. There were none. He did beat John McCain who had much trouble even getting Republicans to get behind him until Palin came on board and Obama barely won even with the almost ten times the money that he spent. Obama spent 11.03 for every vote he received. McCain spent 1.43, do that math.
Remember the statement that there will be no lobbyists in his cabinet? Rahm Emanuel is a registered lobbyist and Rahm was Obama's first appointment. Remember that he was not going to accept PAC money in his campaign? The ACLU, Code Pink, ABA, et al, all have PACs, the majority of his money came from PACs and bundlers. Do you really think that with only 63.4 million votes, that Obama could have amassed 700 million in twenty-five dollar increments? Well, he didn't. Is this behavior any different from all the other politicians? No, they lie to get elected, your boy is no saint and his ideas has been proven wrong.
The fact that you believe him doesn't make you stupid, it makes you naive. Cynicism is not a bad thing when it comes to government, you'll see. Government has yet to solve a single problem, but they have made many much, much worse. Like when the Democrats took the Congress in 2006. The economy has plummeted in those two short years. Just look at wages, savings, expenditures, facts.
As far as "green technology" is concerned, those in favor of ruining existing businesses to run cars on hydrogen and crap like that fail to recognize the investment of that research. Plus, you don't pay taxes on losses. Obama's government will be very dependent on increasing tax revenue, but everything he promotes does the opposite.
It has to be profitable to try those new things. Currently hybrid cars are not even profitable, why do you think solar powered or hydrogen powered cars would be? You see, there is a thing called PROFIT that makes a capitalist market run, your guy wants to punish those businesses that make a profit and force them to change their direction. That is exactly why they move from this country. That and a forced minimum wage that helps no one, but hurts everyone that makes more than minimum wage.
Uh, not to be disrespectful to the person that is probably going to be the president-elect, but how many inventions has he produced? (He is not the president-elect yet, by the way, and there is no office of the president-elect, and you misspelled the link at the top of your page, too.) Since you are young (my assumption) your intelligence is sure to grow stronger and your skepticism should along with it.
Don't even get me started on that magic healthcare plan that he has. It defies all mathematics and all scientific reasoning.
Good luck with that. You'll need it. And I guess I will too.
And Libhom promotes doing away with the First Amendment, that is awesome.
Skyrocketing unemployment, lower wages, closing businesses, and rising poverty.--two dog
Perfectly accurate description of what we have now, except you didn't include the collapse of Wall Street and the failure of dozens of banks and people losing their homes. This occurred during a REPUBLICAN administration that had majority rule during 6 of its 8years.
Where have you been?
Barack Obama is a politician from Chicago. He hails from the most corrupt political machine in the country.--two dog
Two Dog, how old are YOU? Ever read history? Do me a favor. Google Harry Truman and Tom Pendergast. Then do some reading on how big city politics is run in just about every country in the world. It is naive of you to bring this into this discussion. Obama hasn't begun his administration--Bush is still president, remember? And you're trying to label him as corrupt? Give me hard evidence, and not conservative talking points of Obama's corruption.
Government has yet to solve a single problem, but they have made many much, much worse.--two dog
"Government" solved the problem of Nazism, IIRC. Or is the US military not part of the government? And which "government" did you think was fighting over in Afghanistan and Iraq? Was it the US? Do you not support what government was trying to do in those two unfortunate countries?
Why do conservatives repeat the Reagan aphorism "government is not the solution; it's the problem" and then go out and try to win elections to become part of the "problem?"
And yes, I agree with you, this REPUBLICAN government has made our problems much, much worse.
You conveniently forget that Bush entered office with a surplus and no deficit and he ran the country fiscally into the gound. For the first time in America's history, we waged war AND gave tax cuts. Insane.
With president-elect Obama, we will get a chance to see how to get back to fiscally responsible policies.
PS. Do me another favor. Google the US stock market and Democrats. You'll find out that it has always done well under Democratic administrations.
Republican administrations? No so much.
The stock market tanking happened and is happening under a REPUBLICAN ADMINISTRATION.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
"Facts are stupid things." --Ronald W. Reagan
Yes, Shaw, unemployment has been heading upward since December 2006. Wages have been headed in the opposite direction, even with TWO minimum wage increases. Plus, if you will do a minuscule amount of research into the banking debacle, you will certainly find out exactly who is to blame. And Rahm Emanuel kinda was a major player since he was on the board of Freddie Mac, check it. I will never be able to convince you, you will have to face the facts yourself.
Check the market and notice that in two years, we have erased all gains made since 2003. Check the market at the end of Clinton's second term. Shaw these are facts. You can ignore them, but that doesn't make you naive, that makes you ignorant.
Clinton did not leave a surplus, that is silly, Clinton changed the benchmarks to make it appear that way, but I cannot convince you, you will have to see that for yourself. You should learn these things as you get older, if you decide to become intellectually curious. So far, you prove that you are not.
Here's a link to the big board, just play with the slider. http://finance.google.com/finance?client=ig&cid=983582 Clearly, your statements regarding the market are incorrect based on facts and documentation. You can wish that you were right, but you are not. Since the Republicans have only controlled the purse strings for twelve of the last seventy years, you might have to go back a ways to determine for yourself when the market does better.
Harry Truman was a Democrat, what's your point?
As far as Obama being corrupt, have you not even looked into his background? Obviously not, or either you share his ideals. Google Antoin Rezko, Rod Blagojevich, Alexi Giannoulias, Franklin Raines, Daniel Mudd, Jim Johnson, Angelo Mozilo or George Soros. Dude, Obama is so dirty that it appears he ran for president to keep from going to jail. He is a man. And a politician. He is not a Messiah, clearly.
As far as the military is concerned, yes, it is definitely government paid, but is it government run? Do better, that is silly. You know full well that I am referring to all of the programs that are run by the fed to alleviate poverty. They are utter failures. Unless you consider a 1% rate of return over fifty years for FICA as a winner. Understand, we have followed the same philosophy since the 1920s. Has the poverty rate lowered or have wee just revised the definition of "poverty" to keep those programs in place?
If you insist on pointing to the president's office as being fiscally responsible under Clinton and then not under Bush, you should note, that the economy has grown MORE under Bush than it ever did under Clinton, or if you would like to point the finger where it should be pointed, you shall also note that when the Congress is controlled by Democrats, growth slows to a halt, the reverse is true under Republicans.
Still, Republicans are politicians, too, so they are by definition, corrupt as well. Well, even though Democrats go to prison at a 6-1 rate, Republicans are still corrupt, just not as corrupt as Democrats, apparently.
People who look to other people to lead them through their lives are called milquetoasts, Shaw. Those of us that desire only for the government to get the Hell out of the way are called innovators. Choose a side, you will be better for it. If you choose to be an innovator, ditch the philosophy that government is your provider, if you choose to be a milquetoast, kneel before your master, because that is what they are.
These are only facts, choose the quote that you want, but philosophy is kinda the deciding factor. Build one for yourself.
two dog,
I don't know where you got your info, but I'll give you the link to mine--and the site Factcheck.org cites the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office as their source.
Source:
http://tinyurl.com/2ufnnu
According to Factcheck.org, Clinton DID leave with a surplus. Perhaps the info that disputes this is what Factcheck.org addresses at the end of the article:
"Other readers have noted a USA Today story stating that, under an alternative type of accounting, the final four years of the Clinton administration taken together would have shown a deficit. This is based on an annual document called the "Financial Report of the U.S. Government," which reports what the governments books would look like if kept on an accrual basis like those of most corporations, rather than the cash basis that the government has always used. The principal difference is that under accrual accounting the government would book immediately the costs of promises made to pay future benefits to government workers and Social Security and Medicare beneficiaries. But even under accrual accounting, the annual reports showed surpluses of $69.2 billion in fiscal 1998, $76.9 billion in fiscal 1999, and $46 billion for fiscal year 2000. So even if the government had been using that form of accounting the deficit would have been erased for those three years."
PS. President-elect Obama has NEVER been indicted or accused of any corruption or wrong-doing--unlike both Palin and McCain.
You can link to his associations all you wish, that does not make him guilty of anything.
And this about how well the stock market does under Dems vs. Repubs:
Source:
http://tinyurl.com/8y5cm
Surprise: Dems are better for rallies
Despite 'market friendly' Republican policies, stocks rise more and volatility dips under Democrats.
January 22, 2004: 2:11 PM EST
By Alexandra Twin, CNN/Money Staff Writer
NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Plenty of Wall Streeters are Republicans. The party's policies are seen as better for big business and therefore better for the stock market.
"Democrats are seen as being pro-regulatory, and more willing to enact laws against Wall Street and laws against CEOs," said Don Luskin, chief investment officer at Trend Macrolytics.
But here's Wall Street's strange little irony -- studies show the stock market performs better and tends to be less volatile when Democrats are in power.
This discrepancy was explored recently in a study by two finance professors at the University of California at Los Angeles, Pedro Santa-Clara and Rossen Valkanov.
According to their paper, entitled, "The Presidential Puzzle: Political Cycles and the Stock Market" and published in the October issue of the Journal of Finance, stock market returns are on average about 5 percent higher when the White House is run by a Democrat than during Republican rule.
Stocks Have Actually Done Better Under Democrats
Are Republicans or Democrats Better for the Stock Market?
by Jeremy Siegel, Ph.D.
Despite the behavior of the market during the last Presidential election, over longer periods of time, the stock market has done significantly better under Democratic administrations.
The accompanying chart shows stock returns under each occupant of the White House since the beginning of Harry Truman's second term. I have calculated the return from the end of the November election, since stocks will react to the policies of the incoming administration when it is elected, not when it takes office.
President Party Date Months in Office Annualized Stock Return
Truman D 11/48-10/52 48 18.28%
Eisenhower R 11/52-10/60 96 14.96%
Kennedy D 11/60-10/63 36 15.15%
Johnson D 11/63-10/68 60 10.39%
Nixon R 11/68-7/74 69 -1.32%
Ford R 8/74-10/76 27 17.21%
Carter D 11/76-10/80 48 11.04%
Reagan R 11/80-10/88 96 15.18%
Bush R 11/88-10/92 48 14.44%
Clinton D 11/92-10/00 96 19%
Bush, G.W. R 11/00-2/06 63 -0.92%
Average from 1948 to Feb. 2006 Democrat 42.8% 15.26%
Republican 57.2% 9.53%
Overall 100% 11.95%
The chart is more easily read here:
http://tinyurl.com/5r8e49
And if you still don't believe my "naive" understanding of how the stock market behaves under Democrates vs. Republicans, here's more, two dog:
One of the topics that seems to be all over the news is what Presidency will be best for the stock markets.
At fist sight, one would tend to think that the markets would react more positively to a Republican victory:
Generally big money and big businesses in the market tends to be Republican
Republicans are all about capital accumulation and low taxes
Republicans tend to favor growth through economic policy, free markets
Etc….
But it appears that the above is not true… apart from the fact that there is a trend for a more pronounced bounce after a Republican victory, history shows us that the Democrats are better for the markets.
The New York Times has published a really interesting chart/study showing that under a Democratic Presidency the average yearly return is better and that a $10,000 investment in the S&P in 1929 would have grown to $11,733 if invested under Republican presidents only and to $300,671 at a compound rate of 8.9% under Democratic Presidents:
Source: http://tinyurl.com/5j8x2h
Shaw, articles are great to determine what the market does at certain points in time, but I linked the big board, which do you think would be more accurate? The actual numbers or articles that say stuff?
As far as the corruption CHARGES against the three named candidates are concerned, yes, there was an investigation by Obama campaign officials in Alaska about Governor Palin's supposedly crooked firing of the head of the Alaska State Police, she was completely absolved of any wrongdoing at all and oddly enough, there is now an investigation into the investigation. Hinky, huh?
And if you are referring to McCain's supposed involvement with the Keating 5 crap, maybe you should try to get your information from an outlet other than DailyKos or TPM. He was NEVER investigated, he brought the whole thing to light. Odd how that was never mentioned or even skewed in our media, huh?
As far as Obama's ties are concerned however, Rezko is going to jail, so is Blagojevich, Rezko is turning state's evidence on Giannoulias; Raines, Johnson, Mozillo, Mudd, Mozillo, and Emanuel are far more guilty than anyone involved with WorldCom and would certainly be headed to prison if there were anyone on the Hill that had any integrity. They prove daily that they have none.
But, don't let that stop you in your ignorance, facts are to be ignored in Obamaland.
Those are not just "articles" I linked to, two dogs, they are a compilation of the stock market gains and losses going back to Harry Truman, and those stats show that the market most certainly does better under the Democrats, no matter how you try to spin it. FACT.
Obama has never been investigated or reprimanded as was McCain, for any wrong-doing nor was he accused of and found guilty of abuse of power, as was Palin. FACT.
Baltimore Sun
October 14, 2008
Never mind the whopper that Republican vice presidential candidate Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin told this weekend in describing a state investigator's report that she abused her executive power by trying to get her former brother-in-law fired. "I'm very, very pleased to be cleared of any legal wrongdoing, any hint of any kind of unethical activity there," she told reporters.
Actually, the bipartisan report said just the opposite. It found that Mrs. Palin and her husband, Todd, repeatedly violated state ethics laws by browbeating subordinates to dismiss Trooper Michael Wooten, who had been involved in an ugly divorce with Mrs. Palin's sister, and by using state employees to score points in a family feud.
"Governor Palin knowingly permitted a situation to continue where impermissible pressure was placed on several subordinates in order to advance a personal agenda," the report stated. It said that although the governor had the legal authority to dismiss her public safety commissioner, Walter Monegan, after he resisted her demands to fire the trooper, her use of her office to engage in a personal vendetta was an unethical abuse of power.
Aside from Mrs. Palin's misrepresentation of the facts, the report calls into question the role that Todd Palin, who was deeply involved in the "Troopergate" affair, might play in a Palin vice presidency. Alaska's self-described "first dude" has been compared by supporters to activist executive branch spouses such as Eleanor Roosevelt, Hillary Clinton and Nancy Reagan, all of whom involved themselves in policy decisions as trusted advisers. But those spouses used their unique access to influence matters of major public import, not to settle personal grudges against private individuals. The fact that Sarah and Todd Palin can't seem to tell the difference is troubling precisely because of the far greater official powers she might be called on to exercise responsibly if elected vice president.
You guys continue to abuse the truth. Palin abused her power. Period.
And McCain?
McCain and Keating had become personal friends following their initial contacts in 1981, and McCain was the only one of the five with close social and personal ties to Keating. Like DeConcini, McCain considered Keating a constituent as he lived in Arizona. Between 1982 and 1987, McCain had received $112,000 in political contributions from Keating and his associates. In addition, McCain's wife Cindy McCain and her father Jim Hensley had invested $359,100 in the Fountain Square Project, a Keating shopping center, in April 1986, a year before McCain met with the regulators. McCain, his family, and their baby-sitter had made nine trips at Keating's expense, sometimes aboard Keating's jet; three of the trips were made during vacations to Keating's opulent Bahamas retreat at Cat Cay. McCain did not pay Keating (in the amount of $13,433) for some of the trips until years after they were taken, when he learned that Keating was in trouble over Lincoln. In 1989 Phoenix New Times writer Tom Fitzpatrick opined that McCain was the "most reprehensible" of the five senators.
Riegle had received some $76,000 from Keating and his associates for his 1988 Senate re-election campaign. Riegle later announced in April 1988 he was returning the money. Riegle's constituency connection to Keating was that Keating's Hotel Pontchartrain was located in Michigan.
I find it amusing that you continue to defend two people who were directly involved in unethical activites.
No charges of unethical behavior have been brought against president-elect, and yet you try to smear him with guilt by association.
It doesn't work. And a majority of Americans agree with that.
Shaw, again, I linked the DOW BIG BOARD. All you have to do is look at it, there is no article that you can link that can trump the actual market history. Do the research for yourself and realize that you are getting lied to. Sorry, your links mean nothing against the actual market, are you daft?
Hollis French ran your Palin investigation, even he, a panty-wearing Obama booty boy found NO ILLEGAL ACTIVITY. If he did, do you think that he would have backed off, LIKE HE DID? Dang, try some skepticism, it will do you good to quit blindly following the morons.
Again, read anything you want about the Keating 5, who blew the whistle on them? Answer that, please.
And, one more thing. Obama is NOT the president-elect, true he is presumed to be. Please Google The Electoral College, it might help you sort through some of your overwhelming wrongness.
Trust me, when you get to be about 25 years old and realize that around 50% of your check is being confiscated to pay for stupid crap, you will begin to become intellectually curious. Shoot me an e-mail to apologize, we'll be cool then. If you need some more help clearing up your confusion, just holla.
According to a complaint later filed by the Securities and Exchange Commission, Freddie Mac, known formally as the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, misreported profits by billions of dollars in order to deceive investors between the years 2000 and 2002.
Emanuel was not named in the SEC complaint but the entire board was later accused by the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) of having "failed in its duty to follow up on matters brought to its attention."
Emanuel was not named in the SEC complaint, it's true, but Republicans Alphonse D'Amato, was also a member of that board, as was Geoffrey Boisi, who contributed more than $70,000 to the McCain campaign and the RNC.
My experience in a high-tech publicly owned company has taught me that BODs are useless when it comes to oversight.
If talk radio is irrelevant now, I wonder if Nancy Pelosi will back off her crusade to have the federal government censor it.
An eloquent liberal put it best why Pelosi is wrong and there is no need to censor talk radio. No need to enforce the government's standard of "Fair" on the free press at the expense of the first amendment:
"Precisely because radio and TV have become our principal sources of news and information, we should accord broadcasters the utmost freedom in order to insure a truly free press." - Mario Cuomo.
Calm down. Nancy Pelosi doesn't have the power to "censor" talk radio. It's not going to happen.
You people are soooooo fearful. And you're willing to believe any rumor.
Pelosi does have the power to censor talk radio if the "return of the fairness doctrine" passes, and is signed by Obama. President-Elect Obama says he does not support it
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/CA6573406.html
But I am not so sure that he opposes it enough to make sure to veto any bill that comes across his desk with censorship in it. But good for him for having the intent to protect the First Amendment rights of broadcasters.
"A Fairness Act bill was submitted in the House in 2005, but it only 16 cosponsors. No such bill was submitted in the last conference."
There might be more zeal for it now that there are more Democrats.
Post a Comment