Air America Radio closes
booie
By Anthony Venutolo/The Star-Ledger
January 22, 2010, 12:11AM
One of liberal radio's most progressive outlets, Air America Radio,
shut down its operations Thursday. Political satirist Al Franken
speaks during a news conference at Air America Radio studios August
25, 2004 in New York City.
One of liberal radio's most progressive outlets, Air America Radio,
shut down its operations Thursday.
The network was launched in April 2004 and was considered (and billed)
as one of the few alternatives to right-wing radio.
"This past year has seen a 'perfect storm' in the media industry
generally. National and local advertising revenues have fallen
drastically, causing many media companies nationwide to fold or seek
bankruptcy protection," says a statement on the company's web site.
Based in New York City, Aitr America was carried by roughly one
hundred outlets across the country and featured such celebrated and
liberal personalities like Rachel Maddow, Al Franken, Steve Earle,
Randi Rhodes, Ron Kuby, rapper Chuck D. and Arianna Huffington.
Franken hosted his own show from 2004-2007 before leaving to campaign
for a United States Senate seat in Minnesota, which he won last year
after a recount battle. As for Maddow, she moved on to host her own
television show on MSNBC.
They stopped airing new programs earlier Thursday afternoon and said
it will soon file to be liquidated under Chapter 7 bankruptcy.
The station will broadcast reruns of shows and will completely end
those Monday night.
"So we intend a rapid, orderly closure over the next few days," the
online statement says.
http://www.nj.com/entertainment/index.ssf/2010/01/air_america_radio_closes.html
bbb wrote:
Times are tough.
Even for liberals.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Posted by Lancheoo
January 22, 2010, 1:30AM
I don't think my week could get any better other than Obama getting
impeached. First the left lost their senate seat and healthcare god
willing and now Blowholes air america is gone. Boston Tea Party ftw
Posted by ConanTheRepublican
January 22, 2010, 1:59AM
At last...as I predicted--ScAir America dies without so much as a peep
in the LameStream Media. George Soros, please go straight to hell...do
NOT pass Go, do NOT collect $200.
Posted by Mary Waterton
January 22, 2010, 2:02AM
Wow, Airhead America gone. They couldn't find any corporate sponsors
because it was run by commie libs who hate corporate America. Their
listeners are also commie libs who don't have jobs. How did they
expect to survive without cash flow? I guess they were looking for a
Government handout from the democrats.
Posted by Sam
January 22, 2010, 3:12AM
No, Air America served their purpose for the time being: threw the
lunatic out of office who you supported. As for commie labeling,
corporate America is the reason why you are less educated and poor and
do not know the meaning of communism. Most of those who don't have
jobs right now are Republican converts. Hence the adage: the lamb
licks the hand that is about to butcher it!
Posted by kj159
January 22, 2010, 3:10AM
lol do you morons even see what's happening? It's not that the left is
a tottering failing institution or that the right is finally winning
the great political debate.
This is about radio closures.
It started with the newspapers, now it's hitting the radio, next it
will be the television stations.
Welcome to the new America
Posted by Sam
January 22, 2010, 3:22AM
End result, Rachael Maddow on MSNBC and Al Franken in the US Senate.
Now I can listen to Rachael Maddow when I fly Virgin America. Won't be
surprised if Randi Rhodes shows up on satellite radio. Not bad for a
bankrupt radio show.
Posted by kj159
January 22, 2010, 3:37AM
Well the commentators will always be around, just like everytime a
newspaper closes because "they couldn't find any corporate sponsors
because it was run by commie libs who hate corporate America," there
are still plenty of writers.
It won't matter anyway, the line between newsfotainment commentator
and elected official is already blurring. Pretty soon we'll be paying
Glenn Beck AND Keith Olberman out of our tax dollars.
Posted by Sam
January 22, 2010, 3:23AM
End result, Rachael Maddow on MSNBC and Al Franken in the US Senate.
Now I can listen to Rachael Maddow when I fly Virgin America. Won't be
surprised if Randi Rhodes shows up on satellite radio. Not bad for a
bankrupt radio show.
WeReo_ScoTTy
news:d546d458-0c81-4b08...@e16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
Edwin Hurwitz
<d546d458-0c81-4b08...@e16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
booie <ba_ba...@webtv.net> wrote:
This is what happens when the economy crashes while the banks and big
corps get bailed out. Now that our economy is more or less completely
devoid of manufacturing and is based on financial manipulations, the
only interests that will get media representation are the ones that can
afford it. This is another side effect of Bush crashing the economy. It
allows the conservatives to defund the opposition. In combination with
yesterday's Supreme Court decision, we will see a lot less real debate
on the merits of the issues our country faces.
This is what a country looks like that is crossing the event horizon
into the abyss of corporatism.
Edwin
DGDevin
"Edwin Hurwitz" <ed...@indra.com> wrote in message
news:edwin-159881....@news.indra.com...
> This is what happens when the economy crashes while the banks and big
> corps get bailed out.
Actually this is what happens when a radio network is poorly run. Air
America's troubles long predated the economic meltdown. Squabbles between
management and on-air personalities, initially buying stations rather than
leasing air-time, a shady business deal that got them a lot of bad press, a
lawsuit against affiliates that made them look bad in the radio industry,
and frankly a lack of appealing programming are what did in Air America--the
recession was just the icing on the cake. Right-wing talk-radio might be
run by a bunch of rat-bastards, but at least they're *competent*
rat-bastards.
Ken Fortenberry
>
> This is what happens when the economy crashes while the banks and big
> corps get bailed out. Now that our economy is more or less completely
> devoid of manufacturing and is based on financial manipulations, the
> only interests that will get media representation are the ones that can
> afford it. This is another side effect of Bush crashing the economy. It
> allows the conservatives to defund the opposition. In combination with
> yesterday's Supreme Court decision, we will see a lot less real debate
> on the merits of the issues our country faces.
Good lord, what a bunch of overwrought nonsense. Air America went
under because nobody listened to it. And nobody listened to it
because it was liberal/progressive party line propaganda presented
as talk radio created for the sole purpose of countering right-wing
nitwit (read Limbaugh) propaganda.
There is a thriving market for that kind of partisan bullshit amongst
nitwits, but among those who are more affluent, educated and liberal
that kind of radio is rightfully dismissed as silly.
> This is what a country looks like that is crossing the event horizon
> into the abyss of corporatism.
That particular "crossing the event horizon" happened a long time
ago. I may be crazy but I think the recent decision by the Supremes
could very well be the beginning of the pendulum starting to swing
in the opposite direction.
--
Ken Fortenberry
Brad Greer
wrote:
[snip]
>This is what happens when the economy crashes while the banks and big
>corps get bailed out. Now that our economy is more or less completely
>devoid of manufacturing and is based on financial manipulations, the
>only interests that will get media representation are the ones that can
>afford it. This is another side effect of Bush crashing the economy. It
>allows the conservatives to defund the opposition. In combination with
>yesterday's Supreme Court decision, we will see a lot less real debate
>on the merits of the issues our country faces.
>
>This is what a country looks like that is crossing the event horizon
>into the abyss of corporatism.
>
No, Edwin, this is what happens when a radio network can't find an
audience - it goes under. I'm a liberal/progressive oriented person
and I never had the slightest interest in listening to Air America. A
lot of my friends are also liberal/progressive and they never listened
to Air America either. I actually thought Air America had gone under
some time ago, I'm surprised it hung on this long.
Did you ever listen to Air America?
3jane.
>
> administration as easy targets, but after their bigger names left, how
> much Randi Rhodes can one listen to anyway? For more thoughtful and
> less strident, one-note programming (and I'm a
> liberal/progressive-oriented person too), I'd just as soon listen to
> NPR or any number of options internationally (like CBC or BBC, etc.)...
I too am a communist and I never once considered listening to that
station (even though a good friend worked there for a few years), life
is boring enough as it is.
DGDevin
"band beyond description" <everybody's.d...@that.rag.com> wrote in message
news:7s05eh...@mid.individual.net...
> don't forget billions in apparently eternal government transfusions to the
> war-pig defense establishment. and look at the bright (###) side of all
> these wars: they're "less deadly" than they used to be!
New! War-Lite, now with less casualites! You'll love our E-Z-Open
packaging, no more struggling with Congress! And when you're done our
patented VA container keeps the mess out of sight. [Void where prohibited
by common sense, no refunds ever, may cause multi-generational suffering, no
guarantee that you won't be one of the fewer casualties, dangerous
interactions with all aspects of civilization have been reported, if you
notice unpleasant side effects don't bother voting for the other party as
all they have to offer is another surge, may cause mass dementia so do not
drive or operate machinery until you know how War will affect you]
Bruce
> There is a thriving market for that kind of partisan bullshit amongst
> nitwits, but among those who are more affluent, educated and liberal
> that kind of radio is rightfully dismissed as silly.
I couldn't agree more.
> I may be crazy but I think the recent decision by the Supremes
> could very well be the beginning of the pendulum starting to swing
> in the opposite direction.
I don't follow, can you elaborate ?
Ken Fortenberry
I think people are finally starting to realize just how much
power and influence are wielded by corporate interests and
just how opposed corporate interests are to the public welfare.
Liberal/progressives have been harping on this theme for years
and it is the song playing in the background of the tea-bagger
movement.
There is an ebb and a flow in the history of politics that some
compare to the swinging of a pendulum. This decision by the
Supremes is so intellectually dishonest and so potentially ruinous
to our democracy I think it may very well be the nadir of the
corporate takeover of our politics. The backlash against this
decision will be angry, loud and sustained.
--
Ken Fortenberry
Bruce
wrote:
I see, I hope you're right. On this point I think you have more faith
in the American citizenry than I do.
J.C. Martin
<everybody's.d...@that.rag.com> wrote:
> administration as easy targets, but after their bigger names left, how
> much Randi Rhodes can one listen to anyway? For more thoughtful and
> less strident, one-note programming (and I'm a
> liberal/progressive-oriented person too), I'd just as soon listen to
> NPR or any number of options internationally (like CBC or BBC, etc.)...
> Peace,
> Steve
Yup, I never listened to it once. I do flip through the TV channels
and watch a little MSNBC and Fox in order to get all the talking
points floating around, but I can only take so much. Listening to
these circular arguments day in and day out is pretty pointless. I
don't need surround myself with messages from folks who believe in
what I do. Personally, I find radio to be a pretty useless medium
other than a little sports talk when I'm driving. But I much prefer
to listen to music that I choose over anything else.
For once, Ken has something right. Most 'non-right-wingers' could
care less about talk radio. We have better things to do with our time
than listening to whining about the big bad media and the communist
takeover from liberals. Sheesh.
FWIW, Ken is wrong about the recent Supreme Court decision having a
positive effect in terms of getting people to stand up and make
necessary changes. Forget it. This decision set the country back
about a 100 years. And it's only going to get worse. The Supreme
Court is a partisan body, and the only true way for progressive change
is to have the right president in there at the right time. That
should give pause to those who vote for third party candidates; the
ones who have no chance of winning.
-JC
J.C. Martin
wrote:
No one is talking about it much Ken. It's not even a headline news
story. I don't buy it. People believe what they want to believe. An
abstract Supreme Court decision means nothing to most Americans. Most
people just want a job, and that's it.
-JC
Ray
> Supremes is so intellectually dishonest
I don't agree with the ruling but I don't find it intellectually
dishonest - reasonable people can reasonably disagree on this one.
For example here's Glenn Greenwald's (a Constitutional scholar who is
decidedly not a conservative or a Scalia parrot) take on it:
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/01/22/citizens_united/index.html
As with the ruling itself I don't agree with Greenwald here, but the
guy is anything but intellectually dishonest.
> and so potentially ruinous
> to our democracy
That it might be. Greenwald argues however that the system is already
so corrupted by corporate influence that making said influence overt
won't make much of a difference. In a sick sort of way I hope he's
right, but FWIW I don't share his "optimism" there either.
> The backlash against this
> decision will be angry, loud and sustained.
I'm inclined to think that JC's perspective is much more on the mark
here.
octoad
"Ken Fortenberry" <kennethfo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:hjfjra$bsi$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
I very much doubt that.
Here are what the two main arguments will be on this issue, in a nutshell:
Republicans, conservatives, Fox News, talk radio, tea baggers: Great! Now
we have truly free speech, no more big government telling us what we can say
or when we can say it. Hey, and its not just corporations that can speak
freely like our god given Constitution guaranteed, even unions and the ACLU
were in favor of this decision because they want to speak freely too. This
is what our country is all about! (millions cheer).
Democrats (but probably not put quite this way): This is awful. Now big
banks, big oil, and big multinational corporations get to make movies and
buy campaign ads, even right before elections! It will be chaos! What we
need is for the federal government to use your tax dollars to fund
campaigns. Politicians like us can't be honest if corporations and banks
are funding our campaigns, so we need to take YOUR money instead, then we'll
be honest, promise! (millions groan).
Despite the fact that the tax money the politicians would use to puff
themselves up and lie about each other in the media would be microscopically
miniscule in the context of the federal budget if there WAS public campaign
financing, advocating using tax dollars for campaigns (which some suicidal
Dems in Congress will inevitably do) is going to be hugely unpopular. It
will be far more unpopular than corporations, unions, and special interest
groups openly spending money on campaigns will be, especially since
everybody assumes they already control the system (which they do).
So most folks will see it break down like this (especially after all this
new money buys all those great anti-public financing ads):
Money rules now anyway, they just hide it in all those alphabet soup
organizations, as soon as you ban one kind they invent another kind, so why
not just have it all be in the open without all the secret shenanigans? I'm
all for free speech, let 'er rip. And hell if I want those crooks using MY
money to get elected, that's the LAST thing I want to see.
Not to mention that even if the Dems came up with some legislative solution
that didn't turn off huge majorities of voters, they no longer have the
votes to pass it.................
O
volkfolk
I'd love a job........
Scot
volkfolk
<everybody's.d...@that.rag.com> wrote:
> On 2010-01-23 23:32:40 +0900, Brad Greer <jjh110...@yahoo.com> said:
>
>
>
> administration as easy targets, but after their bigger names left, how
> much Randi Rhodes can one listen to anyway? For more thoughtful and
> less strident, one-note programming (and I'm a
> liberal/progressive-oriented person too), I'd just as soon listen to
> NPR or any number of options internationally (like CBC or BBC, etc.)...
> --
> Peace,
> Steve
Randi Rhodes is one of the biggest morons I've ever heard in my life.
She makes Glenn Beck look intelligent by comparison
Scot
Ray
> On Jan 23, 11:48 am, Ken Fortenberry <kennethfortenbe...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > This decision by the
> > Supremes is so intellectually dishonest
>
> I don't agree with the ruling but I don't find it intellectually
> dishonest - reasonable people can reasonably disagree on this one.
OTOH, this is the same five Supremes who ruled a couple of years ago
against a high school student displaying a banner that said "BONG HITS
4 JESUS" across the street from a school event, asserting that the
student didn't have the right to do that as it had the potential of
adversely affecting the school. Those same Supremes essentially
asserted in this recent decision that free speech is too important to
abridge regardless of the potentially adverse outcome, which
demonstrates that they hypocritical douchbags - no surprise to anyone
familiar with Bush v. Gore.
> For example here's Glenn Greenwald's (a Constitutional scholar who is
> decidedly not a conservative or a Scalia parrot) take on it:
>
> http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/01/22/citizens...
J.C. Martin
> wrote:
>
> > This decision by the
> > Supremes is so intellectually dishonest
>
> I don't agree with the ruling but I don't find it intellectually
> dishonest - reasonable people can reasonably disagree on this one.
> For example here's Glenn Greenwald's (a Constitutional scholar who is
> decidedly not a conservative or a Scalia parrot) take on it:
>
>
> As with the ruling itself I don't agree with Greenwald here, but the
> guy is anything but intellectually dishonest.
>
> > and so potentially ruinous
> > to our democracy
>
> That it might be. Greenwald argues however that the system is already
> so corrupted by corporate influence that making said influence overt
> won't make much of a difference. In a sick sort of way I hope he's
> right, but FWIW I don't share his "optimism" there either.
>
> > The backlash against this
> > decision will be angry, loud and sustained.
>
> I'm inclined to think that JC's perspective is much more on the mark
> here.
Thanks for the link Ray. That's exactly it though. Fundamentally, we
won't see much difference, since politics is already driven by
corporate lobbyists and money. The difference is the solidity of the
system itself. It's completely abstract to the average citizen.
Until we get at the very least two liberal Supreme Court judges, we
are stuck with US corporations calling the shots . The next thing
you know, foreign nationalists will control our policy if the Supreme
Court continues on this path. I wish Republicans would 'get' it. If
any modern day decision is limiting our personal freedoms, this one
tops them all IMO.
-JC
Ray
I hope you're right, but consider this: I read somewhere - can't
remember where or the exact numbers right now - that if ExxonMobile
where to spend only a tiny fraction of its profits in the next
presidential election that said expenditure would exceed all the money
spent in the '08 presidential election combined.
> Until we get at the very least two liberal Supreme Court judges, we
> are stuck with US corporations calling the shots .
You're right, you know. Or more accurately until we have to get one
liberal judge to replace one of the conservative judges (or Kennedy);
unfortunately none of them are likely to be leaving anytime soon.
We dodged a bullet in that McCain wasn't President when Souter left
but Soutemeyer's appointment just preserved the status quo, as opposed
to changing the political balance of the court (which the appointment
of another conservative would have done).
> The next thing
> you know, foreign nationalists will control our policy if the Supreme
> Court continues on this path. I wish Republicans would 'get' it. If
> any modern day decision is limiting our personal freedoms, this one
> tops them all IMO.
I'm a bit confused here - above you say fundamentally we won't see
much difference from this ruling; here you say the decision is the
most influential in the modern era with respect to limiting our
personal freedoms. Those would appear to be diametrically opposed
statements - am I reading you incorrectly?
>
> -JC
Ken Fortenberry
> Ray wrote:
>> Ken Fortenberry wrote:
>>> This decision by the
>>> Supremes is so intellectually dishonest
>> I don't agree with the ruling but I don't find it intellectually
>> dishonest - reasonable people can reasonably disagree on this one.
>
> OTOH, this is the same five Supremes who ruled a couple of years ago
> against a high school student displaying a banner that said "BONG HITS
> 4 JESUS" across the street from a school event, asserting that the
> student didn't have the right to do that as it had the potential of
> adversely affecting the school. Those same Supremes essentially
> asserted in this recent decision that free speech is too important to
> abridge regardless of the potentially adverse outcome, which
> demonstrates that they hypocritical douchbags - no surprise to anyone
> familiar with Bush v. Gore.
>
>> For example here's Glenn Greenwald's (a Constitutional scholar who is
>> decidedly not a conservative or a Scalia parrot) take on it:
>>
>> http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/01/22/citizens...
Here's Stuart Taylor in the _National Journal_ yesterday:
http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/or_20100122_1193.php
And a less technical critique from Ruth Marcus is today's Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/22/AR2010012203897.html
>>> The backlash against this
>>> decision will be angry, loud and sustained.
>> I'm inclined to think that JC's perspective is much more on the mark
>> here.
Yeah, it very well could be just wishful thinking on my part but
Obama sure sounded pissed in his radio address. It's not often you
hear a Prez give the Supremes such a scolding.
--
Ken Fortenberry
J.C. Martin
Well, more and more money has flowed into the political realm through
various means. But yes, we will lead to steeper climb in corporate
contributions.
> > Until we get at the very least two liberal Supreme Court judges, we
> > are stuck with US corporations calling the shots .
>
> You're right, you know. Or more accurately until we have to get one
> liberal judge to replace one of the conservative judges (or Kennedy);
> unfortunately none of them are likely to be leaving anytime soon.
I think we would probably need two to overcome 'settled law,' that was
born from a previous Supreme Court decision, but I could be wrong.
> We dodged a bullet in that McCain wasn't President when Souter left
> but Soutemeyer's appointment just preserved the status quo, as opposed
> to changing the political balance of the court (which the appointment
> of another conservative would have done).
>
Yup. I made this case during the presidential campaign. I personally
think that 'Supreme Court appointee' decisions should be the #1 reason
for voting for a particular presidential candidate. Unfortunately,
most American concentrate on their short-term needs; it's human nature
I suppose.
> > The next thing
> > you know, foreign nationalists will control our policy if the Supreme
> > Court continues on this path. I wish Republicans would 'get' it. If
> > any modern day decision is limiting our personal freedoms, this one
> > tops them all IMO.
>
> I'm a bit confused here - above you say fundamentally we won't see
> much difference from this ruling; here you say the decision is the
> most influential in the modern era with respect to limiting our
> personal freedoms. Those would appear to be diametrically opposed
> statements - am I reading you incorrectly?
Sorry if I haven't been clear. What I'm saying is that most Americans
won't be able to tell the difference. On that level, the status quo
remains. But there is a slippery slope involved and that slope just
got a whole lot more slippery. If corporations affect the populace's
decision making on a grand scale today, imagine what it will be like
20 years from now? People have such high expectations for
presidents. Wake up America. They simply do not have the power to
change the system. The Supreme Court most certainly does.
-JC
Ray
wrote:
> Ray wrote:
> > Ray wrote:
> >> Ken Fortenberry wrote:
> >>> This decision by the
> >>> Supremes is so intellectually dishonest
> >> I don't agree with the ruling but I don't find it intellectually
> >> dishonest - reasonable people can reasonably disagree on this one.
>
> > OTOH, this is the same five Supremes who ruled a couple of years ago
> > against a high school student displaying a banner that said "BONG HITS
> > 4 JESUS" across the street from a school event, asserting that the
> > student didn't have the right to do that as it had the potential of
> > adversely affecting the school. Those same Supremes essentially
> > asserted in this recent decision that free speech is too important to
> > abridge regardless of the potentially adverse outcome, which
> > demonstrates that they hypocritical douchbags - no surprise to anyone
> > familiar with Bush v. Gore.
>
> >> For example here's Glenn Greenwald's (a Constitutional scholar who is
> >> decidedly not a conservative or a Scalia parrot) take on it:
>
> >>http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/01/22/citizens...
>
> Here's Stuart Taylor in the _National Journal_ yesterday:
>
> http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/or_20100122_1193.php
"Conservatives Forfeit High Ground On Activism" - yeah I agree with
that, though again they had already forfeited that back in 2000 with
Bush v. Gore.
The ruling itself has a valid constitutional argument for it; I'm with
you though that the Supremes who made it demonstrated yet again that
they are hypocritical douchbags.
> And a less technical critique from Ruth Marcus is today's Post:
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/22/AR201...
Ok, your two links have convinced me that even though the ruling has a
valid constitutional argument the way these judges arrived at it was
intellectually dishonest - again no surprise to anyone familiar with
the specifics of Bush v. Gore.
> Yeah, it very well could be just wishful thinking on my part but
> Obama sure sounded pissed in his radio address. It's not often you
> hear a Prez give the Supremes such a scolding.
Many people who follow this sort of stuff are angry, etc.; most people
don't follow this sort of stuff though.
Ray
>
> > > Thanks for the link Ray. That's exactly it though. Fundamentally, we
> > > won't see much difference, since politics is already driven by
> > > corporate lobbyists and money.
>
> > I hope you're right, but consider this: I read somewhere - can't
> > remember where or the exact numbers right now - that if ExxonMobile
> > where to spend only a tiny fraction of its profits in the next
> > presidential election that said expenditure would exceed all the money
> > spent in the '08 presidential election combined.
>
> Well, more and more money has flowed into the political realm through
> various means. But yes, we will lead to steeper climb in corporate
> contributions.
What I see as more important here isn't the actual dollar amount spent
but instead the significant widening of the gap with respect to the
monetary influence of large corporations vs. non-profits and labor
unions, etc. That said in my view it's too soon to tell how much of a
difference this will make.
> > > Until we get at the very least two liberal Supreme Court judges, we
> > > are stuck with US corporations calling the shots .
>
> > You're right, you know. Or more accurately until we have to get one
> > liberal judge to replace one of the conservative judges (or Kennedy);
> > unfortunately none of them are likely to be leaving anytime soon.
>
> I think we would probably need two to overcome 'settled law,' that was
> born from a previous Supreme Court decision, but I could be wrong.
Yeah, maybe so. Right now unfortunately all we (via Obama) can do us
preserve the status quo.
> > We dodged a bullet in that McCain wasn't President when Souter left
> > but Soutemeyer's appointment just preserved the status quo, as opposed
> > to changing the political balance of the court (which the appointment
> > of another conservative would have done).
>
> Yup. I made this case during the presidential campaign. I personally
> think that 'Supreme Court appointee' decisions should be the #1 reason
> for voting for a particular presidential candidate.
I did too, and fully agreed.
> Unfortunately,
> most American concentrate on their short-term needs; it's human nature
> I suppose.
And their short term fears, usually generated by the fear-mongers.
> > I'm a bit confused here - above you say fundamentally we won't see
> > much difference from this ruling; here you say the decision is the
> > most influential in the modern era with respect to limiting our
> > personal freedoms. Those would appear to be diametrically opposed
> > statements - am I reading you incorrectly?
>
> Sorry if I haven't been clear. What I'm saying is that most Americans
> won't be able to tell the difference. On that level, the status quo
> remains. But there is a slippery slope involved and that slope just
> got a whole lot more slippery. If corporations affect the populace's
> decision making on a grand scale today, imagine what it will be like
> 20 years from now? People have such high expectations for
> presidents. Wake up America. They simply do not have the power to
> change the system. The Supreme Court most certainly does.
Gotcha - again agreed.
BTW check your email.
J.C. Martin
> On Jan 23, 3:03 pm, Ken Fortenberry <kennethfortenbe...@gmail.com>
> > Yeah, it very well could be just wishful thinking on my part but
> > Obama sure sounded pissed in his radio address. It's not often you
> > hear a Prez give the Supremes such a scolding.
>
> Many people who follow this sort of stuff are angry, etc.; most people
> don't follow this sort of stuff though.
There's nothing Obama can do, so it doesn't surprise me that he's mad
or acting mad. He needs to rally the base, and this issue can do the
trick. But the deal is done, and the Supreme Court in its current
format isn't going away any time soon.
-JC
Edwin Hurwitz
<28d10ad3-b9d5-4357...@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
"J.C. Martin" <avant...@gmail.com> wrote:
Of course the media isn't talking about it, but lots of people are. I
think it will make a difference for a little while, but people will get
complacent or distracted by something else. I don't think we'll feel the
real impact of this ruling for a while, when we finally accept an
institutionalized takeover of the electoral process in the name of "free
speech."
Edwin
Ray O'Hara
"Ken Fortenberry" <kennethfo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:hjfjra$bsi$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> Bruce wrote:
> power and influence are wielded by corporate interests and
> just how opposed corporate interests are to the public welfare.
> Liberal/progressives have been harping on this theme for years
> and it is the song playing in the background of the tea-bagger
> movement.
>
> There is an ebb and a flow in the history of politics that some
> compare to the swinging of a pendulum. This decision by the
> Supremes is so intellectually dishonest and so potentially ruinous
> to our democracy I think it may very well be the nadir of the
> corporate takeover of our politics. The backlash against this
> decision will be angry, loud and sustained.
>
> --
> Ken Fortenberry
it will be interesting to see how the teabaggers will react.
while the movement is an astroturf movent at the top it is sorta grassroots
at the bottom.
the Repubs and Fox are trying very hard to keep the movement as Republican
but many of them hate the reopubs too.
they are having a conference and Saraquitter and Michelle Bachman are
featured speakers , Sarah is getting a 100 grand speakers fee.,
other Teabaggers are planing to protest this conference because it is
Repub/corporate sponsored.
Scott Brown got plenty of money from the Teabaggers, what will they do when
they find he is mostly pro-choice,he is against "partial-birth" abortions,
but if either of his daughters need one he will change his mind.
J.C. Martin
> In article
> <28d10ad3-b9d5-4357-add4-b8df3cbc6...@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
A difference in what way?
BTW, the media would give it more coverage if people were interested
in it. There's no conspiracy involved or anything like that. Our
media is driven by advertising dollars, period.
-JC