I think we all saw this coming. I guess left-wing blowhard radio does not pay

The problem, as man of us have observed, is that the left has become so isolated and so ossified and so used to having its ideas unquestioned that it's lost the ability to argue effectively or really even think hard about where it might be wrong on any of the big issues.

The thing is that this wont' be true forever. Eventually, the left will start to concede that the right is correct about some issues, and will start to find the right's weaknesses. I think it'll probably be some time but we'll start to see it again.

It may be too early to count Air America out though. Thely may recover from this. And just remember, Rush Limbaugh started as an obscure guy on one radio station.

You're probably right. At present, they're stuck at the "oh, surely you wouldn't even consider voting for Bush" stage.

At some point, if they want to get any power back, they're going to have to engage. And that means putting forth a coherent vision for the two issues of the day: fighting terrorism and (a distant second) growing the economy.

The problem with talk radio is that it is so much a domain of blowhard conservatives that there isn't even a competition. American discourse these days is all about who can scream the loudest and play upon fears the most severely. Will anyone ever touch the conservatives in this department? Not likely. Fortunately for conservatives, the average citizen is disengaged and apathetic and will believe any outrageous piece of stupidity that Rush, Hannity or O'Reilly utters.

I guess the liberals will have to remain on top of the bestseller lists, because they can read.

There are plenty of lefty editors in Manhattan who wish they'd bought some of the right-wing bestsellers when they had the chance:

http://www.usatoday.com/life/books/news/2003-07-22-right_x.htm

After all, ideological purity is fine--but supposedly they are there to make money. Those are some tough breaks.

I guess I listen better than you read, my friend: there couldn't be three commentators more different than Rush, Hannity, and O'Reilly. Hannity is a traditional con, and very socially conservative for my taste. I can only take him in small pieces. O'Reilly is *not* a conservative at all--he's a populist. He just sort of shrieks, and I can't watch him or listen to him, for his crimes are beyond ideology: he's rude. Rude people don't get my patronage, thank you very much. Rush is solid gold: always funny, always insightful. He's a conservative at heart, but often a legislative libertarian. His IQ is probably double that of the average person, and this fact alone drives the elites in LA, SF, and Manhattan nuts.

Thanks for stopping by and slinging your stereotypes my way, though.

You should stop by my local public library sometime; liberal books fly off the shelf while several copies of books by Ann Coulter, Rush, O'Reilly and Hannity sit there unloved and unopened. And by the way, I live in the Deep South, where you wouldn't expect this to be the case. I don't know if anyone checks these books out but I do. Just for some sick laughs.

And yes, I do acknowledge the differences between the three commentators. And I agree with you entirely on O'Reilly. But Rush as solid gold? I doubt that. He's not even up to his own low standards these days. Additionally, I don't respect anyone who refuses to appear live on air with anyone but himself. If Rush has any intellect, it's that he knows where the real money lies: in playing on the anger and fear of half-informed people. The man didn't even register to vote until he was 35 years old!

More sterotypes from your newest old friend.