JDS, your opinion of the political competence of the Democratic Party today would seem to be a lot higher than mine, if you think they can control the choice of majority leader when they're the minority party.
Besides, I believe Lott has chosen to remain in the Senate.
How ironic that you should pick Canada...the nation that allows terrorists to take shelter from the U.S., and now is allowing five of them to come back here. The nation that is afraid of a war with its own Indian reserves (their name for reservations), and so allows them to function as conduits for the abovementioned terrorists. Yeah, we really should be concerned about what THEY think.Originally Posted by Stonewall Patton
Re: Lott replacement's sordid past
This story is going nowhere, particularly now that Frist was a hero in a highway accident. Please, please...drop the obsessive gloom.I hope and pray this story's "got legs." Quote: "Frist acknowledged in a 1989 book that he routinely killed cats while an ambitious medical student at Harvard Medical School in the 1970s."
He's gonna have to "apologize" for this "youthful indiscretion." And then all hell will break loose, again.
Elephants never forget, but do they ever learn?
Re: Hey, Here come da Boomers!
The happy days are already here, with the emerging GOP majority. Either drop the cocaine habit, or stay on it all the time. You depress everybody else when you're coming down off the stuff.More good news for you 4Ters:
LONDON (Reuters) - Wall Street is limping toward its first three-year losing streak since 1939-41 while the blue-chip Dow is headed to its worst December performance since 1931.
Strike up the band, folks, Happy days are [almost] here, again!
So long sad times!,
Go 'long bad times!,
We are rid of you at last
Howdy, gay times!
Cloudy gray times,
You are now a thing
Of the past, cause:
Chorus:
Happy days are here again
The skies above are clear again
Let us sing a song of cheer again
Happy days are here again
Altogether shout it now!
There's no one who can doubt it now
So let's tell the world about it now
Happy days are here again
Your cares and troubles are gone;
There'll be no more from now on
Happy days are here again
The skies above are clear again
Let us sing a song of cheer again
Happy days are here again
Re: Hey, Here come da Boomers!
Sniff, er, sniff sniff, um, sniff, whatever my, sniff, dear, sniff, are you, um, sniff snort, blabbering, snort snuff, about? :wink:The happy days are already here, with the emerging GOP majority. Either drop the cocaine habit, or stay on it all the time. You depress everybody else when you're coming down off the stuff.
Re: Hey, Here come da Boomers!
OK, maybe I went a little too far...not the first time, I might add. Still, you seem to assume that every political change from now on will be for the worse. Here you are implying a Democratic takeover in 2004 or 2008, and that the new Democratic majority will form a lasting political machine. While many others have said the same, most of them have been either DNC hacks like Judis and Teixeira, or else embittered "paleoconservatives" like Pat Buchanan who believe that America deserves to be washed down the drain if it doesn't follow their orders. There is at least as good an argument for a coming conservative era, due to the fall of the USSR which was the primary international backer of leftist movements. Because the US is now the lone superpower, we on the Right no longer have to back dictators such as Marcos and Samoza simply because they are preferable to Communists; thus we can take up the mantle of freedom against the Husseins of the world. Nowadays, conservatives are idealistic and liberals are cautious, and that makes a HUGE difference when it comes to making converts. The Millenials graduating today will probably associate the GOP with Bush II's war against terrorism, fascism, and nuclear proliferation. They will associate the Democrats with Monica Lewinsky.Sniff, er, sniff sniff, um, sniff, whatever my, sniff, dear, sniff, are you, um, sniff snort, blabbering, snort snuff, about? :wink:The happy days are already here, with the emerging GOP majority. Either drop the cocaine habit, or stay on it all the time. You depress everybody else when you're coming down off the stuff.
You're almost home, Mr. Flandry.
Keep the faith, my brother. :wink:
Re: Hey, Here come da Boomers!
If the USA ever adopted the kind of attuide Dominic aspires to, The United States would be fighting a battle with the rest of the western world. Not even your stanchest allies (Australia and Britain) would be willing to support the USA that far.
Re: Hey, Here come da Boomers!
I somehow don't see the rest of the western world fighting anyone, except maybe Englishmen who make banger sausages.If the USA ever adopted the kind of attuide Dominic aspires to, The United States would be fighting a battle with the rest of the western world. Not even your stanchest allies (Australia and Britain) would be willing to support the USA that far.
Dominic said:
I realize you addressed this to a nonexistent person, Dominic, but I have some thoughts on it.Here you are implying a Democratic takeover in 2004 or 2008, and that the new Democratic majority will form a lasting political machine.
Now that the Democrats seem to be remembering what their political role is, they will almost certainly take over in 2004 or 2008 (probably 2004). About the "lasting political machine," I'm not sure what you mean, but if you mean that we will have a permanent Democratic majority, I don't think that's likely. The coming High will give us a swing to the right as usual.
Ah, but apparently not against the Musharrafs of the world, or the House of Saud, or any of the other tyrants we continue to support. Apparently we still have reasons for providing that support.There is at least as good an argument for a coming conservative era, due to the fall of the USSR which was the primary international backer of leftist movements. Because the US is now the lone superpower, we on the Right no longer have to back dictators such as Marcos and Samoza simply because they are preferable to Communists; thus we can take up the mantle of freedom against the Husseins of the world.
Anti-Communism and the Cold War were never the entire reason we did so. At least as important, and still with us, were economic motives, with foreign tyrants keeping their working class under the jackboots and providing American corporations with cheap labor, or cooperating in sale of raw materials at reasonable prices.
Saddam Hussein isn't being opposed because he's a tyrant. He's being opposed because he sits on a lot of oil and won't cooperate. That he is a tyrant is merely a convenient excuse. A similar fate met Allende in Chile, and not for Cold War reasons -- and Allende was not a tyrant, while his replacement was.
No, no. LIBERALS aren't cautious. DEMOCRATS have been cautious.Nowadays, conservatives are idealistic and liberals are cautious, and that makes a HUGE difference when it comes to making converts.
That's because Democrats haven't been liberals. The truth is, we haven't seen a test between conservative and liberal politics in any American election since the Awakening ended.
Now that the Democrats seem on their way to becoming liberals once more, we will see such a test. And you cannot begin crowing, Dominic, until your side has passed it.
They may well regain control of one or both houses of Congress, but they'll have trouble even with that unless they can figure out how to close the gap between their coast-liberal core and the rest of the country. They have to figure out some way to keep the McDermonts home, for one thing. That trip to Baghdad hurt the Dems.
1984 and 1988 approximated it. Granted, they weren't Boomer libs, but Mondale and esp. Dukakis were liberals, and the public perceived that behind them stood more determined liberals. It was precisely the social liberalism they represented (not their economics) that defeated them.No, no. LIBERALS aren't cautious. DEMOCRATS have been cautious.Nowadays, conservatives are idealistic and liberals are cautious, and that makes a HUGE difference when it comes to making converts.
That's because Democrats haven't been liberals. The truth is, we haven't seen a test between conservative and liberal politics in any American election since the Awakening ended.
Now, a Boomer liberal might do a better job, that remains to be seen. But the liberalism behind Mondale and Dukakis was always visible.
H.C.:
With this entire notion, I completely disagree. The problem the Democrats had in the last election stemmed exactly from this attempt to please everybody. The Democrats have NOT been campaigning to their "coast-liberal core." That's been the problem. (Being a part of that core myself, I think I'm in a better position to judge this. I can ask: Have I been satisfied with Democratic Party positions on issues? Was I pleased with the accomplishments of the Clinton administration, for example? No, not at all.)They may well regain control of one or both houses of Congress, but they'll have trouble even with that unless they can figure out how to close the gap between their coast-liberal core and the rest of the country. They have to figure out some way to keep the McDermonts home, for one thing. That trip to Baghdad hurt the Dems.
You are seriously exaggerating the impact of McDermott's trip to Baghdad. The polls suggest that most Americans agree with McDermott on this issue, though they might think his language somewhat intemperate.
No, the Dems don't need to moderate; that's what they've been doing. They need to stand for something. They need to make people like you and Dominic fume.
The Democrats can win without the South and the mountain states, if they hold the Northeast and the West coast, and contend well in the Midwest. And that's the stategy they need to pursue.
No, no, no. If that's what you think, then you have no perception of what the liberalism of the coming saeculum (which is being defined in this Crisis) is all about. Neither the Mondale nor the Dukakis campaign featured anything new or progressive; they were status-quo campaigns trying to reverse a reactionary onslaught. Not liberal but, in the classic sense, conservative.1984 and 1988 approximated it.
That's pretty much what Dominic was saying, and if you ditch his Limbaugh-esque use of "liberals" when he means "Democrats," it's been true. But there are good signs that it's going to cease to be true. And then we'll see a real contest.
Re: Hey, Here come da Boomers!
Dominic, listen to yourself. What you are espousing is liberal neo-Wilsonian ideology. Conservativism is all about realism not idealism.
Tom Brazaitis
Happy (is a relative term) New Year
01/05/03
The disappointing thing about New Year's Day is this: When you wake up on the morning of Jan. 1, your life is pretty much the same as when you went to sleep on Dec. 31, give or take a New Year's resolution or two.
Our attempt to compart mentalize our lives in an or derly series of days, weeks, months and years, each with a fixed beginning and end, fails because life is a continuum that defies compartmentalization.
Try Our Classifieds
We don't get to start over with a clean slate.
So it is that President George W. Bush and the newly elected Republican Congress, like the rest of us, begin the New Year bearing the baggage of years past. The transition from 2002 to 2003 comes at a point that seems particularly fraught with danger and anxiety.
Globally, the United States is at war against al-Qaida, on the brink of war with Iraq and threatened with nuclear escalation by North Korea.
The president declared that Osama bin Laden was wanted, dead or alive, but with or without him, the al-Qaida terrorist network has regrouped and reportedly plans new attacks (chemical, biological or nuclear) on America and Americans.
Waging war to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and lessen the threat from his alleged stockpile of weapons of mass destruction runs the risk of adding fuel to the fire already raging in the Middle East.
Not even our longtime ally, South Korea, the nation most at risk from its neighbor, agrees with the Bush administration's tough-love policy of no bargaining and no new economic incentives until North Korea abandons its nuclear program.
Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean wither under the scourge of HIV/AIDS.
A billion people in the world suffer from hunger and malnutrition, and 24,000 die every day from hunger-related causes. Three-fourths of the deaths are children under the age of 5.
And there is increasing evidence that global warming is real, not a figment of tree-huggers' imagination, and that its consequences will be catastrophic.
The picture at home is no less pretty.
If you had to pick a word to describe the U.S. economy, what would it be? My choice would be "stumbling." Statistically, the country has pulled out of recession, but barely. There is risk of slipping back into recession - the so-called "double dip" - before true recovery takes hold.
News accounts describe a disappointing holiday shopping season - plenty of merchandise to buy, but too few buyers - a possible precursor of deflation, an economic event every bit as destabilizing as its fraternal twin, inflation.
Gone are the surpluses of a few years past. Not only the federal government, but the states, too, find themselves swimming up a river of red ink.
The Federal Reserve Board seems to have done all it can by lowering interest rates and holding inflation to a snail's pace. The burden shifts to fiscal policymakers in Washington and the state capitals. The choices (raising taxes, cutting spending or both) will test politicians' nerve.
Fear of another 9/11-style terrorist attack and the prospect of war in Iraq and elsewhere, coupled with the slump in the other two major world economies, Europe and Japan, have investors worried. Some say the stock market is in free fall because Wall Street is girding for the coming crisis in Social Security that Washington politicians have ignored.
More Americans hold stock than hold jobs, but how much confidence can we put in corporate America after Enron, WorldCom, Tyco and the other accounting shenanigans brought to light last year?
Forty million Americans, many of them children, have no health-care coverage. The promise of prescription drug coverage for the elderly appears out of reach for a government already facing huge deficits in the years ahead.
So far, the administration, with backing from Republicans in Congress, has based its solution to our economic woes primarily on a single premise: LOWER TAXES. Many doubt, however, that reducing revenue will stimulate the economy enough to meet the nation's increasing needs.
We can take solace in the fact that the United States has faced big problems in the past and has not only survived, but thrived. Osama bin Laden is no Hitler, and Iraq is no Soviet Union, and we brought them to their knees. We weathered the Great Depression. We rid the world of polio.
Even so, the turn of the calendar page from '02 to '03 reminds us that our nation and our planet face enormous challenges. The question over the next two years is whether President Bush and the Republican Congress can lead us out of this wilderness.
Brazaitis, formerly a Plain Dealer senior editor, is a Washington columnist.
Contact Tom Brazaitis at:
tbrazaitis@starpower.net, 202-638-1366
? 2003 The Plain Dealer. Used with permission.
H.C., another thought just occurred to me. We may be talking past each other because you think of "liberal" and "conservative" as static, fixed philosophies, so that a particular set of ideas can be identified as "liberal" regardless of the time frame.
I'm thinking instead of something more dynamic, where the issues change from time to time and where yesterday's liberal policy is tomorrow's conservative one. There was a time when liberals championed republican government while conservatives were royalists. There was a time when liberals were abolitionists while conservatives approved of slavery. There was a time when liberals advocated and conservatives opposed votes for women. There was a time when conservatives supported and liberals challenged racial segregation.
None of those is true any more. No conservative today is in favor of monarchy, slavery, or denial of women's suffrage, and few favor segregation (at least openly). Does that mean that "conservatism" as it exists today is a modern phenomenon? No, because the essence of conservatism is to preserve tradition and resist innovation. Some innovations, however, have become so well-established that they are now a part of tradition and supporting them has become conservative.
And that is what the Democrats were being when they supported the policies of the Awakening against reaction: conservative. Not liberal. As the Democrats become liberal once more, they will be pushing new, not old, progressive policies, and on the attack, not on the defensive.
It's then that we will have a demonstration in elections of where the country stands and which way it's moving. But not before.
Radical
I'd tend to second this theme. FDR, as a liberal, advocated changes including increasing the role of the military industrial complex, increased safety nets for the poor, a more active roll for government regulating the economy, and the US ending isolation, actively pursuing and wielding superpower status. These might be the major cultural changes from the last crisis.
The 60s Awakening had themes which include feminist, anti-war, anti-racist, anti military-industrial complex, environmentalism, and anti big government. Some of these themes led to significant changes during the awakening proper. Some of these themes might yet come into play in the upcoming crisis. As I recall the theory, new values proposed by the young rebels of the awakening get institutionalized in the following crisis.
I would strongly agree that 'conservative' has an element in its meaning of maintaining the status quo, and often maintaining privilege. "Liberal" has meanings of pushing change, and upholding rights and equality. Then again, rights and equality in the form of the established Rights of Man have been around long enough to have conservative meaning too.
Which is why I am reluctant to embrace a position on the current liberal v conservative spectrum. The words are too often used to tie into party platforms which are in tern set by the policies of key politicians. FDR set the 'liberal' "tax and spend" tradition which held strong well into the 60s and 70s. Reagan redefined (or at least refocused) the conservative movement, favoring a strong military, religious values and borrow and spend economics. Clinton refocused the liberal response, but his 60s Awakening sexual morality (or lack thereof) tainted the definition of what a modern liberal stands for. A new platform for the liberals is necessary, but no one seems sure enough of themselves to proclaim what it must be.
I want to dislike the conservatives. The conservative side in a crisis - fighting to maintain privilege and the status quo - tends to lose badly. I see the Crisis as a time when social inequalities are addressed, when the economy and culture is revamped, when the old guard clinging to privilege is overturned in a "New Birth of Freedom."
We have a campaign finance system that basically legalizes bribery. The Bill of Rights is protecting less. Democracy is no longer an effective tool for the majority to impose their will on the ruling elites. The ruling elites seem to be using their military, political and economic clout to maintain their wealth and power. They seem interested in maintaining the imbalance of wealth between the former imperialist mother countries and the former colonies. The extraordinary superpower apparatus built up to fight the Cold War is being used to maintain and extend the wealth and power of the capitalist masters. Meanwhile, the ability of industrial powers to suppress and exploit minor powers militarily might be challenged by terrorist use of weapons of mass destruction. Certain long established injustices, as is traditional in time of Crisis, might no longer be able to stand.
And, as traditional in crisis, the bad guys are those who have the most power and privilege under the old system. Those who benefit most from the status quo attempt to resist change.
At the same time, the core values of the US Founding Fathers, pro democracy, pro human rights, pro equality, anti colonial imperialism, are useful and relevant. While I am liberal in terms of advocating a change to the dated status quo, much progress which was real and must be maintained was achieved by Washington, Lincoln and FDR. I am content with neither the 'liberal' or 'conservative' label. I fear that if the choices remain between the unraveling era definitions of 'liberal' and 'conservative', radical change won't come about.
I might be a radical. Going into crisis, the proper thing to be is radical. The Democrats benefit too much from the current crooked campaign finance system to be interested in radical change. They are only slightly less the servants of the capitalist masters than the Republicans
Again, I would suggest thinking 'radical.' The change produced by crisis is always much larger than anticipated before the crisis gets underway. When the soft brown stuff hits the rotary impeller device, everyone else gets left behind.
Excellent Bob; I agree with you.
Politics is about power. My take on the meaning and use of "liberal" and "conservative" (and "radical") is (again) as follows: liberals (and more consistently, radicals) challenge the power of those who have it, for the benefit of those who don't. Conservatives seek to maintain the power of those who have it.
If liberals or radicals are successful, and shift some of that power to more of the people (as happened in the American Revolution and Civil War), to "maintain" that power among the people is not conservative, it is still liberal. It is liberal to continue to hold back the efforts of the wealthy and powerful to reclaim their hold on the nation.
"The question over the next two years is whether President Bush and the Republican Congress can lead us out of this wilderness. "
There is no question here. Bush and the Republicans are PART of the wilderness. They ARE the wilderness. They and their ilk are the major cause of our being in a wilderness at all. The question is whether the people will wake up to that fact or not, and begin to act upon it. (otherwise I liked the piece quoted above)
In a classic sense perhaps. Or you could say, not liberal enough. They did not campaign for a new progressive agenda. That's what the left side needs to do now. It does not work anymore simply to resist the Republicans or attempt to sound like them or adopt their policies. It won't work to elect a Trojan horse moderate from the South like Edwards, whom once elected, will be a liberal. Johnson, Carter, Clinton and Gore all failed. These trojan horse moderates turned out to be real moderates, and the liberals were the Trojans whom were taken in. It will take someone articulate and persuasive enough to convince the American people to support a progressive program. When the Crisis truly begins, this will be more easy. Until then, we will have to look to Kerry or Gephardt to somehow find the nerve to wage the right kind of campaign, and not only challenge Bush's warmongering (which they haven't done yet) but present a progressive agenda persuasively. I don't know what the chances of this are."Neither the Mondale nor the Dukakis campaign featured anything new or progressive; they were status-quo campaigns trying to reverse a reactionary onslaught. Not liberal but, in the classic sense, conservative."
But I agree, the Demos can win without catering to the south and mountain states. They just need to solidify the blue zone and expand it slightly. It would probably be a good idea if they can win in West Virginia and Florida this time! And Missouri if Gephardt is nominated, and New Hampshire if Kerry. But Gephardt also needs to escape his regional appeal in the primaries and win in areas outside the MidWest.
Gephardt is the better campaigner of the two. Besides him and Kerry, there are no other Democrats with a prayer of winning. No moderate will win, and no liberal can win who is not very persuasive, and a good campaigner.
I would not say that conservatives support the status quo. Social Security and AFDC were established a lifetime ago. Surely these are part of the status quo today. Yet, many conservatives today still oppose these programs. At the same time, they support the much more recent Civil Rights changes of the 1960's.
Rather than status quo, I would say conservatives support the natural order of things. By natural order I mean "the way things oughta be" given the way people really are (i.e. human nature) rather than what we would like them to be. The natural order relects a moral view of the world based on rules of conduct (principles) that are invariant over time. Good men strive to live by these principles, as they understand them. A good society (the natural order) is structured around principles--keeping in mind the nature of man. Although the moral rules themselves never change, man's understanding of these rules is imperfect and so can change with time. For example, while absolute monarchy and slavery were once part of the natural order defended by conservatives, they no longer are today.
Obviously, in any complex society there will be winners and losers. To the extent that the current batch of winners and losers reflects the natural order, conservatives will support this arrangement, making them come across to non-conservatives as supporters of privilege.
Re: Hey, Here come da Boomers!
Since, as I see it, the whole agenda of the last 2T is anti-American to the core, I've all but accepted that before this 4T is over, the United States will be all alone against a massive enemy coalition. Thus, my idea of optimism for this 4T would be for the US to prevent or avoid the total catastrophic defeat that Bob Butler seems to expect us to suffer, and thus force our enemies to the negotiating table. Of course, that would mean that the next 1T would involve another Cold War at least as chilly as the one in the last 1T. As for the idea that the US should embrace said 2T agenda, I honestly believe that would be tantamount to national suicide. And as for Brian Rush's idea that we should actually take part in helping to form a World Government based on said agenda, the rest of the world would NEVER agree to that, even if we would. So, there we are: trapped by circumstances that are at least partially beyond our control.
Surely, you've heard of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, which abolished the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) Program, replacing it with block grants to states. Welfare is no longer an entitlement, but is now envisioned as a temporary assistance to families to help them back on their feet and ready to work. AFDC is dead as a dog.
I want people to know that peace is possible even in this stupid day and age. Prem Rawat, June 8, 2008
I'd like to respectfully take issue with your characterization of LBJ as a failed moderate. True, Vietnam done him in. On the domestic side, however, his accomplishments are HUGE: the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the act establishing Medicare and Medicaid are his crown jewels. LBJ, for all his warts, had a GI-scaled vision to bring the South into the 20th century and make it part of the USA. He succeeded.
As for Vietnam, he wasn't much of a foreign policy ace and was just doing the conventional GI thing. That was his tragedy.
I want people to know that peace is possible even in this stupid day and age. Prem Rawat, June 8, 2008
Definitions
The definitions of liberal and conservative today, as debated above, are fluid to some degree. Conservatives are not always for the status quo by any means, e.g. Reagan's talk about eliminating the Department of Education, which as a former educator I think is a marvelous idea, was actually an attack on the liberal status quo, a very radical notion, which is why it died. Liberals have their status quo areas where they want nothing to change, conservatives have their areas where they want everything to change!
I think many people would like to see the entire U.S. Tax Code burned and replaced with a smaller, simpler one. But both sides have their pockets filled because of the complexity of the code, and so the idea goes nowhere. (Where is Mr. Forbes today?)
Better to define the status quos and the problems that both sides want preserved or changed rather than the old distinction that liberals "want to change things" and conservatives "want to maintain a status quo."
Sorry. As far as I'm concerned, Gephardt sold out by not opposing Bush last fall. The guy makes my skin crawl. And I'm not sure about Kerry either.
T4T-Totalers, we?re ?shipping out? for war on CNN!
I croak mostly as a scientific frog, but I have feelings, too, and I?m feeling real bad about this misplaced American foreign policy. We?re blinder than cavefish and more vicious than piranha. How will it play out on the world stage when Americans kill Iraqis troops and civilians by the scores on their own home soil? And so cleanly, too, without any American causalities. Not so well, I fear. Yes, of course, we want to go out and kill somebody over 9/11. And, yes, we didn?t do the job on Saddam the last time around. Yes, yes, of course, evil lurks like gas in the soggy trenches?always has, always will.
Americas had better know their history well enough so as not to repeat it. Read your compass of what really matters, particularly you belligerently faithful and NRA gundamentalists. This is neither the time nor the cause for war. The important direction for us now is not the engagement of troops and ordinance, but the disengagement of political zealotry and forceful capitalism. It?s a cruel society that stuffs hamburgers into the mouths of their children and then sends them off to a war caused by the Big Mac Effect?manifesting violently, for ethnic reasons, in the form of a cultural NIMBY.
How do we get out of this mess? By becoming, as a nation, more of a defensive driver. The best way to survive a head-on collision is to avoid one. Didn?t we learn that back in Drivers-Ed? I believe part of America is trying to do just that, in spite of herself. Modest frogs I know of have adopted voluntary simplicity. Minimalism: it?s a real option. Why not bean soup instead of fatty Macs? Why not, if it can save our children?s lives and make them healthier?
Threats of war will not bring peace, but avoidance of war buys time to make it possible. Sure, Bush wants to drive that war machine, sell those burgers, get that oil. Consumerism of the kind we?re evangelizing is driven not by God, but by the Almighty Dollar?and a bug band I once knew sang ?money can?t buy ya love.? Jesus taught us that, too. Hey, didn?t he once and rather forcefully evict capitalists from a House of God? Come on, you fundamentalists, let?s get fundamental!
--Croak
HOWARD STERN ROCKS NEW YORK CITY IN JUST RELEASED FALL RATINGS [OCT-DEC '02]... 9.2 SHARE OF AUDIENCE AGES 25-54 IN AM DRIVE: #1 IN TOP RADIO MARKET... WINS-AM NEWS TOPS IN ALL LISTENERS WITH 7.0 TO STERN'S 6.9; WABC'S CURTIS/KUBY 2.9; WFAN'S DON IMUS FADES AT 2.8 RATING; WOR 2.6...
Looks like the city that got rocked is back to it's old "roaring" self again. :wink:
