The Howard Stern factor

[sMiLeYz]

"[The Howard Stern vote] will have more of an effect than the Nader vote," said Matthew Felling, media director for the Center for Media and Public Affairs.

In recent weeks, the syndicated radio icon has launched an all-out assault on President George W. Bush, calling on his loyal audience of millions to vote Bush out of office in November.

Stern, who had applauded Bush for his decision to launch military action in Afghanistan and Iraq, began criticizing the president several weeks ago for the controversy surrounding his National Guard duty and his opposition to gay marriage and stem-cell research.

The usual Stern parade of freaks, oddballs, and wannabe Playboy Playmates has dried up over the past four weeks as Stern devotes increasing amounts of his airtime to what he has called his "radio jihad." At his kindest Stern has called Bush a "religious nut" and a "Jesus freak," and at his worst he has likened Bush's administration to the Taliban.

"There's only one thing you can do," said Stern. "Remember me in November when you're in the voting booth. I'm asking you to do me one favor. Vote against Bush. That's it."

......

The radio personality has even taken the fight to his Web site, which previously contained only a solitary photo but now includes a "required reading" list of articles about the indecency crackdown and columns in support of Stern.

Some dismiss Stern's statements as whining or a ratings stunt, but he insists his motives are genuine. And while that may be debatable, his impact can't be denied. The jock's daily morning show is syndicated to more than 30 markets, and a reported 8 million listeners tune in each week (reps for Stern and his show would not confirm the size of his audience). Most of those listeners are white males, a voting segment that recent polls show is cooling on President Bush.

"For these guys, the issues haven't been framed in a way that makes sense to them," Felling said. "If he asks his listeners to go out on election day, they will go. These guys are highly suggestible. They'll strip for a 12-pack of Powerade."

There's no doubt that Stern's audience is dedicated, and the controversial jock has proven his clout in the past. Both New York Governor George Pataki and former New Jersey Governor Christine Todd Whitman got a boost in their campaigns thanks to Stern's support.

MTV NEWS

 

[smashp]

Well funny how 2 days after Stern annouced he would vote for Kerry, Clear channel took him off the air for "Indecentcy".

Yet those of the Indecent that dont dwell in polictics or support Bush are still on.

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: smashp
Well funny how 2 days after Stern annouced he would vote for Kerry, Clear channel took him off the air for "Indecentcy".

Yet those of the Indecent that dont dwell in polictics or support Bush are still on.

if you think his removal from a whopping six stations has anything to do with presidential backing then you must pass the doob....

Stern is a joke and won't have much of an impact on anything...if he does then I feel sorry for the state of the nation considering:

These guys are highly suggestible. They'll strip for a 12-pack of Powerade."

says alot about the intelligence of his listener base....

 

[sMiLeYz]

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: smashp
Well funny how 2 days after Stern annouced he would vote for Kerry, Clear channel took him off the air for "Indecentcy".

Yet those of the Indecent that dont dwell in polictics or support Bush are still on.

if you think his removal from a whopping six stations has anything to do with presidential backing then you must pass the doob....

Stern is a joke and won't have much of an impact on anything...if he does then I feel sorry for the state of the nation considering:

These guys are highly suggestible. They'll strip for a 12-pack of Powerade."

says alot about the intelligence of his listener base....

I don't believe you need a whole lot of IQ power to punch a ballot. Heck you dont need a whole lot of IQ power to get anywhere nowadays, look at our president!

 

[smashp]

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: smashp
Well funny how 2 days after Stern annouced he would vote for Kerry, Clear channel took him off the air for "Indecentcy".

Yet those of the Indecent that dont dwell in polictics or support Bush are still on.

if you think his removal from a whopping six stations has anything to do with presidential backing then you must pass the doob....

Stern is a joke and won't have much of an impact on anything...if he does then I feel sorry for the state of the nation considering:

These guys are highly suggestible. They'll strip for a 12-pack of Powerade."

says alot about the intelligence of his listener base....

rather like the Conservative right wing Radio listenerbase that Screams Death to Liberalism, yet votes for a Man that creates the largest "Entitlement Program" In recent Times and disguised the Size of its Costs, Has showed No fiscal responceability with the Budget or Personal Responceability with his statements and claims, And Has Pulled us into Optional foreign police like action wars.

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: smashp


rather like the Conservative right wing Radio listenerbase that Screams Death to Liberalism, yet votes for a Man that creates the largest "Entitlement Program" In recent Times and disguised the Size of its Costs, Has showed No fiscal responceability with the Budget or Personal Responceability with his statements and claims, And Has Pulled us into Optional foreign police like action wars.

With your last statement are you sure you are not talking about Klinton? hello Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanastan.....

And at least with right wing radio your more likely to hear an articulate discussion on the state of affairs, instead of springer-esque crap that Stern vomits up every day.

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: sMiLeYz


I don't believe you need a whole lot of IQ power to punch a ballot. Heck you dont need a whole lot of IQ power to get anywhere nowadays, look at our president!

Do you have a link to the current IQ score of our president?

Also with re. to Stern's audience, I honestly would be surprised if most of them could figure out the ballot.

 

[Ornery]

If Howard thinks Kerry is going to save his ass, I think he's mistaken.

Kerry: Stations Have Right to Pull Stern

• "Howard Stern does have the right to say whatever he wants anywhere, but he doesn't necessarily have the right to say it on that station if the people who run the station don't want him to," Kerry said while campaigning in New York, where Stern's show is broadcast.

House Bill Would Raise Penalties for Indecency

• The outrage over the conduct of celebrities such as singer Bono and broadcaster Howard Stern has done something in Washington that few thought possible: brought together liberals and conservatives in an often-warring Congress.
  
  Lawmakers have long complained about sex and violence on television. Legislation to crack down on indecent language was introduced last year after Bono uttered an obscenity at the Golden Globe Awards program televised in January 2003. But what had been a crusade by a handful of lawmakers erupted into a bipartisan stampede after Jackson's performance. By Wednesday, the indecency bill had 144 sponsors in the House.

I listen to Howard's show all the time, and agree with him 90% of the time, but he's being an ass on this issue. I'd love to know what his amendments to the Decency Act would be. In the end, even he would have to draw a line about what should be allowed on public broadcast. From child porn to bestiality or snuff movies, even old Howard would trample some freak's right to free speech with his revisions.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: bozack


Do you have a link to the current IQ score of our president?

do you think he is misunderestimating Bush?

 

[Moonbeam]

The US is full of vicious nasty anal rentents.

 

[Witling]

1. Janet Jackson stunned America by exposing herself at the Superbowl.

2. This created a great uproar about "obscenity" in the media.

3. This resulted in a large radio chain cancelling Howard Stern's program.

4. This caused Howard Stern to get pissed off, and now the nation's most influential media presence spends much of his time talking about what an idiot George Bush is.

Therefore: A boob may lose the election because of Janet Jackson's tit.

 

[DealMonkey]

If only we, as a nation, were as intolerant of violence as we are of nudity & "naughty" words . . . in other words, our priorities are in the wrong place as usual. Foolish puritans . . .

 

[Drift3r]

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: smashp


rather like the Conservative right wing Radio listenerbase that Screams Death to Liberalism, yet votes for a Man that creates the largest "Entitlement Program" In recent Times and disguised the Size of its Costs, Has showed No fiscal responceability with the Budget or Personal Responceability with his statements and claims, And Has Pulled us into Optional foreign police like action wars.

With your last statement are you sure you are not talking about Klinton? hello Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanastan.....

And at least with right wing radio your more likely to hear an articulate discussion on the state of affairs, instead of springer-esque crap that Stern vomits up every day.

Yeah Michael Savage's xenophobic rants about "hoping that all gays die a painful death" and Rush's drug induced dribble means that denial is not just a river in Egypt.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Witling
1. Janet Jackson stunned America by exposing herself at the Superbowl.

2. This created a great uproar about "obscenity" in the media.

3. This resulted in a large radio chain cancelling Howard Stern's program.

4. This caused Howard Stern to get pissed off, and now the nation's most influential media presence spends much of his time talking about what an idiot George Bush is.

Therefore: A boob may lose the election because of Janet Jackson's tit.

That's the NeoCon's excuse for losing already???

 

[Michael]

I started listening to Stern years ago when I moved to the USa (the the NYC area). He was suggested as a good person to listen to to get "Americanized" faster. I found him juvinile and stupid and switched to a music station. About a year later I was on the road a fair bit and decided to give him another try. He's actually one of the smarter entertainers out there and I enjoy listening to his show (I just switch to another station when I think he is being an idiot).

In all the year's I've listen (well over 10), he has consistently slated towards the Right politically (more of a Libertarian than a Republican, but all the major calls he has made have supported Republicans). He was 100% behind Bush going after both Afganistan and Iraq (he lives in NYC and was on the air and kept broadcasting throughout 9/11).

He is going 100% against Bush right now. The point he made about Oprah Winfrey being able to say the same thing he does without a fine was great.

His biggest audience is in areas where Bush isn't going to win anyways, but he does have a loyal listener base and they're in the group with the most support for Bush (men).

I don't agree with Stern 100% (he doesn't own the public airwaves and I have 2 young children and know how hard it is to monitor what the watch and listen to and agree that there should be standards) but the law is the law. If what he is doing is illegal and subject to large fines, then all the others should face the same. I think that the public will quickly get fed up with this issue once they realize just how much that they accept is now "unacceptable". Stern has actually been reasonably clean for almost all the shows I've ever listened to.

Michael

 

[digitalsm]

Its funny the FCC has been fining Stern and his broadcast parteners for indecency over a decade now, so now he brings this issue up? Something tells me this really doesnt have anything to do with indecency and EVERYTHING to do with Stern politicing and seeking publicity. Its well known Sterns listener base has been shrinking at a good rate over the past five years.

And no there won't be a Howard Stern factor. His listener base is alot smaller than what is was at his peak, and most of his listener base are in democrat controlled states. Its not going to be an issue in the swing states.

And hes right, under the letter of the law, Oprah should be fined. And I bet she will. These fines arent given out the next day, it typically takes months, sometimes its taken years. Quite a few times people have gotten off the hook, Stern included, after the FCC failed to levy the fine within the statute of limitations. Then theres the other matter of actually collecting the fines, which it seems the FCC rarely does.

 

[Siddhartha]

"If he asks his listeners to go out on election day, they will go. These guys are highly suggestible. They'll strip for a 12-pack of Powerade."


LOL

I am willing to bet a 12 pack of Powerade that Stern is not going to effect the election at all.

 

[Dissipate]

What I don't get is Howard Stern is upset with Bush but he wants people to vote for Kerry? He should be supporting a Libertarian candidate who truly believes in free speech.

 

[Siddhartha]

Originally posted by: Dissipate
What I don't get is Howard Stern is upset with Bush but he wants people to vote for Kerry? He should be supporting a Libertarian candidate who truly believes in free speech.

Voting Liberterian is voting for Bush.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Dr Smooth

Originally posted by: Dissipate
What I don't get is Howard Stern is upset with Bush but he wants people to vote for Kerry? He should be supporting a Libertarian candidate who truly believes in free speech.

Voting Liberterian is voting for Bush.

What does it matter? Bush = Kerry, there are only minor differences between the two candidates. Both would perpetuate big government while in office, only difference is Bush would continue to reduce taxes and rack up big deficits while Kerry would just erase Bush's tax cuts and pay directly.

In any event, unlike all the sheeple I stick to principles. No "lesser of two evils" B.S. for me.

Let's see here both Kerry and Bush would:

1. Do nothing to repeal the 16th amendment and abolish the IRS.
2. Do nothing to get rid of the Federal Reserve and the banking cartel.
3. Do nothing to start getting rid of social security.
4. Do nothing to reduce the size of government by any sizeable amount.
5. Do nothing to end the plague called public education.
6. Do nothing to end entitlement programs.
7. Do nothing to end corporate welfare.
8. Do nothing to end foreign aid.
9. Do nothing to end military welfare for other countries and pull U.S. troops out.
10. Do nothing to end the judgment of individual citizens based on government's perception of their role in society. (i.e. tax incentives for this group and that group, military conscription, social security, income security, medicare, drug benefits....)

So as you can see statism will be perpetuated under both Bush and Kerry, only slight difference is their type of statism.

 

[digitalsm]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Dr Smooth

Originally posted by: Dissipate
What I don't get is Howard Stern is upset with Bush but he wants people to vote for Kerry? He should be supporting a Libertarian candidate who truly believes in free speech.

Voting Liberterian is voting for Bush.

What does it matter? Bush = Kerry, there are only minor differences between the two candidates. Both would perpetuate big government while in office, only difference is Bush would continue to reduce taxes and rack up big deficits while Kerry would just erase Bush's tax cuts and pay directly.

In any event, unlike all the sheeple I stick to principles. No "lesser of two evils" B.S. for me.

Let's see here both Kerry and Bush would:

1. Do nothing to repeal the 16th amendment and abolish the IRS.
2. Do nothing to get rid of the Federal Reserve and the banking cartel.
3. Do nothing to start getting rid of social security.
4. Do nothing to reduce the size of government by any sizeable amount.
5. Do nothing to end the plague called public education.
6. Do nothing to end entitlement programs.
7. Do nothing to end corporate welfare.
8. Do nothing to end foreign aid.
9. Do nothing to end military welfare for other countries and pull U.S. troops out.
10. Do nothing to end the judgment of individual citizens based on government's perception of their role in society. (i.e. tax incentives for this group and that group, military conscription, social security, income security, medicare, drug benefits....)

So as you can see statism will be perpetuated under both Bush and Kerry, only slight difference is their type of statism.

You forgot, niether would do anything to stop censorship. Censorship in america is truely a bipartisan effort.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: digitalsm

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Dr Smooth

Originally posted by: Dissipate
What I don't get is Howard Stern is upset with Bush but he wants people to vote for Kerry? He should be supporting a Libertarian candidate who truly believes in free speech.

Voting Liberterian is voting for Bush.

What does it matter? Bush = Kerry, there are only minor differences between the two candidates. Both would perpetuate big government while in office, only difference is Bush would continue to reduce taxes and rack up big deficits while Kerry would just erase Bush's tax cuts and pay directly.

In any event, unlike all the sheeple I stick to principles. No "lesser of two evils" B.S. for me.

Let's see here both Kerry and Bush would:

1. Do nothing to repeal the 16th amendment and abolish the IRS.
2. Do nothing to get rid of the Federal Reserve and the banking cartel.
3. Do nothing to start getting rid of social security.
4. Do nothing to reduce the size of government by any sizeable amount.
5. Do nothing to end the plague called public education.
6. Do nothing to end entitlement programs.
7. Do nothing to end corporate welfare.
8. Do nothing to end foreign aid.
9. Do nothing to end military welfare for other countries and pull U.S. troops out.
10. Do nothing to end the judgment of individual citizens based on government's perception of their role in society. (i.e. tax incentives for this group and that group, military conscription, social security, income security, medicare, drug benefits....)

So as you can see statism will be perpetuated under both Bush and Kerry, only slight difference is their type of statism.

You forgot, niether would do anything to stop censorship. Censorship in america is truely a bipartisan effort.

Well, I already noted that above in my prior post.

 

[digitalsm]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: digitalsm

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Dr Smooth

Originally posted by: Dissipate
What I don't get is Howard Stern is upset with Bush but he wants people to vote for Kerry? He should be supporting a Libertarian candidate who truly believes in free speech.

Voting Liberterian is voting for Bush.

What does it matter? Bush = Kerry, there are only minor differences between the two candidates. Both would perpetuate big government while in office, only difference is Bush would continue to reduce taxes and rack up big deficits while Kerry would just erase Bush's tax cuts and pay directly.

In any event, unlike all the sheeple I stick to principles. No "lesser of two evils" B.S. for me.

Let's see here both Kerry and Bush would:

1. Do nothing to repeal the 16th amendment and abolish the IRS.
2. Do nothing to get rid of the Federal Reserve and the banking cartel.
3. Do nothing to start getting rid of social security.
4. Do nothing to reduce the size of government by any sizeable amount.
5. Do nothing to end the plague called public education.
6. Do nothing to end entitlement programs.
7. Do nothing to end corporate welfare.
8. Do nothing to end foreign aid.
9. Do nothing to end military welfare for other countries and pull U.S. troops out.
10. Do nothing to end the judgment of individual citizens based on government's perception of their role in society. (i.e. tax incentives for this group and that group, military conscription, social security, income security, medicare, drug benefits....)

So as you can see statism will be perpetuated under both Bush and Kerry, only slight difference is their type of statism.

You forgot, niether would do anything to stop censorship. Censorship in america is truely a bipartisan effort.

Well, I already noted that above in my prior post.

Well Id thought Id hammer it home some more for them millionth time.

This whole censorship issue dates back, many presidents and congresses.

 

[Siddhartha]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Dr Smooth

Originally posted by: Dissipate
What I don't get is Howard Stern is upset with Bush but he wants people to vote for Kerry? He should be supporting a Libertarian candidate who truly believes in free speech.

Voting Liberterian is voting for Bush.

What does it matter? Bush = Kerry, there are only minor differences between the two candidates. Both would perpetuate big government while in office, only difference is Bush would continue to reduce taxes and rack up big deficits while Kerry would just erase Bush's tax cuts and pay directly.

In any event, unlike all the sheeple I stick to principles. No "lesser of two evils" B.S. for me.

Let's see here both Kerry and Bush would:

1. Do nothing to repeal the 16th amendment and abolish the IRS.
2. Do nothing to get rid of the Federal Reserve and the banking cartel.
3. Do nothing to start getting rid of social security.
4. Do nothing to reduce the size of government by any sizeable amount.
5. Do nothing to end the plague called public education.
6. Do nothing to end entitlement programs.
7. Do nothing to end corporate welfare.
8. Do nothing to end foreign aid.
9. Do nothing to end military welfare for other countries and pull U.S. troops out.
10. Do nothing to end the judgment of individual citizens based on government's perception of their role in society. (i.e. tax incentives for this group and that group, military conscription, social security, income security, medicare, drug benefits....)

So as you can see statism will be perpetuated under both Bush and Kerry, only slight difference is their type of statism.

Kerry would not establish a monarchy either. If you do not want Bush to be re-elected you will not vote for either the Green or Libertarian parties.

 

[digitalsm]

Originally posted by: Dr Smooth

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Dr Smooth

Originally posted by: Dissipate
What I don't get is Howard Stern is upset with Bush but he wants people to vote for Kerry? He should be supporting a Libertarian candidate who truly believes in free speech.

Voting Liberterian is voting for Bush.

What does it matter? Bush = Kerry, there are only minor differences between the two candidates. Both would perpetuate big government while in office, only difference is Bush would continue to reduce taxes and rack up big deficits while Kerry would just erase Bush's tax cuts and pay directly.

In any event, unlike all the sheeple I stick to principles. No "lesser of two evils" B.S. for me.

Let's see here both Kerry and Bush would:

1. Do nothing to repeal the 16th amendment and abolish the IRS.
2. Do nothing to get rid of the Federal Reserve and the banking cartel.
3. Do nothing to start getting rid of social security.
4. Do nothing to reduce the size of government by any sizeable amount.
5. Do nothing to end the plague called public education.
6. Do nothing to end entitlement programs.
7. Do nothing to end corporate welfare.
8. Do nothing to end foreign aid.
9. Do nothing to end military welfare for other countries and pull U.S. troops out.
10. Do nothing to end the judgment of individual citizens based on government's perception of their role in society. (i.e. tax incentives for this group and that group, military conscription, social security, income security, medicare, drug benefits....)

So as you can see statism will be perpetuated under both Bush and Kerry, only slight difference is their type of statism.

Kerry would not establish a monarchy either. If you want do not Bush to be re-elected you will not vote for either the Green or Libertarian parties.