It seems to me that people are missing the point on the liberal radio by comparing it to Rush or other conservative host. The right comparison is to compare them to one of the conservative newsweekly, National Review would be my choice.

National Review was the first of the conservative newsmagazines. This territory was perceived as an area of liberal dominance all the way back in the 60's (maybe even 50's) when NR was founded. It never made a profit, and to this day is subsidized by wealthy idealogues. It has several idealogical children of various degrees of conservatism -- American Spectator, Weekly Standard, etc. -- all of which live because they are subsidized by one or more wealthy idealogues.

However the conservative magazines do a great service for the conservative movement, even if they don't make a profit. Lots of ideas are discussed there, politicians often leak trial balloons that they can later disclaim, but most of all it gives ammunition to the true believers.

I think this is the pattern for AA. They'll probably never make a profit, but as long as wealthy patrons will kick in a subsidy they'll continue to exist.

This is as different a business plan as National Review's plan is from Time. But allowing wealthy liberals a way to participate in the process (especially getting around campaigne finance reform) could be a valid business plan.

So maybe Al Franken is trying to be the next William F. Buckley, not Rush Limbaugh.

Well, I think that the reason that everyone keeps making the Limbaugh comparison is because that has pretty much been the stated purpose: to find the "liberal Rush Limbaugh."

women animal sex bestiality beastiality dog stories free pictures of bestiality twink beastiality bestiality stories animal porn beastiality pictures asian beastiality free bestiality movies beastiality beast sex free animal sex stories free bestiality stories snake sex gay beastiality animalsex picture free animal sex zoophilia