Replies

Agreed. This is the one issue that can swing the youth vote to Kerry - a demographic that George W. Bush would otherwise win by a decent margin due to his leadership ability.

So everyone's supposed to pander to Howard Stern to keep votes in the party?

Don't insult my intelligence.

I'm no fan of the "war on decency" that the FCC seems to be waging, but the broadcast world does not rise and set on Howard Stern.

Howard is rude, crude, and patently offensive. That being said, I realize that he's been so for more than twenty years. So, as I said on my blog the other day, "what makes now any different?"

But for him to throw a tantrum and go out of his way to insult Christians simply because Clear Channel yanked his butt from six stations is childish at best.

I'm sure the "Babbabooey-heads" will follow their "leader" on to the Democratic party or wherever else Howard decides to flee.

Big fat hairy deal.

These are folks who would otherwise be voting Republican. Who would vote for George W. Bush otherwise. Ask E Rocc is you don't believe me. Ask PJ-Comix. Howard has swung elections before in New York and New Jersey. If he's against Bush, Kerry can consider those states safe and fight Bush in Ohio. If between now and then, Howard can be convinced to back off criticizing Bush, we could win NJ and make New York close enough that Kerry can't do that much in Ohio.

IMHO, 2004 is pretty much a must-win election. Four Supreme Court seats and the war on terror. Unless we call off the prude patrol now, we could end up with President Kerry. If that means we call off the FCC, then the FCC needs to be called off. It doesn't do us any good over the long run to tick off a guy with millions of listeners who might be persuaded to vote our way, but will go the other way the instant the prude patrol comes into play.