Funny thing is that you can't call this issue controversial in LA: there are no country stations left.

Despite the fact that Los Angeles is the largest country music purchasing section of the country.

KFRG is still on the air. Or it was as of last night.

KZLA is fighting to get back on the air. Sean Parr has been working his butt off to get the station changed back.

And there is 95.7 (or something like that, I need to store it) that can still be heard.

....keep hoping.

(based on a song?)

And again. Totally blew the record out of the water.

And Nephy, yes a song. The people who vote on this stuff are the future, and they are pissed.

I find it hard to believe that the amount of records sold or the numbers of weeks a song has been on a chart is relevant at all politically.

I listen to a conservative talk radio station in Phoenix. It is the number one station in terms of ratings - not just talk, but any format - in the entire Phoenix metro area.

Yet we have a Democrat governor and a Democrat mayor.

The Democrats carry an unfair burden in this regard. The Republicans can trot out any number of violent, drunk/addicted and multiply divorced country stars, actors and talk show hosts at their events to demonstrate that they are the party that represent the people and traditional values. Why? Because a form of hypocrisy is at the heart of the lives of the Christian base: the need to embrace the moral life with the convenient understanding that we all fall perilously short.

W taps into that with his past drinking and drug problems. Clinton, who was a genuinely religious man while also being a complete dog, tapped into it as well, as did Reagan who preached family values while being completely uncomfortable walking the walk in his own life. By contrast, Gore and Bush, Sr., who seemed to live easy, committed lives, alienated a lot of people. (After Gore lost, there were all these pictures of him dancing, partying and sweating after he conceded. Everybody said, "Where was that guy?")

Because the Democratic party's celebrities and base have not mastered the theme of "doing the best you can" while clearly doing the opposite, they take a lot of heat.

How interesting. I look at the actions taken, but yet you have the ability to look at the hearts of those involved.

For example, you know that Clinton was a genuinely religious man. You know this how? Because he was filmed coming out of church after the Monica story broke?

You also seem to know that Reagan was completely uncomfortable with his Christian professions.

I do not call it hypocrisy for me, as a member of the Christian base you reference, to aspire to living a better life while understanding that I need to improve. Rather than citing that as hypocrisy, I would regard it as an understanding of my limited ability as a human to be good and do good. Is it a bad thing to wish to be better than I am? It is no "convenient understanding". It is a fact that I am not as good a person as I should be.

The more I type, the more insulting I find your whole premise to be.

Okay. "By all accounts," Clinton was a genuinely religious man, or, at least as genuinely religious as the next fellow. He certainly presented himself as such, which is really all that matters. I also didn't say Reagan was uncomfortable with his religion; I said he was not close to his children or emotionally available to them, a point I don't think anyone disputes. I also do not question the virtues of a humble approach to life, Christian or otherwise, and the recognition of human fallibility. You were the one who called Democratic celebrities hypocrites for their inability to fully walk the walk. You apparently do not disagree that the Republican party is happy to allign itself with celebrities who are drunk, abusive and who produce coarsening entertainments as long as those celebrities come from the world that appeals to the base (country music, action films, NASCAR, pro wrestling). I offered an explanation for why the base embraces these stunts while, out of the other side of its mouth, the base has no problem criticizing "Hollywood," when "Hollywood" is defined as the smug left that admits no self-doubt. If you have a better explanation, please share it.

To address Reagan and his children, I would suppose his adopted son Michael would disagree with you wholeheartedly. His other children? Probably not.

I am not suggesting that either republicans or democrats are without faults? Not in the least. There are plenty of drunk and abusive republicans. There are plenty of drunk and abusive democrats.

What I am referring to is, say, a Martin Sheen. He seems to think that because he can go sleep on a sewer grate for a night that he understands what it means to be homeless. Or a group including Barbara Streisand that goes on a "rolling hunger strike" where they skip a meal in protest to the war, and then pass it along to the next in line while just having a bigger dinner. Publicity stunts. I am sure republican celebrities do the same, but far more fall on the left side of the aisle politically, so it is more evident (at least to me).

There are so many who do good. Take Bono. Left side of political spectrum. Quietly goes about his business of providing real assistance to the needy in Africa, both in fund raising, soliticiting political assistance from elected leaders, and using his own money. I have no idea where John Travolta falls politically, but after Katrina he took his own money and own 737 and flew tons of supplies to people who needed it.

So, no, I do no criticize "Hollywood" as whole. But most of Hollywood is on the left side of the spectrum, so when there are stunts from the outspoken in Hollywood, my criticism falls on the left.

I do no expect anyone to "fully" walk the walk. What I don't like is the animal farm approach of someone telling someone else what they can do while doing he opposite themselves. Robert Redford - a huge environmentalist, except when is comes to his own property in Colorado, where clearing trees to build ski slopes is fine (my details on that are a bit sketchy, bu if I recall correctly i is something similar to that).

Yeah- people are pissed- but they are NOT falling over into the democrat side by any means at ALL- in fact polls indicate BOTH parties in the dog house.

So if you think this anger is going to add votes to the dem side I think you are in for a rude awakening-the people who are as angry as you were not conservative voters in the first place.