Bryan and I have been in touch, and when his latest prospect solidify, he will let me know and I will pass it on here. 

Meanwhile he left this note at Sound Politics:

You can contact me directly via youtube. Search for KVIBryan. And please enjoy the entertaining videos of my dogs.

In the meantime, I’m going to Montana to shoot a bison. I would love to be back on the air in Seattle again, but the time might be right to bite on some longstanding opportunities elsewhere. Either way, I’ll post a note through Karl at leaningstraightup.com

I need to say, the Seattle conservative is a great listener. Always blunt and honest, never sycophantic (to me). We are the minority here and it’s been an honor to talk to you for three hours daily. Of course, you may run into me at Cabela’s, the WAC gun shows or The Wilde Rover in Kirkland (wednesday trivia night). For now, thanks a bunch. I’ll probably be a regular poster here because I’ve got all these annoying thoughts and no outlet. My wife gives me lists and shuffles me off to the truck in order to have some peace. Skank (in a good way).

And as ever “….but I don’t have a pool.”

Posted by: Leisurely Bryan on November 13, 2007 05:39 PM

Bow Chicka Bow Bow.

As always, Bryan has a standing invitation to blog here.

Finally, I want to thank all of his supporters for the comments and emails I have gotten for him. 

I knew I liked him, but it is gratifying to see I was hardly alone.

KVI defintely scored an own goal here….

With the Seattle area still reeling from the firing of Bryan Suits (KVI has still not responded to my request for comment) we now learn that rival KTTH has also dropped a morning favorite.

The Sytman and Boze show ran against Kirby Wilbur, but now it is the David Boze show and it is running at 3-6 against the commentaters, and was replaced in the 5-9 slot by Glenn Beck

Like Bryan, Dan has been excised from his radio station’s page, with no notice I can see.

Dan’s website says:

Being the ridiculously blessed person that I am, I have a little extra time off this November. I hope to talk with you soon. In the meantime I’ll leave you with my favorite quote from President Ronald Reagan:

“Life is one grand, sweet song, so start the music.”

Dan Sytman

November 16, 2007

Now, knowing that his severence likely depends on an an anti disparagement clause regarding his former employer, I don’t take his light hearted attitude too seriously.

But I return to my previous question:  Why are so many local shows going bye bye?  Granted, Glenn Beck in the morning is a nice thought, I enjoy his show.  But I don’t know if David Boze can carry the 3-6 slot solo.

Time will tell.

Like Bryan, my best wishes to Dan, and I hope he lands on his feet.

The headlines read that the wolf had become a lamb, referring to Wolf Blitzer, who softballed the debate.

After Hillary’s flopping over illegal immigrants and drivers licenses, how could he not make that an issue?

But he didn’t.  And Edwards and Obama laid down for her and let her steam roll.  I don’t get it.  She is on the ropes, and in politics, you dont back off and wait for the other person to catch their breath, you finish it…if you want to win.

Well now, beyond all that, the accusation comes that the final question CNN picked from the audience for Hillary was softballed as well:

“Diamonds v. Pearls” Student Blasts CNN

Maria Luisa, the UNLV student who asked Hillary Clinton whether she preferred “diamonds or pearls” at last night’s debate wrote on her MySpace page this morning that CNN forced her to ask the frilly question instead of a pre-approved query about the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository.

“Every single question asked during the debate by the audience had to be approved by CNN,” Luisa writes. “I was asked to submit questions including “lighthearted/fun” questions. I submitted more than five questions on issues important to me. I did a policy memo on Yucca Mountain a year ago and was the finalist for the Truman Scholarship. For sure, I thought I would get to ask the Yucca question that was APPROVED by CNN days in advance.”

Now, Luisa is getting “swamped” with critical e-mails.

So what happened?

Writes Luisa:

“CNN ran out of time and used me to “close” the debate with the pearls/diamonds question. Seconds later this girl comes up to me and says, “you gave our school a bad reputation.’ Well, I had to explain to her that every question from the audience was pre-planned and censored. That’s what the media does. See, the media chose what they wanted, not what the people or audience really wanted. That’s politics; that’s reality. So, if you want to read about real issues important to America–and the whole world, I suggest you pick up a copy of the Economist or the New York Times or some other independent source. If you want me to explain to you how the media works, I am more than happy to do so. But do not judge me or my integrity based on that question.”

Michelle Malking and Joy Beher are at it again…kinda.  For what its worth, I think Joy is just making an ass of herself here.  Her hypocrisy is unbelieveable, and Michelle is right to call it.

My best friend, Joy Behar

The nattering nabobs of ninnyism on “The View” never cease to amaze. You may recall last month when “View” co-host Joy Behar appeared on the Bill Maher show and called me a “selfish bitch” because I questioned Harry Reid’s poster family for the massive S-CHIP entitlement expansion. (Like the t-shirt says: “I’m not a bitch. I’m just giftedly outspoken.”)

This week, the same “bitch”-spewing celebrity is, um, complaining about John McCain because he didn’t say anything when a supporter referred to Hillary Clinton as a “bitch.”

…

Newsbusters has the transcript:

WHOOPI GOLDBERG: So now, let’s talk about John McCain. Shall we? This has been all over the news. A woman at a John McCain rally said to him, “how do we beat the bitch?”

JOY BEHAR: Some woman.

GOLDBERG: A woman. You know, just like any of us. Not you, of course, sir. But you know, the women. As we would say about whoever we were talking about in wherever we were. It wasn’t a broadcast thing. Someone was filming. Okay. He kind of looked a little startled and kind of laughed a little bit, because it took him by surprise. Then a guy said “I didn’t know you were talking about my wife” and made all those dumb jokes. Then he said “that’s an interesting question” and went on to say “I have a lot of respect for Hillary Clinton” and blah blah. Now everyone is up in arms with him because they feel he should have said to this woman “do not refer to Mrs. Clinton as this way.” So I say, the question for me is, having watched him have to deal with yet another woman, his mother, who made a comment about Mitt Romney, my take –

A huge win for the Administration in the 9th Circus Circuit Court:

In this  just released this morning, three Judges of the Ninth Circuit, including one of the most liberal anti-government judges in the Country, Harry Pregerson, sided with the Administration on its asserting of the “State Secrets” privilege in a lawsuit brought by Islamic groups and others against both the government. and the telecommunication companies that helped put in place the terrorist surveillance program that involved the use of warrantless wiretaps.

…

In this case the Court held that the government had properly invoked the State Secrets privilege with respect to document(s) and information which the plaintiffs would need to proceed with their suit – such as confirmation that the plaintiffs had been the target of the Terrorist Surveillance Program and the details of how the program operated.   

 Money quote from p. 22 of the pdf:

“Having reviewed it in camera, we conclude that the Sealed Document is protected by the state secrets privilege, along with the information as to whether the government surveilled Al-Haramain. We take very seriously our obligation to review the documents with a very careful, indeed a skeptical, and not to accept at face value the government’s claim or justification of privilege. Simply saying “military secret,” “national security” or “terrorist threat” or invoking an ethereal fear that disclosure will threaten our nation is insufficient to support the privilege. Sufficient detail must be—and has been—provided for us to make a meaningful examination. The process of in camera review ineluctably places the court in a role that runs contrary to our fundamental principle of a transparent judicial system. It also places on the court a special burden to assure itself that an appropriate balance is struck between protecting national security matters and preserving an open court system. That said, we acknowledge the need to defer to the Executive on matters of foreign policy and national security and surely cannot legitimately find ourselves second guessing the Executive in this arena.

Hard to find a place in there anywhere for a “Bush/Cheney are worse than Hitler” jibe.