« Jeane J. Kirkpatrick - RIP | Main | It's beginning to look a lot ... »

December 10, 2006

'Don't play us for chumps'

(...though, unfortunately, too many American surrender monkeys are aspiring to chumpdom..)

h/t Romeokat

Technorati: . ,

Posted by Darleen at December 10, 2006 03:47 PM

Comments

Looks like Dennis Miller's signed up as a commentator with Fox News. He’ll join such other distinguished Americans such Oliver NOrth and Mark Furman, a cashiered colonel and a disgraced policemen.

WHich wouldn't be too bad except he isn't really funny.

Isn't he supposed to be a commedian?

Posted by: Carl W. Goss at December 10, 2006 05:34 PM

Carl:

He's at least twice as funny as Franken. You guys just hate him because he used to be on your team and woke up on 9/11.

Posted by: gahrie at December 10, 2006 09:34 PM

That must be why he was so successful on Monday Night Football. And why his film career has taken off. If it wasn't for wingnut welfare like this he'd be begging for change on Sunset.

Posted by: Josh at December 11, 2006 08:39 AM

Hey, at least he isn't dropping N-bombs on hecklers.

Right, Josh?

Posted by: I R A Darth Aggie at December 11, 2006 09:08 AM

No Gahrie, Franken blows the doors off Miller.

Miller's pretty good on the curves, but Franken's got more straightline power. Sorta like a Ferrari F430 and a Corvette C6. Ever seen 'em on a track?

Not even close. Miller looks good for a while, but Frankenvette wins every time.

Posted by: Carl W. Goss at December 11, 2006 11:25 AM

Hey, at least he isn't dropping N-bombs on hecklers.

I dunno. At least that wouldn't be boring.

Posted by: Josh at December 11, 2006 01:38 PM

Darleen's Place
Politics, parenting and other prattlings.
Previewing your Comment

Josh and Carl

"And why his (Miller) film career has taken off"

"He’ll (sic) (Miller) join such other distinguished Americans such Oliver NOrth and Mark Furman, a cashiered colonel and a disgraced policemen"

Guys,
Can agree that Miller hasn't crashed into Bankruptcy Court as that Frankenvette recently did. And Josh, do you think those N-bombs are not boring? Now what does that mean? And for the benefit of us all, define the term "wingnut welfare

Posted by: Hugh at December 11, 2006 04:35 PM

I don't think Al Franken has personally filed for bankruptcy.

Miller is boring. Richards's outburst was many things, but it wasn't boring. Therefore the entertainment value of Richards's antics exceeds the entertainment value of Miller's ravings.

Wingnut welfare is a system of patronage whereby conservatives are able to succeed not on their intellectual (or in this case comedic) merits, but because they are ideologically sympathetic to, or have family connections to, conservative sugar daddies and politicians.

Posted by: Josh at December 12, 2006 11:37 AM

Ah, the consumate four-year old discussion: my guy's politics make him funnier. The knife through the heart of your strawmen prattlings about who is funnier and less bankrupt doesn't take into account that Miller and Franken both happen remain friends off camera.

Specifically, Mr. Carl W. Goss, comparing high performance race cars with comedians is vapid and meaningless in its original intent, however it is a valuable demonstration of how you associate yourself on the political spectrum. Maybe you can wow us with some further insights about Bill O'Reily and Fox News next? Are they the Prius and Honda Odessy to the Z3 and A6 of Keith Olbermann and MSNBC?

I'm all ears for some new understanding into these issues, which never seem to ebb in volume, but further languish in substance. Maybe the quality of these arguments can dimish to the point where they physically evaporate before our very eyes?

Darleen, thanks for posting this clip. I enjoyed it.

Posted by: TF6S at December 12, 2006 11:48 AM

“I don't think Al Franken has personally filed for bankruptcy.”

I didn’t say he did. The network that broadcasted his lousy work product did go bankrupt.

“Wingnut welfare is a system of patronage whereby conservatives are able to succeed not on their intellectual (or in this case comedic) merits, but because they are ideologically sympathetic to, or have family connections to, conservative sugar daddies and politicians.”

Josh, you make this too easy. Conservative talk radio was conceived and has prospered in the presence of a broadcast monopoly controlled by major radio and TV networks that are without question sympathetic too liberal ideology.

For example, in 1985 conservatives had access to these outlets to have their voices heard:

1) National Review magazine
2) Human Events Magazine
3) The fledgling Washington Times
4) Half of one show on CNN Crossfire.

This hardly qualifies as “family connections to, conservative sugar daddies and politicians.”

On the other side, in 1985, liberals had the following:

1) New York Times
2) CNN
3) CBS
4) NBC
5) ABC
6) LA Times
7) Washington Post
8) CBS Radio
9) All Sunday Political Shows
10) Associated Press
11) NPR
12) Forty years control of either or both houses of Congress and several presidential terms with all three.

Josh, the concept of a Wingnut Welfare system is just laughable. History demonstrates that if any ideology has benefited from your definition of a welfare system it is liberalism. Remember, Rupert Murdoch is a recent phenomenon on the broadcast scene. And if his employees didn’t return a profit to him he would cut them lose in a heartbeat. That’s hardly the definition of a sugar daddy.

Posted by: Hugh at December 12, 2006 05:03 PM

I didn’t say he did. The network that broadcasted his lousy work product did go bankrupt.

I see. You were comparing Miller's personal career to the fortunes of one entity that Franken works for. Seems inapt. Anyway, the point is not that Franken is funny - he isn't really - the point is that Miller isn't funny. Franken's unfunniness does not really bear on the fact that listening to Miller is painful.

a broadcast monopoly controlled by major radio and TV networks that are without question sympathetic too liberal ideology.

Then it should be easy for you to prove it.

But that's beside the point. The issue is not whether wingnut welfare existed in 1985. The issue is whether it exists today. It does, "without question." See, e.g. Simone Ledeen.

Posted by: Josh at December 13, 2006 08:18 AM

Josh
The "issue" is that any concept of wingnut welfare today or twenty years ago is ludicrous. The vast majority of all major media (as defined by size of its audience) has been and is today liberal.

That conservatives have actually succeeded in getting a message out through traditional and non traditional media outlets is NOT the result of some "wingnut welfare". It is the result of relentlessly offering up substantive intellectual arguments against liberal dogma. The genesis of today’s conservative polemic are the Austrian economists (see Hayek and Mises) and the groundbreaking work of William Buckley, whose "God and Man at Yale" and subsequent founding of the National Review started the conservative movement.

And you offer up Simone Ledeen? Sorry, I had to Google her name. Now I know she has a famous Dad (good for her). Your “welfare” argument is exactly backwards. To paraphrase Disraeli, you choke on the Simone Ledeens and swallow whole the Kennedy’s (Schriver), Wallace’s, Sulzberger’s, Gore’s, et al of the media world.

Posted by: Hugh at December 13, 2006 03:24 PM