Al Franken: Kingmaker!
By Mitch Berg
I’m told that there’s a certain sect of Zuni tribesmen in the American southwest whose shamen pray every morning for the sun to rise. Since the sun rises every morning, they say, it must be working.
In a more-or-less unrelated matter, did you know Bill Press had a radio talk show?
Me either. But according to Brian Maloney, Press believes he – and Al Franken, and Fast Eddie Schultz – are the real impetus behind the electoral turnaround for the Dems: and for pretty much the same reasons as the Zuni shamen believe it:
But it also wouldn’t have happened – without progressive talk radio.
Think about it.
Two years, there was no progressive talk – It was all right-wing – and we lost our ass.
This year, there is progressive talk – and we won big time.
So shows like this really can make a difference. Not just me, of course. But Ed Schultz and Stephanie Miller, Al Franken and Randi Rhodes, Alex Bennett and all the rest.
And you, the listeners.
By speaking truth to power, every day – we helped get American back on track.
Be proud of what we accomplished in 2006.
And now – On to 2008!
Brian Maloney notes the absurdity of the claim:
Sure, Bill – your tiny ratings and small number of affiliates made all the difference in the world! It couldn’t have been that the Republican Party blew it, right?
Liberal talk radio is straining to justify its existence, granted – but given liberal talk’s anemic ratings (only in rare markets does the entire libtalk genre get out of the one-point cellar), to claim that libtalk had any impact at all is comical.
November 13th, 2006 at 7:50 am
What Bill Press actually said,
“It wouldn’t have happened if George Bush hadn’t screwed up so badly.
It wouldn’t have happened without good, strong candidates.
But it also wouldn’t have happened – without progressive talk radio.”
See? Three things. Bush, good candidates and progressive radio.
At least Baloney has the intellectual honesty and integrity to at aeast mention the Bush and candidate factors.
And by the way Mitch, in Baloneys post there’s a picture of Al Franken. It’s a screen shot from this new medium called television.
Stephanie Miller is a frequent guest on CNN, Larry King, Hannity.
Ed Schultz? All over the place. Same with Rhodes, Press, Sedar, Young Turks…
That you clearly are so completely ignorant of the impact that Press correctly illustrates explains why you got your a** handed to you on a plate.
November 13th, 2006 at 8:24 am
Um yeah, Doug, that’s why I provided the link to the original piece. So people could read the whole thing and make up their own mind. That’s what makes a blog different from, say, a newspaper.
I pulled out the stuff about liberal talkradio because it was germane to my point. Via providing the link, I don’t have to re-print the entire Press piece.
There’s this thing called “blogging”. Perhaps you’ve heard of it.
November 13th, 2006 at 10:57 am
Mitch said,
“I pulled out the stuff about liberal talkradio because it was germane to my point.”
Your point was to selectively regurgitate what Baloney said with the added benefit of running it through the Bergian filter to try to support your contention that Progressive talk has no impact.
In the process, you reiterated Baloney’s insinuation that Progressive talk via Bill Press was taking full credit for winning the elections – a claim that he is clearly not making when the entire piece is read in context.
Regardless of what your intent was – to address Baloney’s laughable screed,
A. Press didn’t assert that progressive talk was the only factor for the election results and B. Progressive talk DID contribute to the outcome.
And might I add, Na na na na na na…
November 13th, 2006 at 5:50 pm
And the moderate temperture today in Minnesota had something to do with a) the sun and b) Doug running his toaster an extra time to have another pop tart. It wouldn’t have happened if he didn’t feel like gorging this morning.
November 13th, 2006 at 6:09 pm
In the process, you reiterated Baloney’s insinuation that Progressive talk via Bill Press was taking full credit for winning the elections – a claim that he is clearly not making when the entire piece is read in context.
As usual, Doug, you are wrong.
I am reiterating Maloney’s point that Press claims any credit at all for the election on behalf of libtalk.
November 13th, 2006 at 6:15 pm
So now Doug is dishonest, disingenous, condescending, arrogant…and wrong.
November 13th, 2006 at 10:50 pm
Mitch said,
“I am reiterating Maloney’s point that Press claims any credit at all for the election on behalf of libtalk.”
Which Press has every reason to claim since it was progressive talk radio hosts that have been all over the place for the last 6 months. Not to mention the fact that while progressive radio is still a small share of the entire talk radio industry, it is growing.
And Goyle, er I mean Paul, do you ever have anthing of value to add? If so, please do. Otherwise, please go back to surfing gay porn and Star Trek fan sites.
November 13th, 2006 at 11:00 pm
St. Paul said,
“And the moderate temperture today in Minnesota had something to do with a) the sun and b) Doug running his toaster an extra time to have another pop tart. It wouldn’t have happened if he didn’t feel like gorging this morning.”
Huh?
November 14th, 2006 at 12:15 am
Doug said:
“And Goyle, er I mean Paul, do you ever have anthing of value to add? If so, please do. Otherwise, please go back to surfing gay porn and Star Trek fan sites.”
Guess what, Doug? A)Pointing out that you’re dishonest, disingenous, condescending, arrogant and wrong is of value because all of the above “qualities” are proven true by you yourself repeatedly, B)this isn’t your blog, so if you don’t like my pointing these “qualities” out, tough, C)if you want me to stop yanking your chain, stop making an @$$ of yourself with every post.
Since Saint Paul’s mocking of your Bill Press argument utilizing the Limbaugh technique of illustrating absurdity by being absurd was lost on you, the list is now dishonest, disingenous, condescending, arrogant, wrong…and humorless.
Doug, if you would answer a direct question (like the Iraq one you artfully dodged) without being dishonest, disingenous, condescending, arrogant, wrong and humorless, I’d treat you with more respect. Heck, if the answer was sound, I’d might even agree with you.
November 14th, 2006 at 8:10 am
The Limbaugh technique? TECHNIQUE?
We’ve got John Stewart, Colbert, Mahr and you guys have Dennis Miller and Rush Limbaugh. Thanks for pointing out another factor that led to Tuesdays salughter.
Paul said,
“Doug, if you would answer a direct question (like the Iraq one you artfully dodged) without being dishonest, disingenous, condescending, arrogant, wrong and humorless, I’d treat you with more respect.”
I’ve pointed out in numerous posts why the question is bogus and why I won’t answer it. That doesn’t mean I’m dishonest, disingenous, condescending, arrogant, wrong or humorless.
What it does mean is I refuse to fall for and engage in strawman arguments.
You want a plan from Democrats? You’ll get a plan but it’s not going to be on your terms and it’s not going to come until we have enough information to formalize a plan. Something that, according to the top Marine in Iraq, Bush failed to do.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/11/13/national/main2177031.shtml
November 14th, 2006 at 11:32 am
Hey, while you guys are busy trying to come up with a witty retort, here’s a question.
In your view, (after the anthrax attacks against two Democratic Senators and Media organizations which killed 5 people in 2001), is sending white powder to Keith Olberman, David Letterman, Air Americas and two more Democrats offices a harmless prank or is it an act of terrorism?
and in the gosh that’s ironic department, the very guy arrested for sending the fake anthrax to Olberman posted this at free republic…
“I wouldn’t be even remotely surprised if he mailed it to himself. I’ve never seen someone more desperate for attention and approval.”
By the way, were the persons responsible for the 2001 attacks against Democratic leaders ever found, charged and prosecuted?
For any liberals that might be reading this, remember the line, “we’re fighting them over there so we don’t have to fight them here…? Apparently, they’re here and you’d better be armed and ready to fight.
November 14th, 2006 at 7:56 pm
Doug said:
“I’ve pointed out in numerous posts why the question is bogus and why I won’t answer it. That doesn’t mean I’m dishonest, disingenous, condescending, arrogant, wrong or humorless.
What it does mean is I refuse to fall for and engage in strawman arguments.”
In short, you’re stalling.
November 14th, 2006 at 8:00 pm
Doug said:
“You want a plan from Democrats? You’ll get a plan but it’s not going to be on your terms and it’s not going to come until we have enough information to formalize a plan.”
Well, well, well. You finally admit there was no plan.
Just what we thought all along.
November 14th, 2006 at 9:42 pm
Paul,
Against my better judgement, I’ll make one last attempt to see if you can grasp the concept of developing a strategy.
You study. You take in all available information and then you formulate a plan based on all of the available data. Within the process, you consult with experts across a wide spectrum of disciplines and you include representatives from parties with dissenting views. You also don’t pull a half baked plan out of your a$$ because the mouth breathing stormtroopers that lob lame taunts from the comfort of their studio appartments demand it.
I would be sarchastic and say the reason this sounds foreign to you is that this is what Republicans, some Democrats and the President failed to do and we refuse to follow the course you laid and make the mistakes you made.
I would say that but obviously you have your head stuck so far up your a$$, you wouldn’t be able to hear anyway.
Good luck with that Paul.
November 14th, 2006 at 9:48 pm
Like I said, Doug, you guys don’t have a plan. You finally admitted it.
Too bad your guys didn’t follow your advice before getting elected:
“You study. You take in all available information and then you formulate a plan based on all of the available data. Within the process, you consult with experts across a wide spectrum of disciplines and you include representatives from parties with dissenting views.”
Lots of people think your guys don’t have a plan. Even the AP is reporting this:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061114/ap_on_re_us/postelection_ap_poll_2
November 14th, 2006 at 11:22 pm
Paul said,
“Too bad your guys didn’t follow your advice before getting elected.”
Too bad your guys didn’t before launching a 342 billion dollar war.
You want a plan? Great. Here it is. We’re going to first assess how extensive the damage is that was cause by the Administrations massive and wide spread mishandling of the war in Iraq. We’re going to consider the conclusions and recommendations that will be made by the Baker group and get input from the generals leading the armed forces and when we have enough information, we’ll take the administrations National Strategy for Victory in Iraq document (which by the way was published 32 months AFTER the war started…) and we’ll roll it up and put in in the bathroom toilet paper holders in Congress where it belongs. Next, we’ll establish realistic goals and set clear benchmarks for measuring success. Then we’ll look at the handfull of ideas that have already been floated and then begin the process of refining and revising so we can arrive at the most effective course of action to meet the goals WE establish.
I’m sure that while we’re busy doing what I’ve described, Republicans will be really helpful too – won’t you?
November 15th, 2006 at 7:21 am
Nice plan, Doug. It boils down to “we’ll do it better” without offering a single shred of detail as to how that would be accomplished. So you still haven’t answered the question, Stall-boy.
Too bad your guys will be too busy wielding their “supoena power” to implement any kind of plan besides “cut and run.”
Now how about addressing the point of this thread, and this line:
“progressive radio is still a small share of the entire talk radio industry, it is growing.”
How about some Arbitron ratings demonstrating that “growth?” Or even some financial reports showing that “growth” without some rich liberal dumping in suitcases full of money?
The fact is that nearly nobody listens to these shows. If they had more listeners, advertisers would be chomping at the bit to reach their audiences.
You also said this:
“A. Press didn’t assert that progressive talk was the only factor for the election results and B. Progressive talk DID contribute to the outcome.”
Sure it did. Much like former Los Angeles Laker Hot Rod Hundley contributed one game: “[His biggest thrill] was the night (NBA Hall-of-Famer) Elgin Baylor and I combined for seventy-three points.
Elgin had seventy-one of them.”
November 15th, 2006 at 8:11 am
Paul said,
“without offering a single shred of detail as to how that would be accomplished.”
What did I say about due diligence Ms. Keller?