A place for me to pour out my rants without clogging the inboxes of my friends and family. Also a place to give info on myself and Mary, our family news and events.
Published on October 1, 2004 By Rightwinger In Current Events
Why in the world would the liberal whackos choose a dork like Al Franken to be their big, new spokesperson? I hated him as a kid, watching him on SNL in the 70s.
I've been pondering this enigma for some time, and here's my answer:

They aren't funny. They're so self-important and take their issues so seriously that they have to resort to using a pseudo-intellectual, pseudo-celebrity "comedian", a synchophantic, political-pundit-wannabe like him to present their face to the public.
The Righties have serious journalists like Bill O'Reilley, Anne Coulter, Mona Charen, Thomas Sowell and Rush Limbaugh; all of whom have the ability to present their cases with humor as well as insight. They're entertaining.

The libs had Phil Donahue there for a while, in a bid to unseat Rush and Bill on the airwaves. He was so stiff and boring, however, that they gave him up toot-sweet.
What about "Air America"? If memory serves, Big pro-Gay Al was part of that disaster, too.
Face it, sweethearts, you're just not FUNNY. Give it up...we have you beat on the air and in the papers because we can see the humor in life and its peaks and pitfalls; everything isn't doom-and-gloom, as you preach. We have hope; you have dope.


Comments
on Oct 01, 2004
I find Franken amusing, but I have a problem with him. I recently read his book "Lies and the Lying Liars that Tell Them," and he himself misrepresented some events that took place in Arkansas while Clinton was governor. In trying to defend Clinton, he wound up doing what he claims Hannity and O'Reilly do -- glossing over facts and selecting only the information that makes his guy look good. At question in the book were the deaths of two teenagers that initially was ruled an accident. Furthur investigation seemed to point to drug involvement, and furthur investigation seemed to indicate that some county and state officials were involved. Clinton's gubenatorial administration lied, covered up, and blocked investigators at every turn. Franken says the whole story was part of that famous "vast right wing conspiracy." He's wrong. I live here, and I know people who were involved in the case -- on both sides. After reading that book, Franken lost all credibility to me as a "journalist."
on Oct 01, 2004
After reading that book, Franken lost all credibility to me as a "journalist."


Thank you. That's my point...he's not a "journalist"....he's a "comedian" (however, Dan Rather has recently proven that it IS possible to be both).
Franken rubs elbows with a few Washington lefty pundits and politicos, and BADA-BING, he's an in-the-know guy, on who's every thought and word we all should be hanging. What a load.
They can't get a popular show going with the rhetoric-spouting zombies they'd been using, so they pick this guy in an attempt to inject some personality into their doomsaying. Good luck.
on Oct 01, 2004
He wasn't even a commedian til later, he was originally just a writer on SNL that they started giving skits to, right?

What makes me the maddest about it is they act as if they are compelled to be political by some great evil, and not their own bulbous egos. You see pundits on either side have some pretty bitter debates and then laugh with each other, but the "Air America" style commentator really seems to hate the Right, in my opinion.
on Oct 01, 2004
He wasn't even a commedian til later, he was originally just a writer on SNL that they started giving skits to, right?


Yes....those annoying "What does it mean to me......Al Franken?" skits. Stupid. That was when SNL started on the late 70s downhill slide, awaiting the arrival of Eddie Murphy.

What makes me the maddest about it is they act as if they are compelled to be political by some great evil, and not their own bulbous egos. You see pundits on either side have some pretty bitter debates and then laugh with each other, but the "Air America" style commentator really seems to hate the Right, in my opinion.


Bakerstreet: Couldn't have said it better myself. Here, have an insightful.

on Oct 01, 2004
Thanks.

I mean can you imagine Janeane Garofalo marrying a staunch republican the way James Carville married Mary Matalin? I would imagine J.G. would have OCD fits of gagging if she had to share a cab with someone from Bush 1.0's staff.

That is why people like Franken, Garafalo, Soros, and the rest are more dangerous than Democrats you actually vote for, I think. Washington Dems want to work in a system, but these yuk-yuks are motivated by the need to bring down particular people of a particular philosophy. At the end of the day they don't have to deal with the chaos.




on Oct 01, 2004
Ack! Janean Garofalo. I'd like those of us on the left to take a vote and ask her to please shut the f*!k up. She annoys the piss out of me.
on Oct 02, 2004
That is why people like Franken, Garafalo, Soros, and the rest are more dangerous than Democrats you actually vote for, I think. Washington Dems want to work in a system, but these yuk-yuks are motivated by the need to bring down particular people of a particular philosophy. At the end of the day they don't have to deal with the chaos.


Very true...their motivation does often seem to be different than the "everyday" libs in that they do seem to have an inherent hated of and utter disrespect of the Right and its ideals.
See Michael Moore, for example. Remember him screaming out his vitriol on the Oscars last year? Made me wonder if his gate wasn't a little unhinged.
And he made "Farenhite 9/11" with the avowed purpose in mind of bringing down the Bush Administration. Hmm...that was a big, dry fart, wasn't it? What a waste of time and effort.
He apparently saw himself up there with Woodward and Bernstein. What a loser. A big, fat, sloppy, unshaven, unkempt-looking loser.