He calls for murder, then he says he was misquoted, now, realising everybody knows he`s lieing, he lies again and says he`s sorry.
Wow, the devils laughing in anticipation.
Um, no one but the hundreds of thousands of people who watch him every day?
Is this like Pauline Kael's famous declaration that she couldn't understand how Nixon could have been elected, since no one she knew had voted for him?
Undismayed by political defeat and fiscal stringencies, Robertson founded the Christian Coalition, a political education organization (tax-code 503C4) in 1988, which grew to a one and half million membership by 1995.
With daily audiences for the 700 Club averaging one million households, Robertson's contribution to American broadcasting has been more influential than that of many other more popular talk-show hosts. Reportedly his network is seen in over 90 countries, and has an income of over $100,000,000/year.
Pat Robertson’s long-running 700 Club is often named by the media as the most-watched religious show, with about 1 million daily viewers. It is carried by various networks including ABC Family Channel, thanks to a contractual agreement grandfathered in from when the network was sold by Fox to The Walt Disney Co. in 2001.
Y'know, one single day of 700 Club at a million people, is more than have ever seen all of Michael Moore's films. So if we are dismissing Robertson, I guess never should Michael Moore ever have been, nor should he again, be mocked, because, after all, no one ever watches him.
'k, so he makes a lot of money. I'll wager Moore has been far more influential.
I went to Google news, and searched for both names, excluding articles from the past week, and found 171 hits for "Pat Robertson" and 1540 hits for "Michael Moore."
"I went to Google news, and searched for both names, excluding articles from the past week, and found 171 hits for "Pat Robertson" and 1540 hits for "Michael Moore."
Yes, that certainly proves there are a lot of rightwingers driven insane by Moore and compelled to mention him all the time. But since Robertson has more daily listeners than CNN, and Moore has a blog, well, then, presumably the conclusion isn't that one should mock anyone making fun of CNN because "no one listens to them," and more people listen to Pat Robertson.
What's up with trying to prove otherwise? It's a fact. Is Byron York and National Review (yes, I know you're a libertarian, but that's not the point in this context) part of the vast left-wing conspiracy to make too much of Robertson?
I intended the original post to poke fun at Robertson, no more. He's a pathetic figure, and his influence doesn't extend to the conservative political leadership until he does something like this. Do you disagree?
I think he's pathetic, but I think that of many figures who are powerful. I agree that his political influence has somewhat diminished in recnet years -- from a peak as a serious candidate for the Republican Presidential nomination who won major primaries -- and that he's not a significant intellectual leader (compared to who? James Dobson?); I agree that he's not particularly a part of the Republican leadership.
He's still listened to by close to a million people a day, though, who send him money and take a lead from him, and that's a lot more powerful than CNN is, or Moore, or any number of people many feel worth making fun of on the left, or citing as Serious Dangers (see Bernard Goldberg, et al), though, so I'll note what sort of dangerous influences I'm supposed to watch out for, according to NRO, the Weekly Standard, Hugh Hewitt, Powerline, etc.
I don't know most of the people who support people I find dangerously stupid, to be sure. They're still out there, though.
Leave a comment
Search
About this Entry
This page contains a single entry by published on August 24, 2005 10:16 PM.
He calls for murder, then he says he was misquoted, now, realising everybody knows he`s lieing, he lies again and says he`s sorry.
Wow, the devils laughing in anticipation.
I argue that almost no one is paid any attention until they do/say something stupid.
Walter, if that were the case, Pat would be the headline every moment of everyday.
"I argue that almost no one is paid any attention until they do/say something stupid."
Now there's a marketing plan for this blog!
Um, no one but the hundreds of thousands of people who watch him every day?
Is this like Pauline Kael's famous declaration that she couldn't understand how Nixon could have been elected, since no one she knew had voted for him?
Does the 700 Club beat the TV ratings of that loud guy selling miracle cleanser on infomercials?
"Yes, I think so.
With daily audiences for the 700 Club averaging one million households, Robertson's contribution to American broadcasting has been more influential than that of many other more popular talk-show hosts. Reportedly his network is seen in over 90 countries, and has an income of over $100,000,000/year.
Or see here:
Y'know, one single day of 700 Club at a million people, is more than have ever seen all of Michael Moore's films. So if we are dismissing Robertson, I guess never should Michael Moore ever have been, nor should he again, be mocked, because, after all, no one ever watches him.The second paragraph above was still part of the quote.
'k, so he makes a lot of money. I'll wager Moore has been far more influential.
I went to Google news, and searched for both names, excluding articles from the past week, and found 171 hits for "Pat Robertson" and 1540 hits for "Michael Moore."
Incidentally.
"I went to Google news, and searched for both names, excluding articles from the past week, and found 171 hits for "Pat Robertson" and 1540 hits for "Michael Moore."
Yes, that certainly proves there are a lot of rightwingers driven insane by Moore and compelled to mention him all the time. But since Robertson has more daily listeners than CNN, and Moore has a blog, well, then, presumably the conclusion isn't that one should mock anyone making fun of CNN because "no one listens to them," and more people listen to Pat Robertson.
What's up with trying to prove otherwise? It's a fact. Is Byron York and National Review (yes, I know you're a libertarian, but that's not the point in this context) part of the vast left-wing conspiracy to make too much of Robertson?
I intended the original post to poke fun at Robertson, no more. He's a pathetic figure, and his influence doesn't extend to the conservative political leadership until he does something like this. Do you disagree?
I think he's pathetic, but I think that of many figures who are powerful. I agree that his political influence has somewhat diminished in recnet years -- from a peak as a serious candidate for the Republican Presidential nomination who won major primaries -- and that he's not a significant intellectual leader (compared to who? James Dobson?); I agree that he's not particularly a part of the Republican leadership.
He's still listened to by close to a million people a day, though, who send him money and take a lead from him, and that's a lot more powerful than CNN is, or Moore, or any number of people many feel worth making fun of on the left, or citing as Serious Dangers (see Bernard Goldberg, et al), though, so I'll note what sort of dangerous influences I'm supposed to watch out for, according to NRO, the Weekly Standard, Hugh Hewitt, Powerline, etc.
I don't know most of the people who support people I find dangerously stupid, to be sure. They're still out there, though.