Of course not. It's just a working theory. But it has the unique virtue of having been validated by none other than you on this very thread. YOU were the one who failed to see IowaHawk's humor, just as the theory predicts.
In lieu of facts, you ad hominem.
There are no facts here, only opinions and speculation. You're asserting something too, you know -- namely that the show is funny -- but you no more have "facts" to prove it than I do. I'm just asserting a contrary opinion and backing it up with the best evidence available, which, ironically, you have provided.
I'll will grant you, though, that my line about the nap was a little on the snotty side, and I will retract it. In fact I'll even apologize for it (I regretted it as soon as I hit the "post" button). Ahem...sorry for saying you might need a nap to understand my point.
Also, I misidentified you as a grandpa rather than a grandma, which you might have taken offense to. Sorry about that, too.
Now then, continuing on...
You sound just like a liberal, yarkstick.
No, I sound like a conservative who's frustrated that our side fails, again and again and again, to go out into the culture war fully equipped for battle. The libs are sharp and we need to be sharp too if we're going to beat them.
I think you've confused insults with "sharp and intelligent".
Like it or not, the name of the game with this kind of comedy is to be sharp, and yes insulting, with the point of drawing blood (metaphorically speaking of course) from your opponent. This is accomplished with subtlety, with perceptiveness, with a finely calibrated sense of irony. Subtle things, in other words. You have to be smart about it.
Bottom line: I want to see conservatism win, and dopey writing on a show like this ain't gonna help make that happen.
Furthermore, and lastly while you think the blogs you've cited are A-1, others might not.
Of course, but IowaHawk is widely recognised as one of the best in the blogosphere when it comes to political parody. As I said earlier, even the libs recognize this. They hate IowaHawk, because he's good.
It's one thing to write one or two "brilliant" blog items or columns, it's another to churn out that brilliance day after day after day.
1) Most bloggers turn out stuff day after day. The blogosphere is almost defined by its fast pace. IowaHawk's reputation is based on a paper trail of pitch-perfect parody that's a mile long.
2) Those promo clips for the FOX show were the best stuff they had. That was their opeing blitz, the cream of the cream of months of pre-production writing and skunkworking. They rolled out their best, and it was not particularly good. It'll be interesting to see whether having to crank it out day after day helps them or hurts them. I hope they get better at it -- and I'd say they will -- because I don't want this show to be an albatross around conservatism's neck.
It's partly why Rush is a winner -- he has a fine and provable track record of wins.
Absolutely.
Dittos, Joel Surnow. He too has a successful track record.
A successful track record doing an action show.
Sleep on it.
Got my pillow fluffed up and ready to go.
Nighty night!
You thought IowaHawk's humor was top of the line. It really wasn't. I've read IowaHawk's stuff on the John Edwards Bloggers. What made it work was how righteously snotty it was. His self-parody in what you linked to, just simply, wasn't funny; it tried way too hard. And not comparable to the 1/2 News Hour Show.
And because I/others didn't find it funny, you think this proves a negative. It doesn't.
I don't think Will Ferrell is funny, and that's how the link to IowaHawk came across -- as a Will Ferrell wanna be.
When you and Iowahawk get your work funded and produced on Foxnews, come back and ask me then what I thought.
You continue to play bait and switch games.
You want a comedy show which makes liberals *hate*. As tho that's gonna wake them up? Make them hate, and you get happy. No. And recent elections prove you dead wrong.
Surnow in this pilot has laid out a tenor. You don't think that tenor is mean enough. It's his show. You didn't like it. In order to prove your point you use false premises to argue in support of your theory of humor. And, that "people like me" are just too stupid to get it. Of course, you asserted this after vaunting a FOX conspiracy.
You are your own comedy show, Yardstick.
Most the people on this thread enjoyed Surnow's first pilot. And that makes you so upset, because me/they are too stupid to *get* the humor you find funny.
You've got issues. You feel like a loser, you act like a loser, and you want everyone to feel just like you.
Too bad!