With AL Sharpton signing on as a radio talk show host to bring a voice to the left, I had to wonder: why are conservative hosts so successful, while liberal hosts are not? I mean, NOBODY listens to Al Franken, do they?

The answer wasn't too long in coming.

You see, Liberals whine about the same things, over and over again, ad nauseum. Turn from one liberal's column to another, and it's basically the same song, second verse. Sharpton's show will be no different.

Conservatives, on the other hand, are more consistently interesting. While they cover the same topics, they do it with greater flair and a little bit more self deprecating humour than the liberals could ever dare to muster. Michael Reagan is a perfect example of this. While I disagree with him as often as I agree with him, he has a wit and creativity about him that just isn't found in the left.

What's more, LIBERALS listen to conservative hosts, ostensibly to "know their enemy". And yet, conservatives just don't feel the pressing need to reciprocate when a leftie comes on the air. It's just not. that. important.

When I listen to a conservative show, I expect to be offended once in awhile. I also expect the callers to offend the host and for the host to GET OVER IT once the phone's hung up. A liberal show is a dry recitation of "facts" pulled from data of questionable origin, or, better yet, IPSOA (for those unfamiliar with my work, that's "the institute for pulling statistics out of one's arse"). They just don't have a whole lot of listener appeal.

Michael Moore, for all his flaws, can at least put together something humorous. In this regards, he's a welcome exception to the rule of the boring leftie. But most of his contemporaries are dry, droll "causeheads" who simply aren't worth my wasting the time to get up and turn that radio dial.

I suspect Sharpton will be no different.