CCP: Arguing Just to Hear One's Voice

Colin led off his spasmadic monologue Wednesday with the most recent Maurice Clarett arrest. The former The Ohio State University running back was tasered and maced into submission by police, and found to have a cache of semi-automatic weapons and at least one open bottle of vodka in his vehicle. Oh yeah, and he was wearing a bulletproof vest. This is all really par for the course for Maurice Clarett. Basically, we all know Clarett is a terribly misguided individual, no argument there. But we will argue with Colin Cowherd.

Cowherd details the Clarett incident, then kicks it into "sarcastic cockweasel" mode. He claims that he recieved a bunch of e-mails from "liberal" listeners yesterday saying that he's too judgmental on people and he generalizes too much. We at Thunder Matt's don't necessarily care if he's judgmental, as long as he makes a coherent argument out of it. We do, however, take exception to his sweeping generalizations, as noted in past posts. Colin proceeds to sarcastically whine about how maybe he's being "too hard" and too judgmental in regards to Clarett's actions. Naturally, he would pick the one individual who we all know is a total lost cause socially and professionally. Any sports fan will tell you that Clarett needs to be put away and not given any more chances. So what is Cowherd arguing? Nothing. He's using the circumstances and his soap box to punch back at listeners who feel he's being too tough with his stances while not citing any real supporting evidence. He essentially conjured up a fake argument in an attempt to fight back at his critics, which just totally makes him sound like an ass-heel and a petulant child. I wish you could all listen to these rants, they're quite mind-boggling.

So Cowherd could only muscle about 9 minutes out of his fake Clarett argument, leaving room for more preening and self-congratulation. He wrapped up by discussing Mike Piazza's return to Shea Stadium, and how proud he was of Mets fans for cheering him. This was the backhanded compliment of the day, as he was sure to stress that Met fans are usually clueless and obnoxious. He also pointed out that Mets fans are not as classy as Yankee fans, but then turned around and bashed Yankee fan for booing A-Rod. In fact he completely contradicted himself on everything in this part of the monologue. Mets fans are obnoxious, no wait, they're classy. Yankee fans are classy, no wait, they're obnoxious.

But seriously, what fans don't cheer when one of their heroes return for the first time? Unless the departure ends up being a dick move on the player's part (see Roger Clemens heading to Toronto). It's usually not the player's fault for moving on (yes, there are exceptions. I hope I'm not generalizing). On to the analysis:

Was his topic/view informative?
No, he discussed and attempted to argue nothing that wasn't already obvious. -1
Did he dig a little deeper than just re-hashing the top story?
No, this is pretty much the top sports story today. -1
Did he give credence to the other side of the story?
Well, the other side of the story in regards to Clarett should not be heard. He gave up that right.
Did he use a fake voice?
No, but he did some gimmick where they made a song out of Old Navy selling bulletproof vests. That sucked up about 30 seconds of his monologue, proving that there isn't enough to talk about, and anything Clarett-related from here on out should be a non-story. And from now on, any of these produced gimmicks used on The Herd will fall under this category? -1
Did he repeat one thought/idea/analogy incessantly?
That "liberals" were being hard on him. The odd thing is that I couldn't tell if he was really pissed at liberals, or he was just mocking them in a good-natured way. Based on what Colin has shared about his life in the past, I would imagine he's fairly liberal. Maybe I'm wrong. I'm still taking a point off. -1
Did he make an assumption or exaggerate to help prove his point?
His whole argument was a big convoluted exaggeration. -1
Did he contradict an earlier stance without saying he changed his mind?
He's been critical of A-Rod in the past, and worked in the fact that Yankee fans should be ashamed for booing their own hero. -1
Did he alienate a good portion of his listening audience (like presumably over 30%)?
This is a close call, as he managed to call out anyone who would consider themselves "liberal", and gave the backhanded compliment to Met fans as well as Yankee fans. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt on this one and let him have the point. The whole thing was such an incoherent mess that most listeners probably felt like a cracked-out chimp with ADD trying to follow it.

Final Score: 2 (out of 8) This was such a garbage monologue. I'm totally surprised he came out with two points.