So, a group of wealthy Democrats plans to start a new radio network in hopes of creating liberal talk-show alternatives to Rush Limbaugh.

Why does this strike me as the silliest idea I’ve heard since Jimmy Carter decided to ward off an alleged killer rabbit with a canoe paddle? I’m all for strong liberal voices to offset the demagoguery and drivel-cum-diatribe that pass for dialogue in the conservative-dominated universe of talk radio. But what makes these Democrats think they can just snap their fingers, wave their greenbacks and millions of Americans will suddenly want to hear Al Franken make daily drive-time fun of John Ashcroft?

There has been much talk recently about conservative control of the airwaves. Limbaugh has from 15 million to 20 million listeners daily.

He didn’t lure his big audience because some conservative Daddy Warbucks anointed him. He’s succeeded because his message — and means of delivering that message — struck a responsive chord with a huge number of alienated Americans.

Limbaugh also benefited from the presence in the White House through most of the 1990s of Bill Clinton. Clinton was the ideal foil for someone of Limbaugh’s antediluvian ideology and loathsome methodology.

He became a hit, and station owners across the fruited plain rushed to find imitators.

Liberals say station owners hired conservative talk-show hosts because the owners themselves are conservatives. There’s probably some truth to that. But Michael Harrison, publisher of Talkers, the magazine that covers the talk radio industry, said recently, “I can remember hearing a lot of owners say, ‘I’ve got this guy Limbaugh, and I can’t stand his politics, but he’s making me a ton of money.’

“Owners are only guided by two things,” Harrison says, “ratings and revenue. If owners thought liberals would bring them ratings and revenue, you’d have liberals on every station.”

I suspect Harrison exaggerates. After all, liberals are more likely to criticize big business, to argue for environmental legislation and to take other stands that would be likely to offend advertisers accustomed to Limbaugh-like cosseting. Offend your advertisers, and your revenue goes down.

But there have been liberal talk-show hosts in the past — among them, former governors Mario Cuomo of New York, Jerry Brown of California and Douglas Wilder of West Virginia.

They all failed.

Why?

“They were boring,” Harrison says. “Limbaugh is the most impressive radio personality of the last 50 years. He’s very talented. Cuomo was elitist and arrogant. Brown was too wonky. No one liked listening to any of those liberals. Conservatives are not taking jobs away from liberals. They’re taking jobs away from less talented hosts.”

Liberals think they’ve been unable to match the conservative success on talk radio because they are too reasonable, too willing to consider both sides of an issue, too concerned with nuance and complexity.

Of course, it’s self-serving for a liberal to say, “Gee, I’m not successful in this stupid, nasty medium because I’m too nice and too smart.” There’s clearly more to it than that.

George W. Bush had lower SAT scores than my 12-year-old son, and he’s been about as successful in pursuing Osama bin Laden as my 96-year-old mother would be. But despite a recent decline, Bush remains high in the polls, and as potential talk-show fodder, his embrace of Enron’s “Kenny boy” Lay doesn’t begin to compare with Clinton’s embrace — if you can call it that — of Monica Lewinsky.

So with bombs about to fall on Baghdad, just whom would the liberal talk-show hosts and satirists target? Who would be their Bill Clinton?

Where is Trent Lott now that we really need him?