Wow, Cox. Your blog is yet another pack of full of lies. For more info, visit my blog.

First why don't we do what I always do in my blog response. We'll dissect each inaccuracy one at a time.

Lie #1: KO was gloating that Cheney was cursed at. Not necessarily. I'm sure Keith would have played that clip non-stop if someone had been cursing Al Gore out. You see Cox, there has not been a Democratic president since Countdown debuted in 2003. Likewise, we don't know Keith would react if we had a liberal in office. So either you've conveniently forgotten that piece of information, or you weren't born until after Countdown's debut. I'm going with the latter myself. Secondly, Cheney said the exact same thing to Democratic senator Patrick Leahy last year, another tidbit you've forgotten to post. With that most recent statement in mind, Keith's "gloating" was quite justified in the terms of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.

Lie #2:Howard Fineman is a shapeshifter to whomever he is appearing with. Now I haven't seen enough Mr. Fineman to judge whether or not you accusation is valid or not, but I think Fineman brought up some excellent points last night. Believe it or not Cox, there ARE Republicans who disagree with their leader and criticize him when he's done wrong. That's part of a little something called DEMOCRACY.

Lie #3:Because he criticized Bush, KO now considers Robert Novak a credible journalist. WRONG! Keith never showed any indication of this. He simply was showing that there were Republicans upset with the President's handling of Katrina. "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism."-Thomas Jefferson. I know, how dare KO show reality that we are not living in a Communist society where everybody agrees with our leader and anyone who does not is an automatic traitor who must be sent to the gallows. And where was Novak teased on this episode? Unless are you referring to him playing the tape of Novak cussing out James Carville(which I think I can count on my left hand how many times he played that), that remark has no basis to last night's broadcast.

Lie #4:Being a Republican automatically makes you eligible for "Worst Person in the World." You raise an intresting point that a lot of the nominees are indeed Republican/Conservative. However, the people on this list are on there because they did something that was stupidly self-serving and/or cruel. Santorum, for instance, wants to increase penalties on those who refuse to evacutate during a natural disaster. But as Keith pointed out, how do you prosecute dead people.

Lie #4 Hypocrisy #1-I find it intresting that you constantly slaughter Keith for alledgedly not getting his facts right, or targeting certain groups of people. Yet how can you be upset that Coulter, Limbaugh, and O'Reilly made his Worst Person in the World?

Lie #4 Relevent Thought #1-I find it hard to believe that a supposedly grown man(I'm starting to get serious doubts though) like yourself is getting himself all worked up over a list that is not an official word, nor something a nominee will carry with them the rest of their life. But rather, it is a JOKE, a light-hearted look at all the corruption and stupidity in this world.

Mr. Cox, please explain to me. What is your justification for devoting a whole blog to attacking one journalist for not performing up to your standards, when you yourself are not a real journalist, nor do you always have common sense and/or correct facts in your post?

And this is the blog Cox runs primarily by proxy. Well done, D. Hunker down,now.

I'm not Mr. cox but maybe i can help first of all
olby is not a journalist he's a hatchetman for the
the left......you know what if you don't like this
blog go back to your own stupid blog ......boy things must busy there if you and pauley boy can waste your time here.

I tuned by Olbermann about five times for ten second intervals last night. I saw Keith blabbing about Dick Cheney getting heckled at least three times. Exactly how big a "story" is that? Does a ranting crazy person warrant such exposure? Well . . . I guess we could say the same thing about Keith.

Perhaps Keith identified with the nutjob? After all, they both basically do the same thing. Maybe Keith should have the crazy profane lunatic who yelled inanities at the Vice President co-host his show -- I don't think anyone would notice the difference.

I also caught the last segment on "worst person in the world." I was actually frightened by his demeanor and behavior. That a talk show host can be such a hateful prick is beyond me. As far as the overwhelming bias of his choices, that is so obvious that anyone defending these choices as "non-partisan" is either a political operative or a complete idiot.

By the way, for all you Dummycrats out there, the Louisiana State authorities (i.e. the Governor) prevented the Red Cross and Salvation Army from going to the Superdome because they didn't want people to think it was OK to stay there. Will Krazy Keith list Babineaux Blanco as a "worst person in the world?" Stupid Liberals. I think I'll post something supplementary below. Yes. . .yes I will!

I tuned by Olbermann about five times for ten second intervals last night. I saw Keith blabbing about Dick Cheney getting heckled at least three times. Exactly how big a "story" is that? Does a ranting crazy person warrant such exposure? Well . . . I guess we could say the same thing about Keith.

Perhaps Keith identified with the nutjob? After all, they both basically do the same thing. Maybe Keith should have the crazy profane lunatic who yelled inanities at the Vice President co-host his show -- I don't think anyone would notice the difference.

I also caught the last segment on "worst person in the world." I was actually frightened by his demeanor and behavior. That a talk show host can be such a hateful prick is beyond me. As far as the overwhelming bias of his choices, that is so obvious that anyone defending these choices as "non-partisan" is either a political operative or a complete idiot.

By the way, for all you Dummycrats out there, the Louisiana State authorities (i.e. the Governor) prevented the Red Cross and Salvation Army from going to the Superdome because they didn't want people to think it was OK to stay there. Will Krazy Keith list Babineaux Blanco as a "worst person in the world?" Stupid Liberals. I think I'll post something supplementary below. Yes. . .yes I will!

INTRODUCING KRAZY FOR KEITH'S "WORST HOSTS IN THE WORLD" LIST

#1. Krazy Keith (of course)
#2. Chris Matthews
#3. Paula Zahn
#4. Aron Brown
#5. Lou Dobbs
#6. Larry King

By the way, did anyone see this (excuse me if this has already been posted somewhere on the site):

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/335982p-286995c.html

"It might be a good idea for Keith Olbermann and Rick Kaplan to give each other a wide berth until things cool down. . . MSNBC staffers in the Secaucus newsroom-studio watched in horror Monday night as the volatile Kaplan, the president of the cable outlet, publicly laced into the eccentric Olbermann, anchor of the 8 p.m. show "Countdown," after the latter eulogized lung-cancer victim Peter Jennings with a graphic rant about his own cancer scare."

Talk about the Crazy leading the Crazy! Wackadoo central at MSLSD!

D-Day: nice of you to join us here, instead of just sniping from the sidelines. Your list of "lies" was most amusing; you obviously have adopted the moveon definition of "lie", since you can't recognize a difference of opinion when you see one. But let's try and have a reasoned discussion instead of the schoolyard insults, shall we?

"we don't know Keith would react if we had a liberal in office"

We don't?

"So either you've conveniently forgotten that piece of information, or you weren't born until after Countdown's debut."

Talk about conveniently forgetting things, Olbermann hosted for years on MSNBC before "Countdown" began. His coverage during the Clinton administration was as nauseatingly sycophantic as his Bush-era coverage is twisted and slanted. But perhaps you weren't born until after Olbermann's "Big Show" on MSNBC. So much for your "lie" #1.

"Lie #2:Howard Fineman is a shapeshifter to whomever he is appearing with. Now I haven't seen enough Mr. Fineman to judge whether or not you accusation is valid or not..."

Let me get this straight: You don't know enough about Fineman to say whether we got this right or not, but never mind, it's still "Lie #2". OK, let's move along...

"Lie #3:Because he criticized Bush, KO now considers Robert Novak a credible journalist. WRONG! Keith never showed any indication of this."

Of course not. He cited Novak and read from his column because he considers him an NON-credible source, right? How odd that Novak only gets approving coverage from Olby when Novak says something Olby likes. (And this segment was teased repeatedly). Like we said, Novak goes from worst to first simply because Olby likes Bush-bashing. Non-partisan Olby. Sort of like jumbo shrimp.

"Lie #4:Being a Republican automatically makes you eligible for "Worst Person in the World." You raise an intresting point that a lot of the nominees are indeed Republican/Conservative."

Indeed. So what makes it "Lie #4"?

"However, the people on this list are on there because they did something that was stupidly self-serving and/or cruel."

Right, and it just so happens that Liberals and/or Democrats NEVER do anything stupid, self-serving, or cruel, at least they don't on OlbyPlanet. Funny how for days as controversy swirled around a Dem Congressmen who likened the US military to the Nazis and Pol Pot, Olby didn't touch the story. But when he found an old Santorum speech with a Nazi analogy from YEARS EARLIER, that became an entire segment on the Hour of Spin.

"Lie #4 Relevent Thought #1-I find it hard to believe that a supposedly grown man(I'm starting to get serious doubts though) like yourself is getting himself all worked up over a list that is not an official word, nor something a nominee will carry with them the rest of their life. But rather, it is a JOKE, a light-hearted look at all the corruption and stupidity in this world."

I find it hard to believe that a supposedly grown person like yourself is getting all worked up over a website that is not an official word, nor something that poor Olby will carry with him the rest of his life. But rather it is a light-hearted look at all the bias and stupidity in Olby's world.

"What is your justification for devoting a whole blog to attacking one journalist for not performing up to your standards, when you yourself are not a real journalist, nor do you always have common sense and/or correct facts in your post?"

This is called the "tu quoque" fallacy. It is the last refuge of debaters who are unable to argue on facts and logic. You might want to look it up.

I hereby agree to determine who is righteous in the debate of one "Johnny Dollar" versus one "D-Day."

Debate Rating Form

Judge: Krazy for Keith

Debate Topic: As above

Procedure:

1. Use this scale: 1= not at all

2 = somewhat

3 = to a great extent

3. Using the scale in (2), rate separately the two team members on the following criteria:

NAME NAME

___J. Dollar_____ _____D. Day______

CRITERIA:

Rating Rating

A. Gave clear reason ___3___ ___-1___

for his/her position

B. Spoke within time limit ___3___ ___3___

C. Showed knowledge of topic ___3___ ___1___

D. Spoke so as to be heard ___2___ ___2___

E. Cooperated on a division of labor__?__ __-3__

TOTAL POINTS ___11___ ___2___

JUSTIFICATION:

Explain why you assigned each debater the rating that you did assign to her/him on each of the criteria:

Johnny Dollar created cogent concise arguments with mastry of sentence construct and content. He included a reference to debate lingo in Latin, which was a turn on. I give him 4 stars.

D. Day didn't make much sense. He also contradicted himself. In addition, he used no cool Latin phrases and clearly had to Google "tu quoque." I give him 1 star.

JD,

What exactly is "light-hearted" about your "look at all the bias and stupidity in Olby's world," (as if calling people stupid and worse is "light-hearted)," unless, of course, "light-hearted" and "mean-spirited" have magically become synonymous?

Paul, you apparently missed the irony. I was just throwing D-Day's words back at him/her. (S)he seemed to think that Olby declaring people stupid and worse is light-hearted, so I replied in kind.

How convenient in your "quick search" that you evidently didn't find any liberals, but only Republicans/conservatives.
My quick search [params: transcript "worst person"] begins with
1) some Average Joe with an agression problem
2) an English university professor (obvious liberal, right?)
3) a (probably) Communist
4) a liberal save the Guinea Pigs group
5) some idiot fat person
6) a bitch
7) Novak
8) a union leader
9) the most hate-filled man in the world

In case you didn't get it 6) is Coulter and 9) is BORe.

"Exactly how big a "story" is that?"
What makes it interesting, but not necessarily big, as KO pointed out is the fact that, for once, the VP is somewhere where they can't handpick the crowd and this is what happens. It's about as big as Fox covering Cheney's tour, live.

"That a talk show host can be such a hateful prick is beyond me."
I presume you are talking about BORe, right? Or Sean Hannity? Or "look I saved NO" Joe? Or ...

Interesting that KKK's (oops, sorry, KfK's) list contains only 'supposed' liberals and no conservatives. Mine would contain at least two of these 'liberals' though, obviously, the top three are all conservatives. Except BORe claims he's not a conservative but an independent, right?

"Funny how for days as controversy swirled around a Dem Congressmen who likened the US military to the Nazis and Pol Pot, Olby didn't touch the story. But when he found an old Santorum speech with a Nazi analogy from YEARS EARLIER, that became an entire segment on the Hour of Spin."
Interesting, I never knew KO did that. I presume you have the proof and will provide it. I do know that KO's show covered all the Nazi references when a Dem (Durbin, I believe) did it again. The only reference I knew about Santorum making Nazi analogies was in May of THIS YEAR. You mean he's been using these references for years? Wow, great guy.

Hello DI (Dickus Insipidus?)

Congrats on nearing lucidity in your prose.

I would say that plenty of negative yelps come from crowds when ANY politician is near. To single out a specific yelp ad nauseum displayed Olby's need to the VP, couched in "reportage." After all, does this lone yowling cursing critic have "Mother Sheehan"-style absolute moral authority to represent the people of the USA? Is this one heckler the "everyman" you dems have been looking for? Or is he a deranged profanity slinging nutjob? I would bet the latter. Anyway, this is ONE MAN squeeking -- so why all the fuss? IT SERVES OLBY'S NEEDS, that's why.

As for this beauty of a line:

"Interesting that KKK's (oops, sorry, KfK's) list contains only 'supposed' liberals and no conservatives."

I love the reference to the Ku Klux Klan! Brilliant . . . you can deduce that I am a racist from my posts. How about checking if I am black first you stupid c-sucker? I would bet you are white my mud-slinging liberal pal. Like all good liberals, you believe conservatism = racism. Way to make yourself look stupid.

As for my PERSONAL list of "worst hosts," it is just that -- A PERSONAL LIST! Perhaps your problem seeing Olby's bias is rooted in your lack of ability to tell what is and is not opinion.

Lame lame lame

Correction: "displayed Olby's need [to attack] the VP"

PIMF

Furthermore, DI, what does this line mean:

"[Krazy for Keith's] list contains only 'supposed' liberals. . ."

If they are just "supposed" liberals, I assume you consider them something other than liberal, and accuse me of unfair labeling? Except I DIDN'T LABEL THEM IDIOT. So, you intuit that I consider these hosts liberal, the same way you intuited my skin color and racial attitudes? Quite frankly, I made up that list based on how crappy the hosts are. They just plain STINK! Nice presumptions though.

"How convenient in your "quick search" that you evidently didn't find any liberals, but only Republicans/conservatives."

That's because there weren't any. I don't count some guy in some foreign country since the point is we're living in America, the good old USofA. I also didn't bother to count private sector people like some bigwig at Wal-Mart who did something that Olby didn't like. I looked for a) politicians, b) commentators and pundits, c) reporters and commentators. And the record stands: lots of conseratives and Republicans, zero liberals or Democrats. And I note that your quick search didn't come up with anybody either.

" I do know that KO's show covered all the Nazi references when a Dem (Durbin, I believe) did it again."

I am sorry but you are very mistaken. As the controversy swirled about Durbin's remarks, for days on end, Olby spiked the story. And of course Durbin never made "worst" list either. He has the wrong letter after his name for that.

Finally, a day after Durbin was forced to apologize--and Olby had the night off!--only then did Countdown report on the Durbin controversy.

http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2005/cyb20050623.asp#2

You are perfectly free, DI, to try to defend Olby and the Hour of Spin. But your efforts will be more credible if you get your facts straight.

It would serve everyone well if each of us stops trashing about so. This site's agenda is clear. Many of its proponents embrace polite discussion only if you hold their views. Some are civil, but unyielding. Others are simply surly. The ideological "depth of field" of Olbywatch is narrow. The site's bias-based, and serves only to indict and impugn. There's much we don't know about Katrina, FEMA, and about this administration that will eventually surface. Think back to 9/11. Remember any shocking reports that proved to be false? And others that seemed even more absurd at the time were proven true. In Katrina's wake, we heard of dead infants in the Convention Center. Today, I heard a member of the recovery team say that wasn't true--that they had found no dead infants there. Similarly, certain sniping incidents, along with some rapes that were reported, were never confirmed. When such a disaster fills us with horror, amid complete chaos, unsubstantiated and conflicting reports are common. I feel we've all put too much stock in what we've been hearing. In time, cooler heads will prevail. There will be an investigation and I'm convinced that W won't be at its helm. We need answers, not more spin and eventually a majority of Americans--sensible republicans, moderates and sensible democrats--will succeed in demanding and finding a semblance of truth. Mike "heck of a job" Brownie will retire, we'll pay to rebuild the Gulf Coast, the public will hit rock bottom and change will come. Maybe our leaders will even build higher levees and restore the wetlands. But as I see the bodies floating, the destroyed families, the barely unrecognizable landscape, the stranded loose pets and the broken lives, I can't get too worked up over this petty excuse for a web site. It is but an infected follicle on the butt of a nation shifting painfully in its seat.

"I would say that plenty of negative yelps come from crowds when ANY politician is near."
That would be correct, except dissenters aren't allowed to come anywhere near. Usually, the Prez and the VP perform to select audience. Hence, the reporting of it. (Likewise the reporting of both Dem and Rep dissenters when they slip through.)

"conservatism = racism"
No, that would be neo-conservatism = racism.
True conservatives are not racist as it is bad for business. I label you neo-con through guilt by association (why else would j$ be here?).

"If they are just "supposed" liberals, I assume you consider them something other than liberal, and accuse me of unfair labeling?"
No, I made no accusation of unfair labeling. I pointed out, correctly, that your list contains what many would call liberals yet none generally labelled conservative. Now if I had said "those that you label liberals" then, yes, that would accuse you of labeling. Simple english.
The 'supposed' emphasis is because at lest three (KO, Matthews, and Dobbs) I have seen labeled as conservative by liberal interests.

"your efforts will be more credible if you get your facts straight."
I did get my facts straight.
I said " I do know that KO's show covered all the Nazi references when a Dem (Durbin, I believe) did it again."
What fact was wrong.
1) KO's show did cover it.
2) They covered it when a Dem did it.
Therefore, you are incorrect when you said "I am sorry but you are very mistaken." Your proof had nothing to do with what I actually said, so, please, "get your facts straight."
BTW, I really do want to know how/when KO pulled up a speech from Santorum "YEARS EARLIER". Otherwise, I presume it is misinformation.

"That's because there weren't any [liberals]."
Interesting, there are no liberals in the world except American liberals.

This is a comedy goldmine!

Hey Paul. . .Paul, are you there? You said:

"I can't get too worked up over this petty excuse for a web site. It is but an infected follicle on the butt of a nation shifting painfully in its seat."

Paul, what do you call a bacterium feeding on the "follicle?" I think the name starts with a "P" and ends with an "S." All your haughty wind-blowing about "civility" and "discourse" is self-serving baloney.

As for the relentless DI, you sound better when you aren't responding to criticism. Your last post was the least plausible. Calling someone a "racist" based on absolutely nothing is not justifiable. Calling a black dude a KKK member is just plain stupid. By the transitive property, you are stupid.

By the way, please tell me where the people who think Keith Olbermann is a conservative live. Perchance do they live in "Twinkly Land" where the sugar fairies play tiddlywinks and magical happiness is had by all?

"1) KO's show did cover it.
2) They covered it when a Dem did it."

I'm sorry you are still mistaken. They didn't cover it when Durbin said it. They didn't cover it the next day. Or the day after that, despite it being front page news in papers around the country.

They didn't even cover it the day Durbin had to apologize as a result of the intensive press coverage (from everyone EXCEPT Olby). They covered the day AFTER he apologized, when the story was old news. They did their best to cover for Durbin.

"BTW, I really do want to know how/when KO pulled up a speech from Santorum "YEARS EARLIER". Otherwise, I presume it is misinformation."

Keep presuming. That's a lot easier than actually reading the link I already provided. In May of this year Olby dug up a comment about the NY Times that Santorum made in 2003. That's years earlier. He thought this was so objectionable that he dedicated an entire program segment to it.

Now why was Santorum's two-year-old comment big news, but Durbin's was not news on the day he said it, the next day, the day after that, or any time until well after he had been forced to apologize (and Olby was conveniently on vacation)? More Olbypocrisy.

Do you mean the link you didn't bother to label? The link that appears after you discussed Durbin? In most intelligent conversation, one makes a statement then provides the proof. If one changes the subject, one indicates it.

Wherever did I say when they reported it? Never, which makes your argument invalid. I certainly didn't know when they did, I barely remembered it. The point is that they DID report it. If anything, it's good they reported it after the "story was old news" because it kept it in the news. Duh!
I would've thought you would've complained that they were keeping it in the news to take shots at Santorum.

Di, your words are already on the page. You can't rewrite them now:

"They covered it when a Dem did it."

No, they AVOIDED covering it when a Dem did it. While every other major news source found it to be big news, Olby didn't want to embarass his ideological soulmate and ignored the story. It was over a week later, and after an apology had to be issued--because of the heavy press coverage by everyone OTHER THAN Olby--that Countdown got to it, and Olby had a convenient day off.

And Di, I'm still waiting for you to produce all those liberal columnists, left-wing pundits, and Dem Congressmen and Senators who have been named Olby's "worst person". Heck, I'll settle for ONE!

Um, JD, I remember clearly Durbin getting coverage on Countdown following his remarks. Want proof?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8330948/ (And yes I'm aware Keith wasn't on during this show!)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8085423 (Keep reading down, it's the June 22 entry)

There you have it. Dick Durbin's comments were a big story on Countdown. And it was mentioned more than these two instances, I assure you.

I won't get worked up either. I stand by what I said earlier. Cox has no right to critcize Keith if he can't tell the truth. JD's response was so selective, I won't either bother to respond.(Instead, I shall sit wondering why he hasn't been offered a job at Fox News.) The main reason why I even tried to reply on here the first plase was to provide an alternative point of view and provide evidence that Keith is not a psycho for anyone who stumbled on this site accidently, but I can see a dissenting opinion is not welcome here.(You may want to check out my Thomas Jefferson quote earlier though) I am a devoted fan of both Countdown and Keith Olbermann, and no silly little web blog is going to change that.

Your welcome.

"Lie #1: KO was gloating that Cheney was cursed at. Not necessarily. I'm sure Keith would have played that clip non-stop if someone had been cursing Al Gore out."

I'd assume that lots of people in crowds HAVE heckled Al Gore. That's the point. Why do you think campaign stops and townhall meetings are micromanaged?

Someone ranting at Cheney in a crowd is only news if, like Keith, you've argued that the disaster of New Orleans will represent the entire Bush tenure. That it stands for the failure to find Bin Laden, to vaniquish Al Qaida, and for what's happening in Iraq. And a heckler is important if you've argued that New Orleans will bring such approprium on the Administration that it is a turning point.

If your argument is that over-the-top (and Keith made it) then when the polls show otherwise, you have to latch on some nut in a crowd doing something you wouldn't have paid two seconds worth of attention to, the day before.

"With that most recent statement in mind, Keith's "gloating" was quite justified in the terms of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth."

So you're simultaneously arguing that Keith wasn't singling Cheney out politically AND that he was. Interesting logic...

"Lie #2 Howard Fineman is a shapeshifter to whomever he is appearing with. Now I haven't seen enough Mr. Fineman to judge whether or not you accusation is valid or not."

You say, you feel Fineman brought up excellent points. Who answered or countered them? Rick Santorium? Was Robert Novak invited on to agree the disaster was mismanaged and to put also fix the blame on Democrats too, as he has done (though Keith didn't mention that)? Did Keith play unbiased devil's advocate with Fineman so both sides could be aired, my friend?

"Lie #3:Because he criticized Bush, KO now considers Robert Novak a credible journalist. WRONG! Keith never showed any indication of this. He simply was showing that there were Republicans upset with the President's handling of Katrina."

Judging by your thinking, I'm not surprised you wouldn't see a certain irony in labeling someone the "worst person in the world", berate them for making a deal that Judy Miller did not make (without mention that Tim Russert must have made some sort of deal too) and THEN use them as being a credible ...anything... when it conveniently suits your purposes. But maybe Keith thinks that ALL Republicans are the worst people in the world and therefore it doesn't matter who you designate as having a credible opinion on anything...

"Lie #4:Being a Republican automatically makes you eligible for "Worst Person in the World." You raise an intresting point that a lot of the nominees are indeed Republican/Conservative. However, the people on this list are on there because they did something that was stupidly self-serving and/or cruel."

And goodness there's no Democrats who have done anything "stupidly self-serving and/or cruel". Sandy Berger's with documents before he goes before the 9/11 commission is just a card... The head of NARAL's decision to go with an ad linking John Robert's to abortion clinic violence, just an ole silly-billy... Joe Wilson caught in the act of lying about seeing forged documents and chastised by the 9/11 Commission.... just a wild and crazy guy....

"Lie #4 Hypocrisy #1-I find it intresting that you constantly slaughter Keith for alledgedly not getting his facts right, or targeting certain groups of people. Yet how can you be upset that Coulter, Limbaugh, and O'Reilly made his Worst Person in the World?"

No, what he questioned is why there are no liberals or Democrats on the list. I think it's interesting too that you have no hesitation in comparing anchorman Olbermann to pundits. And we'll agree with you there... Olbermann IS a mirror-image Rush Limbaugh... He is Anne Coulter's more evil twin... Perhaps a better comparision is Olbermann and Al Franken...which brings up the point about Al and his loans and the head of Air America and money meant for charities...and why NEITHER entity will ever be Countdown's WORST PERSON IN THE WORLD...

"""But rather, it is a JOKE, a light-hearted look at all the corruption and stupidity in this world.

Mr. Cox, please explain to me. What is your justification for devoting a whole blog to attacking one journalist for not performing up to your standards, when you yourself are not a real journalist, nor do you always have common sense and/or correct facts in your post?""""

I'll help Bob answer that. There is a blog devoted to Kieth because we too enjoy a light-hearted look at stupidity and corruption in the world. And as long as people like you are around to write illogical and intentionally obtuse responses, we'll have plenty of fodder for both outrage and laughter.

Um, D-Day, thanks for proving my point.

Your first link goes to a Countdown show that took place a week AFTER the comments were made. That was the FIRST time Countdown even mentioned them. Meanwhile, they were reported in the NY Times, the Washington Post, ABC News--heck, even Al Jazeera! But Countdown was too busy protecting Durbin to take note of his comments until well after he was forced to apologize.

Your second link goes to a CYA blog entry Olbermann did, which is instructive because it shows he was aware of the story (how could he not have been, it was all over the papers). Yet he still kept it off the air for all that time. Countdown was not allowed to report on the story until well after Durbin apologized--a week after the other news services were all over the story. Why?

"I can see a dissenting opinion is not welcome here."

Well, if you mean that when dissenters post nonsense and fiction that we have the unmitigated gall to disagree and point out the truth, then you may have a point. If you require that everybody swallow anything you hand out without questioning it, then you have come to the wrong place.

Durbin's comments were NOT "a big story on Countdown". They weren't even covered on Countdown until a week after all the other major media had been all over the story, and then only in an attempt to minimize Durbin's statements. He never got named "worst person in the world", did he?

Oh, and I'm STILL waiting for all those Democrat Congressmen who made Olby's "worst person". You know, the list that is devoted to Republicans, conservatives, and anyone who works for Fox News--but not Democrats.

PS: We're all happy to read your comments, D-Day, but you don't have to post them twice. I will delete one of your duplicate posts.

D-Day,

You just called Bob a liar (lie #1,2,3,4...), accused him of having lapses in commonsense, and questioned his maturity... NOW you say that you can see that "dissent is not welcomed here"?!

Did you write more insults that were censored from the site or something? Or is it that you're the one who can't handle dissent in that you were countered.

We didn't censor any of the name-calling, insults, or personal attacks. They are so revealing we let them stand for all to see.

Top Ten List Of Non-Republican/Non-Conservative Candidates For Countdown's Worst Person of In The World:

10. Bill Moyers for blantant log-rolling and profiteering as head of the Florence and John Schumann Foundation.

9.Ted Kennedy-- for being so tin-eared as to be unaware of the irony of his talking about "leaving people in the water".

8. Howard Dean-- As Al Sharpton pointed out, Dean did not have one black member of his administration when he was governor of Vermont. But that didn't stop DNC Chairman Dean from saying "You know, the Republicans are not very friendly to different kinds of people. They're a pretty monolithic party. Pretty much, they all behave the same, and they all look the same. It's pretty much a white Christian party."

7. Sandy Berger--as someone wrote "A little song,a little dance, a little classified document down your pants".

6. Dick Durban-- for reasons stated.

5. Air America CEO Mark Walsh-- for taking grant money that should have gone to a children's charity.

4. Paul Ruditis-- author of The Rainbow Party, a book for adolescents, it explores teen attitudes about oral sex. It's really just titilation for dirty old men with passages like "Gin took the slender shaft of the tube in her palm. She gave a gentle tug along the base and watched as the lipstick extended to its full length. Her eyes darted to the sides, making sure no one was watching as she tilted the ruby red tip to her lips."

3. Kofi Anan--for sitting back and closing his eyes to the Oil for Food corruption.

2.NARAL President Nancy Keenan for NARAL's ad linking Roberts and abortion clinic violence.

And NUMBER ONE for Non-Republican/Non-Conservative Candidates For Countdown's Worst Person of In The World:

***Keith Olbermann** (and anyone else capable of a freudian slip concept like Worst Person In The World)

People, I'm not a prude and could probably teach everyone here a few new cuss words, but the blog is starting to sound like one of those hideously foul-mouthed liberal boards.

JD,

If you're serving as the insult meter here, any idea of KfK's? Every post is laced with several.

Actually, having gone back and caught the "KKK" remark that escaped my attention earlier, I've changed my mind about the language.

It's such a cheap shot, Paul, we need to grant Krazy a bit of license.

I'm just a guest in this house. Mr Cox sets the rules, and he hasn't authorized me to do any censorship. So people say what they like and take responsibility for their words.

Just read this on Drudge.

Wonder if Keith will find the heckling of THIS guy significant...

'THE BIG BOO' CROWD HISSES KANYE WEST
Fri Sep 09 2005 10:30:28 ET

The chart topping hip hop rapper star who used a network hurricane fundraiser to charge "George Bush doesn't care about black people" was loudly and lustily booed during last night's NFL kickoff show.

The appearance of Kanye West, who was beamed into the Boston stadium via remote from Los Angeles, received a strongly negative response from the crowd.

"The boos were thunderous and lasted for much of his number," reports the BOSTON GLOBE.

Developing...

I quite enjoy saying whatever I want. In fact, I enjoy hearing people say whatever they want. Let the insults fly, but try to pepper the insulting posts with facts and references.

Just saw Dr. Dean with Wolf Blitzer tonight. Dean is the "worst man in the world." Hateful talk about the "racial nature" of Katrina from a white race baiter. He of course attacked the Federal government (FEMA sucks, etc.). However, Wolf actually asked a few REAL QUESTIONS of Dean -- he asked (paraphrased) "do you really think the president doesn't care about all Americans equally / doesn't care about blacks?" Dean said yes. He asked if the State and local authorities did anything wrong. Dean squirmed, then blamed Bush saying the National Guard was in Iraq. Of course this is irrelevant, as there were plenty of other troops available and they were not called in. In addition, only the COMBAT troops (1/3 of the N. Guard Louisiana total) are in Iraq. The MP's etc. (the people you need in these situations) were all right at home. In addition, neighboring States were NOT ASKED to contribute troops. In fact, the Governor had no ability to control the situation. Wolf even asked about the botched evacuation. Dean responded 20/20 hindsight is not useful! What the Hell is he doing if not using his hindsight! At a point in the interview, Dean accused Wolf of parroting "Republican attack points!" WOLF BLITZER! What a joke.

I'm sure Olby will be all over this . . . .not.

C,

You've read my posts long enough to know I don't condone the KKK reference. I do, however, understand it and to be honest, it occured to me before it popped up here. KfK's hard to like, at least for me. I didn't use the KKK thing because it goes against my grain. Insults and slurs get us nowhere. Were the roles reversed, however, I suspect that KfK'd be all over it.

KfK's extremely caustic. Even though I've chosen to ignore him, he continues to insult me. I must admit that the Latin's a little pretensious but we all have our peccadilloes.

I disagree on most levels with Mr. Cox, you, JD and all of the old conservative Olbywatch regulars. You also know that I hold no blind allegience to KO. I do my best to be fair.

Even though things got heated in here in the past, there was a shred of mutual respect that surfaced regularly. I'm not seeing that now.

In my opinion, y'all could lighten up a whole heck of a lot. But of course, that doesn't count for much here in the Keith Kill Zone, where mine are merely the self-serving, bizarro ramblings of a holier-than-thou, grotesque idealogue--a pathetic hack, suffering from Krugmanesque dementia.

We can debate or toss turds. One gets us somewhere. The other just gets us dirty.

To Paul

"I don't condone the KKK reference. I do, however, understand it" What the Hell do you mean? Nice liberal doublespeak.

"Were the roles reversed, however, I suspect that KfK'd be all over it." WRONG

"we all have our peccadilloes" POOR WORD CHOICE

Definitions of peccadillo on the Web:

* indiscretion: a petty misdeed
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

"that doesn't count for much here in the Keith Kill Zone, where mine are merely the self-serving, bizarro ramblings of a holier-than-thou, grotesque idealogue--a pathetic hack, suffering from Krugmanesque dementia." CORRECT!

You had to look up pecadilloes?

An alternate def is "small flaw"

"But of course, that doesn't count for much here in the Keith Kill Zone, where mine are merely the self-serving, bizarro ramblings of a holier-than-thou, grotesque idealogue--a pathetic hack, suffering from Krugmanesque dementia."

Not a bit of it, Paul. But you've nicely summed up the host of Countdown.

Paul

I decided to provide the definition of peccadillo to avoid further debate on the subject. Unfortunately, even that didn't work.

Using Latin phrases is pretentious. I believe you were looking for a word in that vein:

Definitions of pretentious on the Web:

* making claim to or creating an appearance of (often undeserved) importance or distinction; "a pretentious country house"; "a pretentious fraud"; "a pretentious scholarly edition"
* ostentatious: intended to attract notice and impress others; "an ostentatious sable coat"
* ostentatious: of a display that is tawdry or vulgar
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

By the way, you could address the issues and avoid all the insults. If you look back to the origin of all of this, it started with one nasty quip:

"Bon Voyage... Be sure you pack sun screen."

Holy Cow...

In referring to your pretentious use of Latin as a "peccadillo," I was being KIND. "Pretensious" was misspelled, not misused. But thanks for the pedantic exercise of supplying the definition. Are you going to now supply the definition of "pedantic?" I didn't realize spelling was so important here.

That you consider my comments insults is noteworthy. Compared to yours, they're compliments. Let's be honest about what started this tedious exchange. To be precise, I reacted to YOUR comment "I now must demand that a consensus occur on this thread, or I will be forced leave you all to create my own Island Domain." Since I disagreed, I merely asked you to make good on your offer. Yes, I was snide. I though it was funny. Unfortunately, that lapse of judgment on my part sparked this tedious exchange (for which I deeply apologize to readers). And in retrospect, it was as "unfunny" I suppose, as Keith can be when he attempts humor.

The main reason I disagree is that you presented opinions based on hypothetical arguments, which I don't argue. I also think some of your conclusions premature and that we need time to get to ones that are more informed. In the heat of the moment is no time to decide. Hmmm...I believe this is consistent with what I'm hearing from the White House. How could a self-serving, bizarro, holier-than-thou, grotesque ideologue--a pathetic hack, suffering from Krugmanesque dementia--actually AGREE with the White House on something?

While there are few absolutes, there's a wealth of info out there on what happened and when. The product of Katrina's analysis could eventually fill entire buildings. DailyKos summarizes a Wikipedia timeline but realizing that some of you may not want to spend time there, I'm including its source.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Hurricane_Katrina

As C noted, there will be plenty of "blame" to go around in Katrina's aftermath. (Not that we want to play the "Blame Game," right? ;D). I agree with C that FEMA's culpability will likely be significant. I think you're also right to suspect the state and local government responses. Still, I think it premature to speculate on where they erred or how much.

K--I'm sorry we got off on the wrong foot. But again, if you want to go at it with me, you'll have to stop with the insults already.

Your'e obviously a smart fellow. I'll bet you can be civil, too if you make the effort. If you find the prospect unappealing, I'm cool with that--there are plenty of other folks here who seem quite comfortable with your approach. My abstinence shouldn't inhibit your participation in any way.

BTW, C, Thanks, but these are K's words, not mine. In my opinion, KO's flawed, (as are we all) but not the demon this site paints him to be.

"In my opinion, KO's flawed, (as are we all) but not the demon this site paints him to be."

Olbermann is not a demon. He's merely an obnoxious and petty partisan, with that drive for kicking the easy target that's always found in elitist prigs. And just like all elitist prigs, he sees himself as self-effacing and wry.

OK, enough of the joking around.

The problem between you and me is your inability to address basic facts. Nothing is hypothetical about evacuating a city or following emergency plans. If you choose to waste words dancing around solid evidence, then what is left but idle banter. Perhaps you should not post on any subject unless they have been analyzed by committees? Or better yet, pretend you are on a committee and respond to something.

How about we discuss Sandy Berger? His trial is over. Or maybe the 9/11 commission -- although they seemed to have neglected to inform us of Able Danger's activities, didn't they?

Just stick to the facts. My original post on this site remains unanswered. Why don't you start with that. If you do not plan on answering, spare me the long-winded reasons as to why you will not.

I enjoy your posts, by in large, Krazy. I'm glad you found this site.

But frankly you bait the sort of response that you get. If it's just a matter of "sticking to the facts" and discussing them, then why do you also add, "stupid liberals" and "dummycrats" (Frankly, the dummycrats and repugs names are so juvenile.)

Again, I don't mean to come off as your mother, because I've seen people be far and away more incendiary here and much less eloquent. But I think honesty is in order, and that would mean your admitting that you love a good World Federation of Wrestling match and generally try to provoke one.

Dear C.

Ontday lowbay my overcay!

Now we have to contend with pig latin.

Here's a fine peccadillo.

I got a couple of things in the mail today from a friend who has been lurking here at Olbermann Watch and enjoying the fireworks.

She sent me snippets from Bloggerman, Keith's MSNBC blog.

I had managed to miss both of these editions and have gotten a kick out of these sterling examples of Bloggerman's reasoning abilities and his objectivity.

Concerning the Newsweek retraction of their story about the Koran and Abu Ghraib-- you might be interested to know that allowing the media to shoot itself in the foot is tantamount to treason:

"Or would somebody rather play politics with this? The way Craig Crawford reconstructed it, this one went similarly to the way the Killian Memos story evolved at the White House. The news organization turns to the administration for a denial. The administration says nothing. The news organization runs the story. The administration jumps on the necks of the news organization with both feet � or has its proxies do it for them.

That�s beyond shameful. It�s treasonous."

My friend also sent a Bloggermann where Keith concludes that Lance Armstrong is very likely guilty of taking steroids because he once told striking members of Screen Actors Guild that he wouldn't make a commerical while they were striking about pay rates for actors in non-speaking roles, and then later changed his mind and filmed an ad anyway.

THIS from a guy who concluded that the big story about Sandy Berger sneaking classified documents out of the national archive wasn't that a former Clinton staffer had stolen and destroyed classifed documents before he testified in a congressional investigation. Rather, it was the WH leaking of the investigation of Berger.

THIS from a guy who defended is still defending Dan Rather by saying he was set-up by the WH.

"I hope I�m damned wrong about Armstrong", Olbermann concludes.

Yeah. We can tell.

K,

You say: ?Can we agree that the FIRST RESPONDERS (the Gov. of Louisiana and Mayor of New Orleans) are primarily to blame here?" (Sounds like you want to play the ?Blame Game?. Be careful?you don?t want to jeopardize your ?Great American? status).

-->I can?t. The reason is the word ?primarily?. It?s too early to decide. In certain areas, state and local leaders erred, but the disaster quickly grew beyond their resources/abilities/authority to respond, them FEMA and the feds are culpable. Subjective analysis will determine the relative gravity.
While evacuation plans were in place, they were flawed. (See links at bottom of this article?which also makes good points re criticism of Nagin, et al):

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Controversy_over_whether_New_Orleans_Mayor_failed_to_follow_hurricane_plan).

For years, articles documented that were a serious hurricane or other calamity strike N.O., hundreds of thousands of its poorest residents would be stranded.

http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/0905/01edwitt.html

Nagin knew there was no way the poorest residents could get out, even if ordered. He publicized this. The city didn?t have the resources to move that many that quickly. Buses he could have commandeered quickly became inaccessible, but it?s unclear if he even knew of them the schools aren?t under his supervision--and FEMA, who SHOULD have known, may not have. If they did, they hadn?t reacted, so the busses sat idle until high water rendered them useless. So in this specific case, any one of several government agencies could have reacted but didn?t for reasons that will surface. This is but ONE factor of many.

You say: ?These points are not debatable:
#1. If Mayor Nagin and Governor [sic] Blanco evacuate the City before the hurricane AS PER THEIR OWN PROTOCOL, nobody in New Orleans dies.?

-->First, this is Hypothetical?and thus, impossible to prove. Next, the evacuation plan for New Orleans was admittedly woefully inadequate.

?Nothing is hypothetical about evacuating a city or following emergency plans.?

-->I agree, so long as the plans in question are viable. N.O.?s were not (see previous links). While local leaders ultimately answer for such plans, they involve a consortium of entities, each with its process. When emergency plans fail to address evacuation of a large population segment, concluding that no one will die when visited with a catastrophic event is way more absurd and dismissive than merely arguing a hypothetic premise. ?No one dies?? Now, that would be something.

LA Gov Blanco declared LA disaster area on 8-26 BEFORE Katrina hit landfall in Ft. Lauderdale.

http://gov.louisiana.gov/2005%20%20proclamations/48pro2005-Emergency-HurricaneKatrina.pdf

When the White House responded by issuing IMPENDING disaster area order, it omitted parishes on the Gulf of Mexico.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/08/20050827-1.html

?#2. If the New Orleans police force remains on duty instead of looting and running away, there would be MORE LAW AND ORDER!"

-->Perhaps, but could they have PREVENTED the crimes? Probably not. Even now we don?t know the scope of the crimes that occurred. Many were unreported, and others remain unconfirmed. This also assumes that all of those who were AWL were ?looting and running away?. You have no inkling, nor does anyone at this time, how many NO cops ?ran away? or ?looted.? Of those unaccounted for, no one knows how many of NO?s finest are among the flood?s victims, how many lost everything and didn?t want to risk their lives (as deplorable, given their oath of office as this is) saving others.

?Another word problem: Police protect people against crime. There are 1000 police officers normally. If a third of the officers don't show up, and some officers decide to loot ((or ask British tourists on rooftops surrounded by water to "show us what you got,"?I hadn?t heard this one. You have record of such a thing? --)) Will overall crime and looting be greater??

-->If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound? Sure, this sounds logical, but since we don?t know how much crime there was, and there?s no control to show how it would have been affected if all NO?s police reported for duty, it?s opinion, period?again based on a hypothetical. Send me a link on the Brit tourists, will you? I hadn?t seen that one.

-->New Orleans has roughly half the number of police per thousand residents of other comparable American Cities.

"#3. If the criminal element of New Orleans had been properly addressed BY THE MAYOR IN THE PAST, less looting and killing would have occurred. True/false problem: Being tough on crime decreases the criminal element at large in a city?

-->This, from the right-wing blog American Spectator: According to the New Orleans Police Foundation, most murderers get off -- only 1 in 4 are convicted -- and 42 percent of cases involving serious crimes since 2002 have been dropped by prosecutors.

http://www.americanprowler.com/dsp_article.asp?art_id=8684

Enforcement is but one prong. National studies mirror the observation made in this article. It matters not if police are tough on crime when the courts are permissive. This problem is further exacerbated by prisons full far beyond capacity due to aggressive enforcement. Due to overcrowding, today?s prisons don?t rehabilitate. They merely isolate criminals for the extent of their terms. While in prison, they learn how to be even better criminals. Crime is symptomatic of a much deeper problem, one rooted in poverty.

http://www.leaderu.com/ftissues/ft9608/opinion/diiulio_response.html

NO Mayors in the past HAD addressed crime. Between 1994 (when it was dubbed ?Murder Capitol of the World?) and 1999, the murder rate fell 63 percent, assaults dropped 60 percent, and armed robberies were down 49 percent.

http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=119&subsecID=213&contentID=2155

It's true that 2003, crime in NO HAD risen. Ray Nagin, elected in May 2002, launched a $15M anti-crime program that included adding cops to the force, security cameras in ?hot spots?.

http://www.bestofneworleans.com/dispatch/2003-08-12/commentary.html

By 2004, the number in New Orleans had crept back up to 265, or 10 times the national average--but still FAR below its peak ion 1994. The city has a tough time recruiting cops. The department has a reputation for corruption, and the courts as lenient. The pay for police in NO is comparatively low.

http://www.freep.com/news/nw/neworleans22e_20050822.htm

New Orleans only has 3.14 officers per 1,000 residents, while the rate is double in many big cities, such as Washington D.C. Experts say that a police force of less than 1,700 is trying to do a job that calls for at least 2,200 officers.

http://www.bayoubuzz.com/articles.aspx?aid=4790

"#4. Governor Blanco was responsible for the initial call-up (and lack thereof) of the National Guard. This is a fact."

-->Indeed she was. She summoned troops. (I had the number but can?t find the page?it was in the thousands, I think it was 4k. I apologize for not being able to recover this--I've got a lot of saved links). Her counterpart in Mississippi summoned forces equivalent to what was needed during Hurricane Camille, (which was from the same article?I think in the 1k range). There was a dispute about federalizing the guard, which she refused to do because she needed them to provide security. When the levee broke, many of the guard had to curtail their security details to rebuild it.

?#5. Once the flood occurred, the people were screwed, and catch up was the name of the game. The Federal Government is a SECO