But neither he nor Olby noted that the US Constitution expressly gives Congress the right to limit the jurisdiction of the courts.

Limiting is one thing, but winding up the rabid fringes of the party (the same fringes that shoot abortion doctors and firebomb Planned Parenthood clinics) is another. When was the last time you heard of a far-left loon shooting a conservative judge because of their politics?

Does the name Aldrich Ames ring a bell? Why wasn't it "horrific" back then?

I don't know, maybe because (as I've said before) it wasn't illegal at the time. Remember that President Clinton signed an Executive Order in 1995 that amended FISA to apply the same standard used for wiretaps to physical searches.

In the Media Matters Minute, Olby started off with a slam at the St Patrick's Day parade, because they have this odd notion that an event honoring a saint should not be a showcase for lesbian propaganda.

I think it was more of making the GLBT analagous to Neo-Nazis that earned the person who made the statement the designation.

I'm upset that KO didn't point out that Operation Swarmer (which was hailed as a massive air assault into the heart of an insurgent sector) captured no major insurgents and, in many cases, drew no enemy fire while advancing. See this:
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1174448,00.html

Meanwhile, as I commented on yesterday, sectarian violence is increasing (from AP):

"The Muslim pilgrims' road to the holy city of Karbala was a highway of bullets and bombs for Shiites on Friday. Drive-by shootings and roadside and bus bombs killed or wounded 19 people, ratcheting up the sectarian tensions gripping Iraq."

You forgot to tell everyone that it is day 1,051 since "major combat operations" in Iraq were delcalared completed. By the way, what's a SWARMER, anyway????????

Wow! You sure played it calm for what I thought was one of the top near-hysterical political quarter-hours on Countdown that I've heard in a while, Mr. Dollar.

Most of the MSM is trumpeting poll numbers right now. The Pew poll and others polls cited remind me of Bill Clinton's last years. Clinton knew how to read those poll numbers and act right!

The Winds of Polls were something Clinton knew how to sail well.

But whether they are a good indicator of correct management is really another question. They are not. You can tell people what they want to hear. As an administrator, you do the right thing. But sometimes you can't do both at the same time.

The Dubai port deal was considered fair-minded by many on the left because it didn't stereotype Arabs. But KO said Dubai was "thought to be" the reason for the Pew ratings and the label "incompetent."

While I'm trying to figure that one out and where Countdown stands on Arabs and stereotyping and Dubai and what-the-heck, here come the death threats to judges' thing.

Wasn't he fanning the flames?! He referred to a posting on a website...or something...not very clear. It sounded like vintage troll work? That's it?

Best line of the night: Sandra Day's comments did not stir the media and "did not tap the Conspiracy Meter" when she referred to dictatorship.

Thanks for mentioning the constitution's take on this discussion, JD.

On my Annoying Meter, this episode was a 9.0

@ Trekkie

I don't suppose you really want to see a judge shot and consider that fair and balanced? Lord, man.

The point was that Congress and the Courts have boundaries. Both have to respect the boundaries. It is not about lunatic fringes. Ruth Bader's remarks were not made in that context. Both you and Countdown have pulled it out of perspective!

And as far as what damage Aldridge Ames did, are you serious? Illegal?

> it wasn't illegal at the time. Remember that President Clinton signed an Executive Order in 1995 that amended FISA

At the time Clinton searched Aldrich Ames's home and possessions without a warrant, it was justified as being part of the powers of the Commander in Chief to protect the US against its enemies, which Ames certainly was one. I don't care what executive order Clinton signed or how FISA was amended. The only issue is: was the constitution amended between then and now? NO. Whatever power Clinton had under the constitution, Bush has it too.

Whatever power Clinton had under the constitution, Bush has it too.

Not if it contravenes Federal law. But, you insist that the President can do whatever the hell he wants so long as the EBIL TERRORISTS get what the deserve and to hell with civil rights. To hell with the Constitution of the United States, we're at war.

At that point, what are we fighting for? A country that allows the President to ignore the Congress, the Courts and his oath to uphold the law of the land? That isn't the country I remember, nor one I would want to live in.

I don't care if God Almighty told him to do it, if a duly passed and recognized law says the President can't do it, HE CAN'T BLOODY WELL DO IT!

Pluralities in 37 out of 50 states believe that the President needs a court order to conduct this type of surveillance. Poll after poll after poll (even in the reddest of Red States) puts the President on the wrong side of this issue.

Remember that President Clinton signed an Executive Order in 1995 that amended FISA to apply the same standard used for wiretaps to physical searches.

An Executive Order that they ignored in:

United States v. Usama bin Laden, 126 F. Supp.2d. 264 (S.D.N.Y 2000)

In the above case, the Clinton Justice Department conducted a warrantless physical search of the home of Wadih El Hage, an American citizen. The evidence obtained was used to convict Mr. Hage for his involvement with the US Embassy bombings in Nairobi in 1998.

The Clinton Justice Department argued that the president had inherent constitutional authority to conduct such warrantless searches.

Granted, these were physical and not electronic searches.

1998 comes after 1995 for those numerically-challenged folks.

SMG

> Not if it contravenes Federal law.

Oh, so the Congress can pass a law saying that Supreme Court justices will no longer be named by the President, but by the Speaker of the House? And if that becomes Federal Law then the President's constitutional powers are done away with?

If you want to change the powers of the President afforded to him by the constitution, you bloody well had better amend the constitution to do it. Because you can pass laws all day and all night and they don't amend the constitution.

The constitutional powers Clinton had in dealing with Aldrich Ames do not suddenly vanish because of a law, an executive order, or because trekkie beams them up. Get 2/3 of the Congress and 3/4 of the states, and then you can take them away. Have fun.

Oh, so the Congress can pass a law saying that Supreme Court justices will no longer be named by the President, but by the Speaker of the House? And if that becomes Federal Law then the President's constitutional powers are done away with?

You did the same thing the last time we had this argument - pointless non sequitors. You can't pass a law that violates the Constitution (such as the ludicrous one you suggest) - even a high school civics class teaches that.

Congress passed FISA. The Courts have not see fit to say FISA is unconstitutional. Until they do, it is the law of the land. The President swore an oath to uphold the law, but again that's a minor trifle with this Administration.

Forget it. You're absolutely convinced that the President has absolute power to wage this war however he wants. This argument will just turn circular again.

United States v. Usama bin Laden, 126 F. Supp.2d. 264 (S.D.N.Y 2000)

Nice try. Next time read the case file first.

The court limited its holding in the case you mentioned to searches conducted outside the boundaries of the United States. As such, the Executive Order from 1995 still holds effect over searches conducted within the United States.

Johnny,

I thought it was a revealing exchange between Olbermann and the staffer who mistakenly attributed Keith Moon as playing for the Stones.

I've never seen a news cast where a behind-the-scenes person was chastised on camera. When Olbermann handed the guy the copy and said "Eat this", you could see the staffer seething.

It was a wonderous moment when the guy threw the papers all over Olbermann and Olbermann had to sit there and announce the next segment buried in them.

What a glimpse into the personality of Keith...

Nice try. Next time read the case file first.

As the Judge (Sands) in the case states:

According to the government [Clinton DOJ], searches conducted for the purpose of foreign intelligence collection which target persons who are agents of a foreign power [al-Qaeda] do not require a warrant. (my emphasis)

Nowhere did the government, i.e. the Clinton DOJ, say that searches conducted abroad do not require a warrant. They made the general claim that for foreign intelligence collection that no warrants are required. No distinction between domestic or foreign location was made (as the words above clearly indicate).

But even more interesting is that the Clinton DOJ claimed that it not only had the authority to conduct warrantless searches (which they did) here or overseas, they also claimed that the evidence compiled in those warrantless searches could be use in criminal cases.

Which it was.

This is much much farther than anything the Bush White House has claimed. The Bush Administration is claiming that they are conducting warrantless electronic surveillance only for intelligence collection and not for criminal cases.

Again, the Clinton Administration made no distinction in this case between warrantless searches of Americans abroad or living here who were foreign agents.

Don't accept my words; judge for yourself.

Here's the case (albeit just a district case and not SCOTUS):
http://www.law.syr.edu/faculty/banks/terrorism/dummyfl/binladen_12_19_00.pdf

SMG

Thanks for the link - I've read the case

SMG wrote:

Again, the Clinton Administration made no distinction in this case between warrantless searches of Americans abroad or living here who were foreign agents.

Don't accept my words; judge for yourself.

So? They lost that argument. The court narrowly tailored their ruling to only apply to searches that were conducted outstide the United States. Had the District Court agreed, you'd have something.

Trekkie:
They lost that argument.

No, the judge made no decision on that argument since the case wasn't specifically about that. It was about searches overseas.

As you correctly pointed out before, the issue for the court to decide was whether the government could conduct overseas searches without a warrant and whether the evidence obtained in those searches should be excluded from trial.

Judge Sands said "Yes" and "No". The government could conduct warrantless searches abroad and the evidence obtained could be used to prosecute Americans.

He made no ruling on domestic warrantless searches of foreign agents for intelligence collection since that issue didn't come before him.

Again, my larger point was that the Clinton Administration claimed in this case that they had the power to conduct warrantless searches (here or abroad) for intelligence purposes.

According to the government [Clinton DOJ], searches conducted for the purpose of foreign intelligence collection which target persons who are agents of a foreign power [al-Qaeda] do not require a warrant. (my emphasis)

I do not claim that the Clinton W.H. used that power domestically. Only that they claimed - in this case - that the executive branch had that authority.

SMG

Context is the key thing here. Olby and his clones find it "horrific" that the President would conduct warrantless searches, but Olby will never explain that the President has inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information, and FISA cannot encroach on the President's constitutional power. That was the law under Clinton, and it's still the law today. Just don't hold your breath waiting for Krazy Keith to tell his viewers about it.

On March 16th,2006 the Democrats introduced an amendment to increase Port Security by 1.7 Billion dollars. The measure failed by a 53-43 vote. 52 of the 53 votes against this were cast by, well, you guessed it---Republican's. Go figure...........

the President has inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information, and FISA cannot encroach on the President's constitutional power.

Agreed. That's the issue.

And there appears to be information - bits here and there to be sure - that previous Administrations, both before and after FISA was enacted, claimed that authority.

Of course, KO acts like a prosecutor when it comes to the Bush Administation. Assemble and present only that information or news that inculpates the W.H. in some crime, real or imagined. Exculpatory information is (almost) never presented.

It's one thing to challenge authority or question government. That's fine.

However, it's something completely different to accuse officials of mis- or malfeasance without also presenting evidence that clears them of those charges.

SMG

Cecelia,

I also saw the segment where Olby attempted to humiliate Denis Hourigan (sp?) and got a script thrown back into his orange, pan-caked face. Gee Keith, as "Managing Editor" of your so-called newscast, perhaps you should read or edit your copy prior to airtime. Maybe Denis didn't leave a written request in Olby's mailbox, or something.

The Scoreboard: Thursday, March 16

8pm:

1. O'Reilly: 2,394,000
2. Grace: 646,000
3. Zahn: 545,000
4. Countdown: 340,000 [last]

% total cable news audience:

1. O'Reilly: 61%
2. Grace: 17%
3. Zahn: 14%
4. Countdown: 8% [last, of course]

For any who didn't notice, Olbermann's share of the cable news audience is in single digits. Perhaps he hasn't attacked enough people. Maybe he should name ten or twenty "worst people in the world" per show. Once he does, his ratings will soar.

Context is the key thing here. Olby and his clones find it "horrific" that the President would conduct warrantless searches, but Olby will never explain that the President has inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information, and FISA cannot encroach on the President's constitutional power.

Okay then, would the President have the power to suspend elections if he felt they were threatened by a terrorist attack?

There have to be limits to the exercise of Presidential power. He can't simply say that the Fourth Amendment doesn't apply anymore to American citizens who live on American soil.

There is a slight difference between conducting searches and suspending elections.

> He can't simply say that the Fourth Amendment doesn't apply anymore

He who? Clinton? Bush? No, it's the law. Do you have a court case that proves otherwise?

At this point, I'm just going to offer a truce. You're not going to change my mind on this issue, and I'm not going to change yours.

I take it, that means no, you don't have any case law to support your position. OK, I accept your surrender. Err, I mean, truce.

Hear Ye, Hear Ye....The February, 2006 Cable news ratings have just been released,and are as followed...
Greta Van Susteran= (-22%)
O'reilly= (-21%)
Hannity & Colmes= (-17%)
Olberman= (+55%)
Thank you for your time, and understang in this matter.........

Bluefire, I think champagne is in order! Let's assume your numbers are correct (an enormous assumption, but nonetheless), you are telling me that Keith should be happy about going from 200,000 viewers to 300,000 viewers? My friend, that is still pathetic.

The only thing Keith has going for him is that he can only go up. You see, if your numbers suck, you only need a few more viewers to get a large % increase. If you have 3 million viewers, it is hard to make huge gains. Nonetheless, congrats on Keith's big 8% share of the cable news audience. Call us when he regularly breaks 25% (where he should be as one of the four cable news outlets).

And of course, this statement directed at Bluefire was prophetic:

Let's assume your numbers are correct (an enormous assumption, but nonetheless)

The numbers Bluefire spewed were for the famed "25-54" demographic which Olby so loves to tout, not for total viewers.

Actually, Keith has increased his total viewership by 38%. For comparison, Nancy Grace has increased her total audience by 146% (she is an example of a successful host with numbers on the move). Rather than try to pull the wool over everyone's eyes, here is the link to the ratings:

http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/original/feb06vs05.pdf

Bluefire, when you spin the numbers and don't post the raw data, you make yourself look like a disingenuous dope.

Actually, Keith has increased his total viewership by 38%. For comparison, Nancy Grace has increased her total audience by 146% (she is an example of a successful host with numbers on the move).

Now you're the one who's being disingenous, KfK. You're asking us to compare two completely different programming formats.

In 2005, CNN Headline News was still a "hard-news" channel format that focused on the half-hour newscast cycle. The current format (which Nancy Grace's show was a part of) didn't debut until the very end of February, 2005. So unless that chart starts at the point that her show premiered, its numbers are skewed by the previous format (which was consistently a low performer).

Once again Keith Olbermann continues spewing his lies. The fact is these judges are imposing their personal agenda on the U.S. In Ohio a judge has been going easy on Child Molesters.
why doesn't Keith do segments on Child Molesters, becuase he probably does it himself! I wish would report more useful thing like O'Reilly does.

why doesn't Keith do segments on Child Molesters, becuase he probably does it himself!

How dare you, sir! Such a slanderous lie has no place in a civilized debate.

You are entitled to your opinions about Keith Olbermann's reporting. But to make such an off-the-cuff remark as this is horrific and I demand that you retract that statement immediately.

OK, I accept your surrender. Err, I mean, truce.

"Surrender" implies that I am giving up my own position. I am not. I have simply reached the conclusion that I won't convince you to change your mind. Nor will you convince me to change mine.

"Cease-fire" would be a more apropo term in this case.

Trekkie, you have to understand something about MVK. He is a man of many names. Some might say schizophrenic. But if IP addresses don't lie, MVK is just one of his many handles. He has also gone by Real Liberal, Gaius Baltar, JDogg66, Curious George, Iron Mike, Mr Roboto, and Imperious Leader. He may also have used other aliases, possibly to impersonate regular posters here.

True to what may be his schizophrenic nature, MVK, under different aliases, even has held back and forth conversations with himself! The one unifying theme of all of his contributions is that they add little of substance or intellect to the discussion here. That's consistent with his purpose, which is to distract from the issues raised, derail the threads into name calling, and overall bring discredit on the site. In other words, he is flying under false colors, with a subversive purpose.

So MVK, Gaius, Real Liberal, and all the AKAs from out there in the Old Dominion state, are on notice. If the name calling, mindless rhetoric, racist insults, and handle-spamming continue, we will stop them. Play nice or find a new sandbox.

Informed,erudite people don't stoop to such tactics as suggesting that Kuddly Keith is himself a child molester as MVK states. That is an outrageous, slanderous and mean-spirited comment which nullifies anything that you may say now or in the future.

If you don't like Kuddly Keith, stop watching him. I stopped watching the Big Giant Head O'Reilly because his arrogance and pro-right views turned me off.

Then I discovered Kuddly Keith. He's a shining star peeking out of the big black hole that is standard, conservative TV journalism.

Keep on keepin' on Keith. This viewer recognizes you for the smart, intelligent, informed person that you are, not to mention the handsomest, sexiest, best dressed man on TV.

And oh that voice!!! Yowza!!

Here is an excerpt from Friday's New York Post page 72.

First,Patrick(Dan)volunteered that he thinks one day he and Keith Olbermann might be reunited on "SportsCenter".
My feeling is somewhere down the road we will do "Sportscenter" together Patrick said.
Patrick said he has spoken with ESPN executive president John Skipper about it.
"I just said, look, keep it in the back of your mind if that ever comes up that we can do something again," Patrick said. "If the answer is NO, then the answer is NO and I'll never bring it up again. He said, "look I'm a risk-taker. I'm open to it and one of these days we'll broach the topic."
An ESPN spokesman said there are "NO PLANS" for Olberman to expand his current role on the sports network. Olberman appears one hour each day on Patrick's daily radio show.

So if Keith is such a scarry talent. Why the song and dance from the ESPN exctes? Remember folks, when ESPN had reunion week Everybody who ever worked there were mentioned except.....yep you guessed it.

Is it just me or does anybody think that Sherry Starr also writes to prisoners in the big house?

MVK cut the crap! Tossin' that shit don't fly. O'Reilly shows a lot by looking out for the kids and he is doing something NOBODY else is reporting and that disturbs me. So when people like Keith and other writers and op-eds cheap shot O'Reilly Yes I lose any respect I have for them, BUT! IN NO WAY! do you need to be calling Olby that! I think Keith is a lot of things but not that! Go find some real hate monger site. Lord knows theres enough of them out there!

Keith increased by 38%. Nancy Grace increased by 146%. Sorry, but as they say in the horse racing buisness. They are at the back of the pack! And look to be done! Zhan is fading. But this race is O'Reilly's to win as he is in total control! IT'S O'REILLY.....GOING AWAY!.....BILL O'REILLY... YOUR WINNER!

Dear Blew

Take your rose colored glasses off and check this out. Last poll taken in the Pennsylvania Gov. race Lynn Swann and you're boy "Fast Eddie"....tied at 41% each. Still very early. Oh and it seems the pro-choice crowd has been whippin' up on you're dem Santorum clone Bobby Casey Jr. seems not all the dems in Penn want to go along with Chuckie Cheese Schumer's choice. OPPS!!!!!!!!!!! Still very early but let's use a Drudge term......story developing!

Puck,

Those numbers only compare the month of February for 2005 and 2006 -- difficult to know whether Keith's gains are a trend or a fluke. Let's see a trend from a few months.

Real Liberal
Gaius Baltar
JDogg66
Curious George
Iron Mike
Mr Roboto
Imperious Leader
MVK

Why don't you post what you really believe? You are lucky J$ hasn't banned you yet.

"Hear Ye, Hear Ye....The February, 2006 Cable news ratings have just been released,and are as followed...
Greta Van Susteran= (-22%)
O'reilly= (-21%)
Hannity & Colmes= (-17%)
Olberman= (+55%)
Thank you for your time, and understang in this matter..."

When direct competitors Nancy Grace and Paula Zahn are bitch-slapping Olby on a nightly basis (each have almost twice as many viewers as "Meltdown"), Olby needs a new spin on ratings. Oh, that's right, he already did that by quoting a ONE DAY rating. What a pathetic loser.

Up 55% from nothing equals nothing.

Keith increased by 38%. Nancy Grace increased by 146%. Sorry, but as they say in the horse racing buisness. They are at the back of the pack!

I said it before, to KfK, and now I'll say it to you puck: you're being disingenous because the numbers don't reflect the format change CNN Headline News underwent at the time the sample was taken.

In 2005, CNN Headline News was still a "hard-news" channel format that focused on the half-hour newscast cycle. The current format (which Nancy Grace's show was a part of) didn't debut until the very end of February, 2005. So unless that chart starts at the point that her show premiered, its numbers are skewed by the previous format (which was consistently a low performer).

Hey Puck, if YOU haven't gotten an email from me then you can rightfully assume that I don't email prisoners in the Big House!!!

You keep on bashing Keith and I'll keep defending him. As I said previously, if you don't like him, don't watch him. But maybe you watch him because you're really hot for him! Hey, how do you like them apples?

Oh and Puck I believe you meant to say that Keith is a SCARY talent, not a SCARRY talent. Go back to 8th grade spelling class!

Trekkie,

How about the fact that these numbers are for one month out of the year? Let's get real -- Keith is in last place, and he is desperate enough for ratings that he'll attack anyone with higher ratings than his. This debate about % increase started when Bluefire tried to pull a fast one and quoted demo numbers.

As for Nancy Grace, she started with 0 and is now at a quarter million a night. If Keith did that, we'd be hearing it every minute. Spin it however you want, but Nancy is doing quite well for herself.

Sherry,

I find your love for Olby quite touching. Dare I ask what other crushes you have? Is Al Franken's poster on your wall?

I meant to say Grace gets 500,000 - 750,000 a night. Sorry 'bout that. It's Keith who gets 250,000.

So if Keith is such a scarry talent. Why the song and dance from the ESPN exctes? Remember folks, when ESPN had reunion week Everybody who ever worked there were mentioned except.....yep you guessed it.

They didn't mention him because the ESPN still had an axe to grind with regard to Keith's departure from the network.

Pick up "ESPN: The Uncensored History" at the bookstore. It will tell you that the parting of the ways between ESPN and Keith was not what you would call amicable. "Open warfare" is a good description of the behavior between ESPN towards Keith and vice versa.

When Keith left in 1997, almost every reference to him or about him was removed from ESPN's public profile. ESPN chose to ignore almost all of Keith's contributions to the rise of "SportsCenter" during ESPN's 25th anniversary year because of the falling out they had. Even now, trying to find clips from the Olbermann-Patrick era of ESPN is difficult at best.

Trekkie,

Olbermann seems to pick fights wherever he goes -- ESPN, MSNBC etc. He even picks fights where he DOESN'T work i.e. NY Daily News, Fox News. Don't you think there is something pathological there? Wouldn't you say that someone so unhinged is unlikely to be a good newscaster?

whoa Sherry Star I touched a nerve. Glad you admit to e-mailing people in jail. WOW! an english teacher at that! I'm impressed! calm down! Should I get the Yanni c.d. out for you? Are you one of those girls Rodney Carrington talks about on his c.d.s?

Trukie
Look what you just posted and look at the last thirteen or so places Olby has worked. I don't hear anybody saying. Boy! Do we wish we had him back. Damm our ratings have been in the toliet since he left. What a bonehead move we made letting him go.

Everybody
Does anybody remember Morton Downey Jr.? He was a guy that ended up having a meltdown after having his own show on channel nine in New York. Mort thought he was the end all and be all to the airways and he picked fights with everyone. And when his ratings started going south he pulled some wacky stunt in an airport bathroom. Just a thought but,....any comparison? Yeah you're right Sherry Star, Olby doesn't chain smoke.

Blewfire
I read somewhere that Olby loses 16% of Hardball's lead-in audience everynight. Has anybody come across that article? I wonder where they go? Mr. Bill maybe? Oh wait, I know racing from The Medowlands!
IT'S BILL O'REILLY!!!.........IN FRONT!
And whats this with the two months compared to ten months? 2 versus 10! maybe not an exact count but you should be able to pick up a pattern. That this show is stale. Pretty much the same thing night after night. Let's see....

#5 Bush Bash segment

#4 Republican/Conservative bash segment

#3 Recycled video piece and Oddball

#2 Recycled video piece and Media Matters cheap shot at O'Reilly/conservatives.

#1 Creepy Musto or the non funny no talent Mo Rocca!

WOW! sounds like a fair and balanced show to this Libertarian. What does everybody else think? Am I close or what? Hey if this is the kind of show you like more power to you. And don't worry lefties theres one place Olby hasn't pissed off yet and thats P.M.B.S. They will probibly give him some really late night show and you Lefties will have the last laugh knowing our tax dollars are going to pay for this guy's salary.

Sherry Star
P.B.S. P.M.S. P.M.B.S. GET IT? LOL!

Okay, they have dropped the puck in Pittsburgh. GAME ON! gotta go!

Don't you think there is something pathological there? Wouldn't you say that someone so unhinged is unlikely to be a good newscaster?

Show me a major TV personality who isn't feuding with someone (either a former boss or another media personality). It's just that Keith's are out in the open, rather than behind-the-scenes (like the David Letterman-NBC fight just after NBC gave "The Tonight Show" to Leno).

Hey Puck if you actually knew how to read you would note that I was saying that I was NOT emailing people in prison. Read slowly and pay attention and try to comprehend the sentence.

Seriously, I'm not being mean. Just putting my two cents worth in with a little bit of sarcasm but all is meant in the spirit of exchanging opinions and reveling in freedom of speech (so far).

Yep, you are so intuitive (sarcasm again) that you were able to discern that I have a huge crush on Kuddly Keith.

No, I just happen to really enjoy his show, his comments, his witticisms, his insight, his humor, his polite interview style, his bashing of the Big Giant Head and if all of this is wrapped up in a great voice, good looks and sartorial splendor why would I want to watch anyone else? Oh excuse me I love Lou Dobbs too, the man who should be president.

I already know Clinton never served, but than again, none of Clinton's lies ever killed anyone, so with that.
Cheney=Never Served
Bush= Say's he served, just can't produce a Form 214 to prove it.
Condi Fried Rice=never served
The Man who cried Wolfowitz=Never served
Rove=Never served
Frist=never served
Delay=never served
I don't know Jack Abramoff=never served
Hannity=never served
Druggie Rush=never served
Ann the man Coulter=never served
I could go on and on......But what's the use. I don't wanna annoy Johnny $ because I am sure just like me he is serving to this day....

Excuse me Sherry Star but could you repeat that last post while I pour pancake syrup into a bowl for the full effect.

Excuse me Sherry Star but could you repeat that last post while I pour pancake syrup into a bowl for the full effect.

By the way Sherry Star we didn't get an answer to KFK'S question. Do you have an Al Franken poster on you're wall?

By the way Sherry Star we didn't get an answer to KFK'S question. Do you have an Al Franken poster on you're wall?

Sorry about the double post. Some server error. And theres a power failure at the arena. Whats going on in Pittsburgh?

Trek wrote:

"Show me a major TV personality who isn't feuding with someone (either a former boss or another media personality)."

Are you trying to say that every TV personality has fights with his former bosses, current bosses, and competition? You give David Letterman as an example, and I would say Letterman has had the occasional argument over very legitimate issues. In addition, David is a weirdo and always has been. He is another mood-swing madonna who hides under his desk and runs away from people. As a result he loses in the ratings to Jay Leno every week. Dave even showed some of his Keith-like tendencies when he attacked Bill O'Reilly after inviting him on his show. If you don't like the guy, why invite him on to yell at him? Typical Moonbat move. I think Dave lost it a long time ago.

I can't believe you are disingenuous enough to say that all broadcasters have the same issues with everyone around them as Keith. I guess you think Shannen Doherty is a normal actress, Barry Bonds is a typical baseball player, and Ron Artest is the picture of basketball civility?

Sherry Star -Keith is not nice dresser or anything close to it.My sense is that his suits are made of aluminum foil,really cheesy looking.His ties are as mundane as it gets and Windsor knots went out a long time ago.He dresses like a nouveau rich drug dealer.

As the Mad Hatter said....Let's not be silly. Of course I don't have an Al Franken poster in my bedroom. But I do like him!!!

As far as Windsor knots....styles come and go but it takes a real man to wear what he likes and to hell with what the fashionistas say!! I personally don't care for ties but Keith wears great ones. Keith's suits probably cost more than you make in a week so let's not be petty. Keith always looks well dressed and well groomed. I'm sure he doesn't give a rat's a** about what any of us think because he's man enough to be his own person.

Sherry,what makes you think Keith is his own person and uaafraid of what others say?I see him as the opposite,always berating others to raise his own status.It's a device the LSE's use.[low self esteemers]

Sherry Star

All this positive "SPIN" on Keith from you has made me come to one conclusion. Either you are Keith's P.R. flack (hack?). Or you are trying to get the gig. I'M still pouring that syrup!
Hey Sherry Star I'm courious. A question. It does not have to be in any order. Could you name you're favorite top five news guys? Now please take you're time while I go outside and chop down a maple tree. For the syrup.
WAIT! The Mad Hatter listens to Air-America? That explains a lot Sherry Star!

Hey Now!
I was just over at tvnewser. And get this......Blu.....are you sitting down? Brit Hume has become the number two guy in cable news! Go ahead see for you're self! Yep, Number 2 right behind BILL.....O'.......REILLY!!!!!!! I wonder where Keith is placed? I know Sherry Star Keith will always be number one in you're world. You, Keith and Windsor Scotch......I mean knots.
Watch now I'll get it for making a booze reference.

Hey Now!
I was just over at tvnewser. And get this......Blu.....are you sitting down? Brit Hume has become the number two guy in cable news! Go ahead see for you're self! Yep, Number 2 right behind BILL.....O'.......REILLY!!!!!!! I wonder where Keith is placed? I know Sherry Star Keith will always be number one in you're world. You, Keith and Windsor Scotch......I mean knots.
Watch now I'll get it for making a booze reference.

sorry that server error again