I think Somerby is being overly kind.

He's attributing laziness and lack of attention on the part of KO on the superficial reporting on Countdown.

But that lack of substance is KO's MO, so to speak. Since he views his task as simply "challenging those in power", he apparently doesn't really care whether that challenge is simplistic or complex, substantive or superficial.

Just challenge.

Bush is Nixonian (original, no?). We live in an Orwellian political system (geez, I wrote an essay on that analogy when I was 14). And everything from the White House is spin (shades of Carville).

Okay, it's great to challenge the powerful. Although the Republican Right don't control all of America, Olbermann.

But challenge without substance is just ideological cotton candy.

Tasty but not very nutritious.

SMG

Olbermann uses the same type of propganda done in Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, Castro's Cube. Just keep repesting phoney facts and have people parrot them. Then people will believe it. It's a typical Marxist or Fascist tactic. Olbermann definatlly read up on totalitarian tactics. totalitarian type people, are the 1st to accuse others of totalitarianism.

Olbermann uses the same type of propganda done in Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, Castro's Cube. Just keep repesting phoney facts and have people parrot them. Then people will believe it. It's a typical Marxist or Fascist tactic. Olbermann definatlly read up on totalitarian tactics. totalitarian type people, are the 1st to accuse others of totalitarianism.

OReilly, you do realize that everytime you invoke Godwin's law, your credibility decreases?

"Olbermann uses the same type of propganda done in Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, Castro's Cuba."

Gosh, I don't mean to be rude, but that is a pretty silly analogy.

Actually, it reads (somewhat) like something Olbermann would say about the White House.

Although he would substitute Nixon or McCarthy or Orwell.

SMG

Trekkie,
I'm not comparing him at all to those murderous regimes. He has no power, thank God for that. I'm explaining that he uses the propaganda technique that those toatlitarian movements used in order to get to power. He always talks about Bush taking away liberties. Castro said the same about Batista and ended up being worse. He has those tendancies. Why doesn't he allow people with opposing views on? That's what that type of propaganda does. Make accusations and name calling and not let the other side respond.

Sorry ORR, the analogy doesn't hold and the fact is that KO is just attempting to copy what he perceives to be Bill O'Reilly's tactics. I am not looking to argue about Bill O'Reilly just point out that KO and his lefty pals have this notion that Americans really do not support Republican policies (war, taxes, immigration, educational standards, or anything else) but have been duped by "better" marketing (i.e. propaganda). Some on the left, KO included, have decided that the stakes are too high to operate on their lofty principles and that GOP tactics require that they get down in the gutter with the Republicans to fight fire with fire.

In the meantime, KO takes whatever journalistic credibility he had (and don't be fooled, he HAD plenty with his ESPN work, his radio reporting for ABC News after 9/11, etc.) and flushes it down the drain by becoming the lefty version of the lefty caricature of Bill O'Reilly.

Robert,
I'll agree with you as to why Komrade Krazy Keith does what he does. But if you read about how Leftists movements like the Nazi's or Castro use propaganda to get power, you'll notice the similarity.
The biggest question I have is why does he allow dissenting voices on his show?

It is one thing to be the emperor in the story of "The Emperor's New Clothes" before you go to war. It is quite another to be such after war has begun. And as the facts scream at you, "The emperor has no clothes," to insist that this scream confirms that you are wearing the finest material in the world."
-- Keith Olbermann, 04/12/06

It is one thing to be the emperor in the story of "The Emperor's New Clothes" before you go to war. It is quite another to be such after war has begun. And as the facts scream at you, "The emperor has no clothes," to insist that this scream confirms that you are wearing the finest material in the world."
-- Keith Olbermann, 04/12/06

Basically I'm posting because this seems to primarily be a conservative blog and frankly I'm uncertain why anyone could possibly still support this administration.

So this is basically my why Bush sucks how can anyone possibly support him message. Believe it or not I'm genuinely curious to hear responses to this. I don't mind an honest debate on an issue if anyone wants to engage in that. Just so I identify myself in this blog I am to the left but consider myself to harbor several libertarian tendencies although I also break with them on a number of issues.

With this in mind I would like to start with illegal wiretapping without a using the Fisa courts. Correct me if I am wrong but the administration’s defense of this is basically to say "If you are being monitored I want to know why you are talking to Al Quaeda" my response to that if s you have reason to believe someone is talking to Al Quada why can't you get a court order? Seriously folks, lets assume the motives of this administration are pure and good. That they would never abuse their power or spy or their political enemies that all they ever want to do is protect us from terrorist. Let's assume that this administration would never use wiretapping on the average Joe Blow or invade his privacy to insure social control. If this is the case and I don't believe it for a second. What's to stop the next guy from abusing that power? The whole position of this admistration is that the president has the legal authority to wiretap without having to answer to anyone. You might trust his motives( I don't) but would you trust say Hilary if she becomes President? She would have the legal authority to exercise this power at least using the Bush administration's legal position.

The second reason I am angry is the Bush tax cuts. Now I know that many are going to label me a tax and spend liberal but bear with me here. Social security and Medicare are in serious Danger. The baby boomers are getting old and this is the biggest segment of our population. You may be completely against these programs. (I go back and forth) but the fact is these people have been paying into it their whole lives against their will. They have a right to expect that when they retire, it's their money. Bush has insured with his tax cuts that even less money is going to be available and those programs are going to bankrupt faster. probably by about 2012 according to some economist. So that means 1) far less benefits to people who have paid for it or 2) A lot higher taxes in the future to bail the program out. Now think about it which way to you think the majority of Americans, (who will be in their 60s) are going to vote? My guess is they will vote to let the working generation foot the bill as they already paid in. that means much higher taxes for the rest of us in the future. the Bush tax cuts were incredibly irresponsible. not to mention the whole war that is costing like 40 times this administration's orginal estimate.

War in Iraq. we have the dowing street memo and another one showing this admin wanted war whether Sadaam complied with the UN or not, but aside from flat out lying to the American people about that the cause of war it has been handled pretty incompetently. For example disbanding the Iraqi army. We had effectively cut off the head of the Iraqi military. We could have inserted a new one and used it to insure stability. instead we disbanded it and let the solders take their guns with them. That's handy if you want to start an insurgency. many generals protested this by the way.

Gay rights. Some of the more extreme on the right, (left too I'm fair ) Will probably accuse me of being gay for defending this but I just can't see how it is any business of the federal government who marries who. That is a private agreement between two individuals and the rest of the world should butt out. it doesn’t affect you.

Last thing is a more of a question for the libertarian wing of the republican party. Libertarians of course are for limiting government as much as possible. Given the Cheney believes that the presidency was dangerously weakened during the Watergate years and must be stregenthen aren't you a bit alarmed? I mean the wiretapping and everything else. Just a question because this position seems to me to e that of an authoritarian not a libertarian.

Basically I'm posting because this seems to primarily be a conservative blog and frankly I'm uncertain why anyone could possibly still support this administration.

So this is basically my why Bush sucks how can anyone possibly support him message. Believe it or not I'm genuinely curious to hear responses to this. I don't mind an honest debate on an issue if anyone wants to engage in that. Just so I identify myself in this blog I am to the left but consider myself to harbor several libertarian tendencies although I also break with them on a number of issues.

With this in mind I would like to start with illegal wiretapping without a using the Fisa courts. Correct me if I am wrong but the administration’s defense of this is basically to say "If you are being monitored I want to know why you are talking to Al Quaeda" my response to that if s you have reason to believe someone is talking to Al Quada why can't you get a court order? Seriously folks, lets assume the motives of this administration are pure and good. That they would never abuse their power or spy or their political enemies that all they ever want to do is protect us from terrorist. Let's assume that this administration would never use wiretapping on the average Joe Blow or invade his privacy to insure social control. If this is the case and I don't believe it for a second. What's to stop the next guy from abusing that power? The whole position of this admistration is that the president has the legal authority to wiretap without having to answer to anyone. You might trust his motives( I don't) but would you trust say Hilary if she becomes President? She would have the legal authority to exercise this power at least using the Bush administration's legal position.

The second reason I am angry is the Bush tax cuts. Now I know that many are going to label me a tax and spend liberal but bear with me here. Social security and Medicare are in serious Danger. The baby boomers are getting old and this is the biggest segment of our population. You may be completely against these programs. (I go back and forth) but the fact is these people have been paying into it their whole lives against their will. They have a right to expect that when they retire, it's their money. Bush has insured with his tax cuts that even less money is going to be available and those programs are going to bankrupt faster. probably by about 2012 according to some economist. So that means 1) far less benefits to people who have paid for it or 2) A lot higher taxes in the future to bail the program out. Now think about it which way to you think the majority of Americans, (who will be in their 60s) are going to vote? My guess is they will vote to let the working generation foot the bill as they already paid in. that means much higher taxes for the rest of us in the future. the Bush tax cuts were incredibly irresponsible. not to mention the whole war that is costing like 40 times this administration's orginal estimate.

War in Iraq. we have the dowing street memo and another one showing this admin wanted war whether Sadaam complied with the UN or not, but aside from flat out lying to the American people about that the cause of war it has been handled pretty incompetently. For example disbanding the Iraqi army. We had effectively cut off the head of the Iraqi military. We could have inserted a new one and used it to insure stability. instead we disbanded it and let the solders take their guns with them. That's handy if you want to start an insurgency. many generals protested this by the way.

Gay rights. Some of the more extreme on the right, (left too I'm fair ) Will probably accuse me of being gay for defending this but I just can't see how it is any business of the federal government who marries who. That is a private agreement between two individuals and the rest of the world should butt out. it doesn’t affect you.

Last thing is a more of a question for the libertarian wing of the republican party. Libertarians of course are for limiting government as much as possible. Given the Cheney believes that the presidency was dangerously weakened during the Watergate years and must be stregenthen aren't you a bit alarmed? I mean the wiretapping and everything else. Just a question because this position seems to me to e that of an authoritarian not a libertarian.

I agree with alot of your posts being that I am Libertarian.
Here's where I disagree
On Gay marriage, marriage is only between members of the opposite sex. even in ancient Greece where most men were bisexual, marriage was between man and women. I favor civil unions for both Hetero and Homosexual couple. I support it for benefits reason.
Let me ask you a question, if Gay marriage is allowed should Polygamy be allowed. If not why is gay marriage OK but not Polygamy?

On the Tax cuts, I agree on the that those who make over 200,000 should pay a rate of at least 40%. those who make under 50,000 shouldn't pay taxes at all.

Social security, poeple should be allowed to invest it or buy bonds or gold. That would solve the problem.

On the war my biggest gripe is that after 9/11 we didn't mobilize for total war with the Islamo-Fascist of Iran, Iraq, Syria, Hezzbollah, Saudi Arabia and Al-Qaeda

Let me ask you a question, if Gay marriage is allowed should Polygamy be allowed. If not why is gay marriage OK but not Polygamy?

Ah, the usual canard - if we approve gay marriage then we're just one step away from bigamy, polygamy, etc.

Gay marriage is legitimate because it still recognizes the basic foundation of monogamy. A male marrying another male doesn't alter the fundamental rights that a male and female have when they are married (such as the marital privelege in court, the right of joint tenancy, etc.).

But allowing multiple people to marry each other would so expand the fundamental rights of marriage that they would become useless. Not to mention it would sanction a behavior that more Americans find objectionable than gay marriage or even abortion-on-demand.

Trekkie,
If you support Gay marriage how can you oppose Polygamy.
If marriage is a private matter why can't I marry 3 woman!
that's not fair!
It is a legitimate issue.
If Gay marriage then so should Polygamy.

If Gay marriage then so should Polygamy.

I explained this already...the problem is that polygamy distorts the rights that one receives when one is married. Gay marriage is still a 1:1 concept - it doesn't change the rights one has as a married couple, nor does it adversly affect heterosexual marriage insofar as legal rights are concerned. Polygamy would.

ORR I know you have this reflexive need to argue with me, but please read my posts before responding. It saves me the time and trouble of re-arguing a point I made clear the first time.

Trekie,
In ancient Greece Homosexuality was accepted. But never was marriage accepted between members of the same sex. that's recent phenonemon. Marriage is designed to produce offsprings. I support civil unions for both Hetero and Homosexuaul couples for benefits purpose.
but to me Same sex marriage is not natural.

Trekkie I don't reflexively argue with you. If you read some of my posts I have agreed with you and conceeded valid points you made.
I even complimented you!
Come on give me some credit!

I support civil unions for both Hetero and Homosexuaul couples for benefits purpose.

Then maybe the state should get out of the "marriage" business and leave that element to the church while retaining the civil union aspects of the process.

Come on give me some credit!

I'm man enough to admit that I got a little carried away there. Sorry.

Trekkie

'Then maybe the state should get out of the "marriage" business and leave that element to the church while retaining the civil union aspects of the process.'

I agree the gov shpuldn't be in the marriage business.

Trekkie

'Then maybe the state should get out of the "marriage" business and leave that element to the church while retaining the civil union aspects of the process.'

I agree the gov shpuldn't be in the marriage business.

Trekkie

'Then maybe the state should get out of the "marriage" business and leave that element to the church while retaining the civil union aspects of the process.'

I agree the gov shpuldn't be in the marriage business.