I saw parts of Karim Al-Olbermann's pro-Islamo-Fascist propaganda. I've haven't seen it in a while and was disgusted that he cares so much about this stupid Haditha thing.
What about the suicide bombers killing innocents? Why doesn't he ever discuss that?
What about that Iranian Nazi Admittedjerk saying the Holocaust was fake.He should be deported and sent to Iran so he can hang out with his terrorist friends.
I'm getting real sick of his kind!

Hey Keith and Islmo loving Leftists,
How about this?

http://news.monstersandcritics.com/southasia/article_1168370.php/30_injured_as_militants_attack_tourist_buses_in_Kashmir

30 injured by terrorist ib Kashmir!

Keith is #29 in the 25-54 demo "program ranker." Mind you, he would fare WORSE IN THE TOTAL VIEWER RANKINGS! To put this in perspective:

There are 30 teams in the NBA. If this were basketball, Olby would be in penultimate place (29th out of 30). Basically, he would be the New York Knicks.

There are 30 teams in baseball. Again, Olby would be in penultimate place (29th out of 30).

By any reasonable standard, Olby is a losing franchise. I believe his constant attacks on our military help keep him in the cellar, and I encourage him to continue his propaganda effort. All he does is enrage normal people, and stir the loon pot.

Harry Reid (D) is involved in some controversy regarding a gift he accepted (ringside tickets worth over $1000),

Which 1) did not violate any Senate Ethics Rules (gifts from other government agencies are exempt) and 2) was given to Reid even though Reid was supporting a national governing body for boxing, something that the Nevada Athletics Commission opposes vehemently.

So McCain paid for his tickets WHY?

Reid also knew good 'ol Abramoff and his staff held fundraisers at Abramoff's office. You also don't address Reps Jefferson (D) or Mollohan (D) "Anonymous."

Keep spinning like your pal Olby -- it has rocketed him to 29th place behind "Deal or No Deal" repeats.

So Reid voted contrary to the gift. That doesn't seem to help judicial candidate Terry Boyle at all. Reid and his cronies are blocking him because he had stock in GE when he ruled on a GE case. Boyle ruled AGAINST GE, just like Reid ruled against the people who gave him the tickets. So why is it a disqualifier for Boyle, but no big deal for Reid.

I'm not saying either one is right or wrong. But Olby, the big pointer out of hypocrisy among Republicans, is completely mute on the hypocrisy of Harry "The Body" Reid.

KfK,

You keep repeating that LIE over and over...despite OVERWHELIMG EVIDENCE that your interpretation of events DID NOT HAPPEN.

What is they say? Oh, yes. "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over yet expecting different results."

Olbermann is definately anti-Hispanic.
To see him try to speak on our behalf is sick.
he should just continue to spew Leftwing and Islamic propaganda.

Reid and his cronies are blocking him because he had stock in GE when he ruled on a GE case.

Johnny, you claim to be a lawyer yet you forget the most basic concept of judicial ethics: whether he ruled for it or against it is irrelevant, it's the fact that he stayed on the case. As a JUDGE, the Honorable Mr. Boyle cannot be an IMPARTIAL TRIER OF THE LAW by owning stock in one of the parties before him.

Anonymous, please try to read what I write more carefully. I'm not saying the judge was right or wrong. I'm saying that, just like Reid, he ruled against what was allegedly in his own interest.

It was YOU who raised that as a defense of Reid, not me. I'm just showing you that defending Reid with that argument is hypocritical, when Reid uses that very argument against Boyle.

Perhaps you should read what YOU write more carefully too, or try to remember it for at least 30 minutes.

I'm just showing you that defending Reid with that argument is hypocritical, when Reid uses that very argument against Boyle.

Because Boyle, as an officer of the court, is expected to comport himself to a higher ethical standard. Not to mention you skip the first part of the argument (that what Reid did not violate Senate Ethics rules as they are written).

Wish-fulfillment? Way to set the tone for the rest of your "analysis," buddy. I'm waiting to see how many words you can find for "without" in describing Dana Milbank whenever he appears on the show, it should get interesting. Milbank's view of what this could politically mean for the administration was valid, and I see no reason why you'd put the word environment in quotes. You then take Olbermann's question and spin it to match your own ideas (we call this a straw man). Olbermann asked a question, a realistic question, if the military was involved in a cover-up, and you dismiss it as "OlbySpin" (haha). And the way he laid out his opinion on how this could (emphasis) have a bigger political impact than Mai Lei makes sense - outrage for Mai Lei wasn't as big of a burden, politically, for Johnson or Nixon as this may be or even as Abu Ghraib was. And the review of the War Tapes documentary you give is great. The soldier says the media is being fair and you try and get in a jab towards the "Mainstream" media.

Comparing the Jack Abramoff scandal to what's happening to Harry Reid is apples and elephants. Jack Abramoff is tied to many Republicans in office and he has been convicted of crimes relating to the money he gave them. Harry Reid on the other hand accepted VIP passes (not tickets, do your research) to a Boxing Match along with Sen. John McCain that didn't have a price tag on them (1000$, where'd you get that from?). It's funny seeing right-wing blogs attach onto this story to try and expose a Democratic Culture of Corruption, and then see the story they were basing there attacks on fall through. But you wouldn't know it from reading this blog, neither would you know about Tom Noe (R-Ohio) who pled guilty to illegally directing 50,000$ to the Bush campaign in 2004.

Give me a break, the insults you're trying to dull out now are getting kind of pathetic - "Oh wait, she could on MSNBC" (very funny). And Keith criticizes her and you act like he's following a "far left" (O RLY?) viewpoint; it seems like you kind of wanted him to say she'd make a great candidate.

If you read the entire transcript of what Keith had to say about Armstrong (and listened to what he sometimes says on the radio) you'd know his opinion on Armstrong. Armstrong has become less and less well-liked, Keith seems to not care for him, but he just didn't want to see him on steroids, I believe he said--"I hope I’m damned wrong about Armstrong"--and I myself thought Armstrong took steroids (most people are on some kind after cancer) especially with the evidence pointing against him, it turns out now he wasn't on them, and I like Keith Olbermann am happy I was wrong about Armstrong.

To kick off the last part of your review, I really like your nitpicking when Olbermann said "Hispanic bashing." You seem to want to imply that he's a racial profiler, but stop short and only ask rhetorical questions. If Gibson didn't say the part about "[Iraq] being into the massacre game early" or "up to it's eyeballs in massacres" I'd agree with you, but he did, and because of that he makes it seem, not like he's for massacres, but as if it isn't a big deal.

Oh, and KfK's logic (about ratings no less) is about as flawed as the logic used to interpret this show every night--if Countdown was a basketball team? What the hell?

*********************************************************************************************************
ALERT! ALERT! ALERT! OLBERMANNIACS CAUGHT SHILLING FOR HARRY REID
*********************************************************************************************************

Hey losers! I guess Harry Reid didn't get your memo that accepting free gifts was a-OK! I guess Olby better call Reid and yell at him for almost telling the truth. I mean, the sky will fall if people find out Reid is a shameless money-stealing uber-lib. Just read this loons:

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060601/D8HV5JEG0.html

"Reid Says He Won't Accept Free Tickets"

May 31, 11:05 PM (ET)

By JOHN SOLOMON

WASHINGTON (AP) - Reversing course, Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid's office acknowledged Wednesday night he misstated the ethics rules governing his acceptance of free boxing tickets and has decided to avoid taking such gifts in the future.

The announcement came after The Associated Press confronted Reid's office early Wednesday with conclusions from several ethics experts that the Senate leader misstated congressional ethics rules in trying to defend his actions.

Oh well. . .you guys tried your best! Imagine a world of Olbermanns though -- free passes for Senators you agree with, and persecution for the others! Whoopeee!

You guys are a bunch of monsters, Hell bent on distorting reality. When the ASSOCIATED PRESS is less biased than you turds, you know you are left wingers! Maybe Olby will have to cover this tonight? We'll see!

As for Abramoff, why haven't you jerks gotten the memo:

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/02/09/D8FLR3380.html

Reid Aided Abramoff Clients, Records Show
Feb 09 4:17 PM US/Eastern

By JOHN SOLOMON and SHARON THEIMER
Associated Press Writers

WASHINGTON

Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid wrote at least four letters helpful to Indian tribes represented by Jack Abramoff, and the senator's staff regularly had contact with the disgraced lobbyist's team about legislation affecting other clients.

The activities detailed in billing records and correspondence obtained by The Associated Press are far more extensive than previously disclosed. They occurred over three years as Reid collected nearly $68,000 in donations from Abramoff's firm, lobbying partners and clients.

Oh, now we all know that Abramoff was a "Republican" so somehow Reid CAN'T be guilty! After all, he has a (D) after his name, and would never take free money from an (R). Well, let's see what happens my freaky friends.

As always, I wish you a pleasant day.

Wow! That sure rubbed their collective noses in it KfK! Bad doggies!

> I see no reason why you'd put the word environment in quotes.

Perhaps I can explain it for you. He used the word environment. I was quoting him. Therefore I put the word in quotes. Clear now?

> the review of the War Tapes documentary you give is great.

I agree.

> Comparing the Jack Abramoff scandal to what's happening to Harry Reid is apples and elephants.

I didn't compare them. I simply pointed out that Reid (D) didn't get even a mention. And it's a serious enough business that Reid himself has suddenly found religion and said he shouldn't have taken the tickets. Do you really believe it was someone with an (R) Olby would have discreetly ignored the story?

> Keith criticizes her and you act like he's following a "far left" (O RLY?) viewpoint

I pointed out that both he and his guest conformed to the current state of opinion on the deep blue blogs, one of Keith's favorite sources for "news". If I am wrong about what the Daily Kos online polls have shown, please cite your data.

> Keith seems to not care for him

No kidding. And that makes his ridiculous stance permissible? There's no evidence that he used drugs, nobody is charging that he did, but hey, according to Olby, he has to prove he didn't. As I said, guilty until proven innocent, because Keith doesn't like people who cross a picket line. Don't argue with me. His blog entry proves his bias, and his broadcast last night proves his twisted dislike of Armstrong has only grown worse.

> I like Keith Olbermann am happy I was wrong about Armstrong.

Maybe you are, but according to what he said last night, Keith refuses to admit he was wrong about Armstrong. After all, he hasn't yet proved he DIDN'T take drugs in all those other races. Guilty until proven innocent. The law on OlbyPlanet.

> I really like your nitpicking when Olbermann said "Hispanic bashing."

I liked it too. It shows Krazy Keith has some racial issues that he needs to discuss with his overworked therapist.

hello olby losers. the following is a great idea, but they need to order it for all you ethically bankrupt republican wingnuts too! have a nice fascist day, you intellectually vapid a--holes.

U.S. COMMANDER ORDERS `CORE WARRIOR VALUES TRAINING`

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- A U.S. military commander in Iraq on Thursday ordered subordinate commanders on the ground `to conduct core warrior values training, highlighting the importance of adhering to legal, moral and ethical standards on the battlefield ... Unfortunately, there are a few individuals who sometimes choose the wrong path.`

KfK said
"There are 30 teams in baseball. Again, Olby would be in penultimate place (29th out of 30)."

Perfect. Meltdown is the Kansas City Royals of cable "news" shows. That's a sports analogy that even Krazy Keith can decipher.

Now Olby's attacking Lance Armstrong
On so many levels that's just wrong
Lance, he is great
Keith's filled with hate
Twisted dislikes are his swan song

I saw part of the morning re-run and caught most of the Hillary Clinton segment, and wanted to clarify something that was reported in JD's summary.

It was said that Jonathon Alter said Hillary could be "one of the greatest Senators in history." That was not what he said.

Alter said: Many Democrats would rather see Hillary Clinton remain in the Senate where THEY feel she could be one of the greatest Senators in history... he was not saying that as a declarative statement. He also neither said he shared nor didn't share that opinion.

Now, I didn't see the rest of the show, so I can't say what was represented fairly or unfairly, but I did notice that, and feel that since JD tries to be accurate in his descriptions, so as to not open himself up to attack, an error should be brought to his attention.

As a seperate topic: Since the line-up of guests and 'talking points' stays pretty much the same no matter who is in the host chair, could the anger vented towards Keith be better directed to the show's producers? It seems to me that if the show looks and feels the same whether Keith is there or not leads me to think it's a producer-driven product, and not anchor-driven.

B

My big question is why they had to play Hillary's ENTIRE campaign video? It provided absolutely no value to the program. They could have had the exact same conversation without the ad and nothign would have been lost.

(see guys, I like the show, but I'll still admit when something is wrong).

During that same story, however, the last thing the guest said (I'm going to paraphrase)... Hillary likely won't win the presidency and her husband is LIABILITY... not a BENEFIT.

That doesn't sound like a left-wing spinner to me he had on for that segment.

But, again - airing the entire campaign ad was a joke. Still good to see Keith back, though.

Krazy Keith is the news laughing stock
Countdown's the proverbial crock
Keith thinks he's funny
But his show's losing money
To rivals the sponsors will flock

You can always tell KfK is going to make a good post when he starts it off by insulting the people he's addressing (maybe I should write when I'm being sarcastic so Mr. Dollar doesn't miss it). KfK quotes two sentences from a long article and tried to pass it off like Reid was reversing course. What was the sentence after the two KfK quoted? "The Nevada senator still believes it was 'entirely permissible' for him to accept ringside seats for three professional boxing matches in 2004 and 2005 from the Nevada Athletic Commission but has nonetheless decided to avoid doing so in the future, his office said."

KfK, just stop talking about this scandal you want so hard to invent. If you can show me where Harry Reid did something illegal or dishonest please point it out to me. You and many others in the conservative blogosphere have latched onto this issue and have tried to point it out as a "corrupt Democrat"--I'm sorry, you're wrong--Harry Reid was at the match with Sen. McCain, McCain "paid" for the tickets (they weren't tickets and the money he donated--an unknown amount--was donated to charity).

KfK, you are truly clueless about Abramoff's ties in the political arena, especially in Congress. If you look at most Congressmen or senators they've taken money, at some time, from Abramoff; many have given the money back after they realized he was a corrupt hack, but when you try to say that everyone who's ever taken money from Abramoff is corrupt you're just out fishing (notice most Republicans aren't under investigation for simply accepting Abramoff's money, but for many separate reasons).

And to Mr. Dollar--you really don't make your position look good, or put any of your reviews in a good light when you deliberately misinterpret what I say. Point me to where in the transcript Keith "refuses to admit he was wrong," I know he said he wasn't tested for his other races, but that doesn't have to deal with the article you cite. Grow up (I also recommend you re-read your Strunk and White).

NonFactor, I noticed you didn't go near J$'s assessment of Olbys John Gibson segment. Obviously you would have spun it had it not been so indefensable that even you see it as a fresh steaming pile .

> Point me to where in the transcript Keith "refuses to admit he was wrong,"

Let's see. He wrote an article saying Armstrong was guilty, in his opinion. The evidence comes out that he was cleared. Does Olby say, "OK, I was wrong"? No. That's called refusing to admit he was wrong. Now if he said, "OK, I was wrong" and I missed it, please point it out. All he did say is, this only vindicated Armstrong on one race--leaving open the possibility (without one shred of evidence) that he might have been doped on any of his other races. That sure doesn't sound like "OK, I was wrong" to me.

Congratulations to Keith and him making a rare triple play last night regarding John Gibson and his comments about Haditha. Lying about his intentions ( implying Gibson believed that killing Iraqi civilians was A ok ), taking what he said out of context ( not airing his entire comments on the matter ) and the usual cowardice ( not having a conservative defend Gibson ) Well done, you talentless hack. Oh how you're a dumbass. Let me count the ways!

Did I say a rare triple play? It's just another night in the Broadcasters Hall of Shame for Kommandant Keith.

People should lay off of Keith. The man has no noticeable political agenda, much like myself. We're just after the truth. I'll tell you what, if I was 100 years younger or if Keith was 100 shades less orange, some magic would definitely happen. I haven't felt this strongly about seducing a man since Grover Cleveland.

Nonfactor spluttered:

>KfK quotes two sentences from a long article and tried to pass it off like Reid was reversing course. What was the sentence after the two KfK quoted? "The Nevada senator still believes it was 'entirely permissible' for him to accept ringside seats for three professional boxing matches in 2004 and 2005 from the Nevada Athletic Commission but has nonetheless decided to avoid doing so in the future, his office said."

I stand corrected! Senator Reid thinks what he did was fine, so he is in the clear!

Nonfactor, do you even read what you write? OF COURSE REID WILL DECLARE HIS INNOCENCE! Are you retarded? Really, that is a serious question. If I meet you in your parents basement, will you be strapped in a wheelchair wearing a protective helmet? This is how I think you look after reading my posts:

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Helen,

Orange Boy is your man. Just be sure to wear a lot of earth tones when you go out together to match his orange complexion. You guys should get along great. You and Keith are like peas in a pod:

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

In a November 2002 talk at MIT, Thomas revealed: "I censored myself for 50 years when I was a reporter. Now I wake up and ask myself, 'Who do I hate today?'"

As long as it's a conservative, right Helen?

Where does Keith show up in the cable news Nielsen ratings? Oh yeah ... dead last.

People who say, "Now I wake up and ask myself, 'Who do I hate today?'"" tend to look like this after a while:

Is that Teddy Kennedy in drag?

McCain paid $1400 for the ticket. It's not an unknown amount, that amount is given in every AP article I've seen.

Reid may claim he still thinks the tickets were OK last year and the year before, but his own office has admitted that he misstated the ethics rules related to the tickets. Was he spinning it for his own benefit or did the Minority Leader not know the ethics rules? You decide. Either one doesn't speak highly for him.

The AP and Reid both call the gifts tickets. Where are you guys finding this VIP passes and or the "they weren't tickets" description?

Scott,

Calling things "VIP passes" is brilliant. I can see the politicians using it now:

"Yes, I flew on that jet for free and stayed in that hotel, but it was on a VIP pass, not a ticket." Sounds MUCH better.

Dana Spermbank is one of Kooky Keith's favorite guests. I wonder if Kooky Keith makes deposits there?

A bit lowbrow, Anon, but I must admit I laughed!

Where are you guys finding this VIP passes and or the "they weren't tickets" description?

http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2006/May-31-Wed-2006/news/7696406.html

[Mark] Ratner [former executive director of the Nevada Athletic Commission] said Tuesday the seats Reid and McCain got weren't tickets available to the general public but "credentials" the commission gives only to public officials hoping to observe the commission's activity.

Skip Avansino, current chairman of the athletic commission and a commission member since 2002, said Reid, McCain and the athletic commissioners sat on folding chairs in a small, cramped area, not in the posh ringside seats for which pricey tickets are sold.

-----------------

Boxing promoter Bob Arum said Reid and McCain also sat in ticketed seating at about three matches each but paid for their tickets "invariably." Arum said McCain and Reid's seats at the Hopkins-de la Hoya fight, on the other hand, were credentials from the commission, not tickets from Arum. But McCain, who brought his wife to the fight, sent Arum a check for the price of two ringside seats.

Arum said he didn't know what to do with the money.

"Those credentials cannot be sold," he said. "There's no price on them. (They are given to) governors, attorney generals, boxing commissioners of other states. ... It's illegal to accept money for a credential."

Dan, I actually did talk about Dollar's take on the Worst Person in the World segment, if it was too hard to find I'll point it out again for you: "If Gibson didn't say the part about '[Iraq] being into the massacre game early" or "up to it's eyeballs in massacres' I'd agree with you, but he did, and because of that he makes it seem, not like he's for massacres, but as if it isn't a big deal."

And to Johnny. Keith told the audience that the evidence has shown that he [Armstrong] didn't use steroids in 1999, if he said that Armstrong used them in 1999 and he then says the evidence shows he didn't, it sounds to me like he's saying that he's wrong, sorry you can't get Keith to say what you want him to. If you couldn't get out of the segment that Keith said Armstrong was shown to have not used steroids in 1999 then I don't know what's left to say.

KfK, do you think you could go through a reply without insulting the person you're talking to (I'm a retard, an idiot, and was recently anti-American and pro-terrorist until I called you on it)? Answer me one question KfK, you should be able to do it. Did Harry Reid do anything illegal or unethical? You read the same article I did, don't say your opinion, say the truth.

To Scott, I'm sorry, what I meant is that he paid an amount of money for a "ticket" that had an unknown price (I read that both "tickets" cost 1400$ together in the first, wrong, AP article that came out). The VIP Passes thing was put out by the organization who gave them the passes; I think it was in the second, more in-depth AP article, and on TPM.

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/000772.php

TPM is a pretty partisan site, but their take on this incident is based on fact and is pretty informative. If anything it should shut KfK up for a while.

Who is this Rick Kaplan guy that lets Opie continue.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50185-2005Jan30.html

"The 6-foot-7 Kaplan has ordered each program to write a mission statement and has regularly questioned whether its segments were furthering those goals"

"Others say Kaplan can be a micromanager. He insisted that each program put up corkboards with index cards about planned segments so he could see them as he strolled around, and once got angry when a board was moved"

John Hockenberry, Alan Keyes, Phil Donahue, Jesse Ventura, Laura Ingraham, Curtis Sliwa, Michael Savage, "Buchanan & Press," "The News With Brian Williams" and, later, John Seigenthaler

"In the late '90s he was president of CNN, where he sometimes drew flak for being a personal friend of Bill Clinton's and was tarnished by the retracted story alleging American use of nerve gas during the Vietnam War"

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=12234

By Lowell Ponte
FrontPageMagazine.com | February 18, 2004
MSNBC DIED THIS WEEK, but few have yet noticed.
Third among cable news networks... has lagged far behind rival Fox News Channel and CNN in viewers. But it has offered an alternative source of viewpoints, ranging from “Hardball” hosted by veteran Democrat Chris Matthews to “Scarborough County” hosted by former Republican Congressman Joe Scarborough from the conservative Florida panhandle.

“It was time for a change, to bring a new perspective to the channel,” an NBC executive this week reportedly told the New York Times. This “new perspective” will be a new President and General Manager of MSNBC – Richard N. Kaplan".

"With Kaplan’s entrenchment, MSNBC will...almost certainly become just another cookie cutter stamping out a daily batch of predictable one-sided, pro-Democrat, anti-Republican, pro-Leftist propaganda."

Wow - written in 2004 and as true as can be

All this Opie nonsense come into perspective when you read about Kaplan - Opie is his protoge

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=12234

"Needless to say, MSNBC Democrats like Matthews or the “Countdown” laughing Lefty Keith Olbermann will get no comparable command to “balance” their Left-leaning shows with right-wing voices and views"

"...aired videotape revealed was that in several instances the wrongdoing ascribed to Food Lion was actually committed by or at the direction of these ABC producer fake employees. In one instance, when a genuine Food Lion employee noticed and cleaned a dirty meat slicer that ABC was preparing to film as evidence, one of the ABC producers could be heard “muttering obscenities.” It was evident that ABC was covering the story with a pro-union, anti-company agenda and was stacking the deck to produce the propaganda it wanted to air. The man in charge of this Leftist smear piece was Executive Producer Rick Kaplan"

"Food Lion sued, and a jury that saw the 45 hours of video from which Kaplan and ABC distilled a 10-minute hit piece awarded Food Lion $5.5 million in punitive damages for fraud committed by Capital Cities-ABC against the company"

Nonfactor,

Here is my response. Attempt to read the words on the page.

I think Reid is a crappy politician who plays fast and loose with the truth. He plays the money game, the patronage game, and many other political games, all the while blathering about EVERYONE ELSE'S ETHICS. That is what pisses me off. Many of these guys are pricks. McCain, Specter, Reid, Feingold, Kennedy (both of them) are a few I find duplicitous and / or unethical. Your desire to defend Reid while attacking the people you dislike is absurd. Here is the basis for my thoughts on the latest Harry Reid "ethical lapse":

"Reid Says He Won't Accept Free Tickets"

May 31, 11:05 PM (ET)

By JOHN SOLOMON

WASHINGTON (AP) - Reversing course, Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid's office acknowledged Wednesday night he misstated the ethics rules governing his acceptance of free boxing tickets and has decided to avoid taking such gifts in the future. The announcement came after The Associated Press confronted Reid's office early Wednesday with conclusions from several ethics experts that the Senate leader misstated congressional ethics rules in trying to defend his actions.

If you don't like the message, call the AP.

How come every other news outlet (besides Solomon) is saying that Reid's office says that he didn't violate ethics rules, but he won't accept any more tickets to avoid controversy. Also tell me what politician I have attacked so far.

And you still didn't answer the question. You start off by simply attacking Reid, and refuse to say that what he did wasn't illegal.

If you don't like the message, call the AP.

The problem is you are DISTORTING what the AP Article says by DELIBERATELY OMITTING two paragraphs in the middle of your quotation with no marker that they exist.

The UNEDITED article (omitted portions in italics) states:

Reversing course, Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid's office acknowledged Wednesday night he misstated the ethics rules governing his acceptance of free boxing tickets and has decided to avoid taking such gifts in the future.

The Nevada senator still believes it was "entirely permissible" for him to accept ringside seats for three professional boxing matches in 2004 and 2005 from the Nevada Athletic Commission but has nonetheless decided to avoid doing so in the future, his office said.

"In light of questions that have been raised about the practice, Senator Reid will not accept these kinds of credentials in the future in order to avoid even the faintest appearance of impropriety," spokesman Jim Manley said.

The announcement came after The Associated Press confronted Reid's office early Wednesday with conclusions from several ethics experts that the Senate leader misstated congressional ethics rules in trying to defend his actions.

---
In addition, evidence now exists that had Reid paid for the credentials (and they are credentials, not tickets, as the article from the Las Vegas Review-Journal indicates), he would have violated Nevada state law.

PLEASE!

Those two paragraphs are less than useless. Ask anyone accused of wrongdoing if they are culpable and see what you get. How about this:

"Scooter Linbby still believes it was "entirely permissible" for him to discuss Valerie Plame with reporters and insists he did not lie under oath. Nonetheless he has decided to avoid doing so in the future, his office said.

"In light of questions that have been raised about the practice, Scooter will not discuss these kinds of things in the future in order to avoid even the faintest appearance of impropriety," spokesman Joe Schmo said.

Big deal. Means nothing. Bottom line, you turds are dopes.

And you knowingly and deliberately omitted facts to alter the perspective of the article. What's your point?

So I guess, Anon, that Arum should be prosecuted for taking McCain's $1400.

Kenneth Lay "believes" that he did nothing wrong. Does that mean he has falsely prosecuted and convicted, or does that only work when there's a "D" after your name?

This isn't a question really of the legality of taking the gift. It's the ethics of taking the gift. And the consensus opinion seems to be that Reid violated the ethics guidelines by taking the gift from an organization hoping to influence his vote. How he voted is irrevelant.

Does that mean he has falsely prosecuted and convicted, or does that only work when there's a "D" after your name?

Show me where, EXACTLY, in Federal or State law that Senator Harry Reid has commited a crime. If he had paid for the credential, he would have broken the law of the state of Nevada.

Hmm...conveniently avoiding the issue of an ethics violation by focusing on the legality of the issue. Its a ETHICS violation.

Reid would not have broken the law, according to the article. Arum, or the commission may have if article is correct, because " It's illegal to accept money for a credential." Sounds like the whole plan was specifically designed to allow the commission to skirt the ethics rules of the Senate by providing a gift to a Senator they were trying to influence.

Its a ETHICS violation.

It's not that either. Read the Senate Rules. It is not illegal to accept a gift from a state or local agency, but such gifts should be accepted with caution.

So he broke no laws and no ethics rules, which means that this horse is dead. NEXT!

If you are going to edit out the parts of the rule that go against your position, you'll never understand. Read the rest of the rule. The part that "specifically warns against taking normally permissible gifts if the giver may be trying to influence official action. (AP)"

Which is exactly what they were trying to do with the tickets.

`Many of these guys are pricks. McCain, Specter, Reid, Feingold, Kennedy (both of them) are a few I find duplicitous and / or unethical. Your desire to defend Reid while attacking the people you dislike is absurd.`

i`m happy to see someone here condemn politicians from both sides of the isle. but now i`m curious, do most of the regulars at this site count themselves among the 35 percent who approve of the job the president is doing?

This is Olbermannwatch "Gene B." While it might seem to be a political discussion board, it is not. You see, every time Olby spins a web of lies, Johnny Dollar points it out. The Olbermmaniacs then run to Olby's defense by changing the subject. Usually they start by defending the liberal Democrat that Olby refused to discuss / defended / kissed on the lips. People like me then take the bait and the battles begin.

If you want to take a survey re: Bushes job approval, may I suggest you do so scientifically by getting several thousand pollsters and making a few random calls?

Gene B. writes:

"do most of the regulars at this site count themselves among the 35 percent who approve of the job the president is doing?"

Being part of the 35 percent (or whatever the number is) who approve of the President's job peformance is not a prerequsite for being a "regular" on this site. Most of the "regulars"
(not counting the moonbats) share an aversion for :

1) the cowardice of Olby as displayed on a nightly basis by his insistence of bringing on a bevy of bootlickers as guests to reinforce his ideas rather than inviting anyone who might challenge his specious arguments

2) The hypocrisy of Olby in his continual berating of O'Reilly. He acts as if this mentally pathological obsession of his is "newsworthy" and yet Orange Boy is never accountable for his own mistakes even as he berates O'Reilly for his supposed failure to acknowledge mistakes.

3) The disingenousness of Orange Boy in his insistence that he is not "poltical", had no interest in the outcome of the latest presidential election, that his show is a "newscast" for which he is the "anchor" in an effort to falsely represent that Meldown is an objective news hour rather than a propaganda organ for the left wing fringe.

Hope that answers your question.

3)

Gene B. writes:

"do most of the regulars at this site count themselves among the 35 percent who approve of the job the president is doing?"

Being part of the 35 percent (or whatever the number is) who approve of the President's job peformance is not a prerequsite for being a "regular" on this site. Most of the "regulars"
(not counting the moonbats) share an aversion for :

1) the cowardice of Olby as displayed on a nightly basis by his insistence of bringing on a bevy of bootlickers as guests to reinforce his ideas rather than inviting anyone who might challenge his specious arguments

2) The hypocrisy of Olby in his continual berating of O'Reilly. He acts as if this mentally pathological obsession of his is "newsworthy" and yet Orange Boy is never accountable for his own mistakes even as he berates O'Reilly for his supposed failure to acknowledge mistakes.

3) The disingenousness of Orange Boy in his insistence that he is not "political", had no interest in the outcome of the latest presidential election, that his show is a "newscast" for which he is the "anchor" in an effort to falsely represent that Meltdown is an objective news hour rather than a propaganda organ for the left wing fringe.

Hope that answers your question.

OK, i gotcha. not a political board, but more of a watchdog board, just like the name suggests. and it sounds like you folks are mainly AGAINST THE SPIN, from either the right or left, rather than being FOR THE ADMIN, if you know what i mean.

Gene B.

Why are you even asking that stupid question? The site is "Olbermannwatch." Is that not self-explanatory? It is not "We love Bush" or "Rummy is Yummy" or even "Ted Kennedy is a cold blooded murderer." It is and always has been "Olbermannwatch." Mr. Dollar throws himself on the Meltdown propaganda grenade every night to protect us all, and we look at the aftermath. We then express our disgust. Get with the program "Gene B." Does your name have to do with a disorder? Is "Gene B" a gene that expresses a common-sense-blocking protein?

"Mr. Dollar throws himself on the Meltdown propaganda grenade every night to protect us all"

What a great analogy!

Gene B., I would haveto say that instead of the 35% approval number that is always trotted out by the media and the liberals, we here at Olbermann Watch are fond of another number: George W. Bush getting 63 million votes in the last election, the only " poll " that means a damn thing.

To answer your question, Gene, most of the people here (save me and a few others) are stauch, far-right conservatives, and I'd be willing to be that 9 out of 10 of them support the President.

In the world of moonbat extraordainaire Non-Factor, failure to slobber praise on her hero Orange Boy qualifies one as "staunch far-right". Notice this site is not "Matthews Watch", for example, because at least Matthews does have enough integrity to allow his viewpoints to be challenged and doesn't try to fool people into thinking that his opinion show is a "newscast". Non-Factor attempts to blunt the spot on criticism of Orange Boy on this site by implying that such criticism is motivated entirley by political identification. A poor quality show is a poor quality show and Meltdown's last place ratings attest to that fact.

`Gene B., I would haveto say that instead of the 35% approval number that is always trotted out by the media and the liberals, we here at Olbermann Watch are fond of another number: George W. Bush getting 63 million votes in the last election, the only `poll` that means a damn thing.`

i understand your point. he`s the pres. bottom line. no doubt about that. but you said `trotted out` ... does that mean you doubt the polls? there are so many out there now, and dozens have GW at around 35 percent.

Olberwoman looks tanned and rested from her vacation. And I see the venom and propoganda spewing from her mouth hasn't changed. No wonder she was canned at ESPN, FOX, need I go on??

Olberwoman looks tanned and rested from her vacation. And I see the venom and propoganda spewing from her mouth hasn't changed. No wonder she was canned at ESPN, FOX, need I go on??

Have we really gone back to the first grade Jimbo?

I have updated this post (above) to note that AllahPundit has linked this post over at Hotair.com. Worth checking out.

Allahpundit is right, KO is a wretched bastard.

Harry and Katherine and Dick Cheney, too
Went hunting for quails One late afternoon
"Be vewy quiet We'll hear when they coo!"
Said Harry and Katherine and Dick Cheney, too

Harry and Katherine and Dick Cheney, too
Noticed the sky change To orange from blue
"It's late," complained Harry Dick said, "Stay few
"And since we are staying, please toss me a brew!"

Dickie was Captain, and Harry was Crew
And Katherine stood way back
To keep a clear view
"Got one," said Harry
Dick said, "Good for you!
"I'll get one myself if you let me pass through!"

Harry and Katherine and Dick Cheney, too
Heard a shotgun go off
With fiery BOOM!
"I've shot him," yelled Dick
"Now what will we do?
You'd better go lie about this on the news!"

Harry and Katherine and Dick Cheney, too
Dodged the world for 4 days
And gave no interviews
"They'd never believe
What I'm saying is true!"
Dick explained later to Fox's Brit Hume

Harry and Katherine and Dick Cheney, too
Never revealed all the things they knew
And nobody Really knows what Happened with
Harry and Katherine and Dick Cheney, too