Milbank, you shouldn't make bipolar jokes to a head case like Olby. It's not nice.

Quote from Olby to the Perfessor:

"I suspect we're both breathing a bit easier tonight"

Another gem from the apolitical one....the same one who, by his own omission has "no rooting interest".

Just lovely.

DeFrank wasn't having any of Olby's jokes likening Cheney to Spiro Agnew.

Tom Defrank just kaboomed Citizen Keith. Olby had to say he was "just kidding" when Krazy Keith compared Cheney to SPIROW AGNEW !

BOOM !

Olby wasn't joking! He was trying to advance his Olbyganda on Cheney! Olby just thanked his audience for his ratings.

This, of course, means Defrank will never appear on Countdown again. We need to compile a "banned" guest list - Ricks, Defrank, Jackie Mason, etc.

OMG, Olby, I can't believe you are again spinning your third-place rating as if you were first. Spare us, you liar.

Why not? Dan Abrams sent out a memo crowing that they'd beat FNC in the "key demo" on Tuesday night at midnight, but failed to mention that CNN still came in first and handly beat both of them. I guess it must be a MSNBC-thing, no matter how bad your ratings, there's always a way to spin them huh?

A horse is the worst person in the world? I understand Olby has different criteria for "worst" but I would expect WPITW to at least be a person!

Kracy Keith thinks the Dems won, he believes all the Dems in this nation will his show now.

sorry, left out the key word, will watch his show

Bob M, Olby is a horse's ass, so perhaps that's how he made the connection.

Geez,,, Foley... Kolbe.. Mehlman.. Drier,, is that the entire membership of the Log Cabin republicans ? Oh Wait,, I forgot Haggard. wow, they have enough to form the new Village People.

Bob M,, that was some other stupid shit that KO does, the WPITW is always done about 50 minutes after the show starts.

Bob M,, that was some other stupid shit that KO does, the WPITW is always done about 50 minutes after the show starts.

Keith, you deliberately deceive your audience to broadcast propaganda for the left wing. What kind of liar shall we call you?

Apparently the horse thing was some segment other than WPITW, so please disregard my post at 8:36. As the kids say, "my bad!"

But Olby is a horse's ass, so my comment stands.

Why does KO always use his last segment for some stupid entertainment crap. I am tired of seeing Jeff Ross and Mike Musto, how about a real news magazine show. I am so tired of hearing about Borat that tired ass character is on HuffPo all the time.. why shove this meaningless crap down our throats.

As much as it hurts to admit, I agree with you on that point, O'Lielly.

Did you guys forget that he used to say his producer is forcing him to do

He once said on the radio show, the best rating of this hour show is at the end, that is why he keeps doing this, and the beginning of the show is running tapes which we all have seen at least three times before he comes on air.

Get this.

MSNBC has started a message board JUST for Olbermann's show. They're calling it "Countdown Nation". http://boards.msn.com/MSNBCboards/board.aspx?BoardID=482

The usual sychophants are, of course, already in residence. I guess since Olbermann is no longer allowed to get email from his fanatical fan base that he must have public adoration of some kind so this is MSNBC's solution to his email problems. Pathetic.

"Countdown Nation"?!? LOL! I hope Michael Savage sues!!

But Keith's dated horses. Have you never seen photos of Rebecca Lobo or Laura Ingraham? Both have a decidely "horsey" look about them.

But Keith's dated horses. Have you never seen photos of Rebecca Lobo or Laura Ingraham? Both have a decidely "horsey" look about them.

Well at least there's some good news in the Democrats capturing the Senate and House.

No more stories on voting irregularities (real and not so real), no more stories on the homeless and no more stories on lobbyists buying favorable legislation since when unions, trial lawyers and Hollywood types buy influence from the Democrats it doesn't really count as political influence buying.

How many "donations" do you think Olby will hand out now that the Dems are back in power?

"Why does KO always use his last segment for some stupid entertainment crap. I am tired of seeing Jeff Ross and Mike Musto, how about a real news magazine show. I am so tired of hearing about Borat that tired ass character is on HuffPo all the time.. why shove this meaningless crap down our throats.
Posted by:

Bill O'lielly at November 9, 2006 08:58 Pm"

How long do you have to be on this earth before you understand that commercial media, especially corporate owned multi-media conglomerates, use segments in shows to promote other media they own or are paid to promote. Letterman, Leno, Stewart and Colbert do it nightly with books and movies. All talk shows do it. Joe Scarborough has to do the "holy-weird" segment every night.

Why anyone would consider this as a reflection of a commentators character is beyond me.

NBC and Microsoft, like all other employers dictate much of the format of the shows they own. Using this subject in the standard retarded picking apart of Mr. Olbermann's show, as is commonly done on this page of idiots, is to demonstrate how far off reality some of you are willing to go for new topical matter. Trivial nonsense drivel that would be expected from eighth grade drop outs.

There are hundreds of thousands of innocent dead Iraq's blood on all of our hands in the eyes of every Muslim in this world and you sloth's are talking about this garbage. You all the epitome of insignificant adolescent fools. An embarrassment to the nation. Fuck what boat full of out of touch losers you ALL are.

Johnny Dollar:

Another great summary of Meltdown with Krazy Keith. Thanks for the write up.

L.F.

If the Democrats capture the White House in '08 and also hold on to Congress, does anyone think that KO will continue to have a show?

Who will he go after? If he does indeed criticize the Democrats like he does the Republicans (as he promises), his liberal audience sure won't watch. And the right won't watch him either since they've got Fox news (O'Reilly, Hannity et al.).

If I was a certain 21-year old female, I'd get something in writing. Right now.

"Johnny Dollar:

Another great summary of Meltdown with Krazy Keith. Thanks for the write up.
L.F.Posted by: Little Feechie at November 9, 2006 09:35 PM"

One line. One idea. One ball. Coward.

How do you make fun of person who goes by "Little Feechie"? The job is done for me.

I noticed the link on the "Main" page at this site of Mr.Olbermann's book actually goes to his book on Amazon. First time I came to this page it linked to Bill O'really's book. Also I looked at the survey, 91% favor Keith. Looks like the children who run this page have a new financial consultant giving them some good advice. I am certain the rest of you are oblivious to this.

And once again, I'm sure the Olybloons, probably the "watching cowards" poster among them has repeatedly hit the survey to make it so. Then they declare victory and use it as Proof that KO is popular. give it up. We've seen his ratings. We know better.

Ouch Coward...such a big man.

Come on l;et's give Olbermann credit. He's the Left's version of Goebels. He stays on message and never deviates. I give him credit. A great spokesman for the Left and their Hizballh/Iranian allies.

Come on l;et's give Olbermann credit. He's the Left's version of Goebels. He stays on message and never deviates. I give him credit. A great spokesman for the Left and their Hizballh/Iranian allies.

Posted by: Red Wolf at November 9, 2006 10:55 PM

Sour grapes.

If the Democrats capture the White House in '08 and also hold on to Congress, does anyone think that KO will continue to have a show?

Who will he go after? If he does indeed criticize the Democrats like he does the Republicans (as he promises), his liberal audience sure won't watch. And the right won't watch him either since they've got Fox news (O'Reilly, Hannity et al.).

If I was a certain 21-year old female, I'd get something in writing. Right now.

Posted by: Ohboy at November 9, 2006 09:53 PM

sour grapes.

Come on l;et's give Olbermann credit. He's the Left's version of Goebels. He stays on message and never deviates. I give him credit. A great spokesman for the Left and their Hizballh/Iranian allies.

Well at least there's some good news in the Democrats capturing the Senate and House.

No more stories on voting irregularities (real and not so real), no more stories on the homeless and no more stories on lobbyists buying favorable legislation since when unions, trial lawyers and Hollywood types buy influence from the Democrats it doesn't really count as political influence buying.

Posted by: Ohboy at November 9, 2006 09:18 PM

Sour grapes.

Who said this: "You've heard of IslamaFascists -- I think we now have Christian fascists. What is the definition of a fascist? Not only do they want to beat you, but they want to destroy you in the process"?

C'mon Johnny...fess up. You still haven't told the truth about the William Jefferson race - that he has no shot in his December runoff, that he has no support from the DNC, the DCCC or the Louisiana Democratic Party and that he got 30% of the vote on Tuesday.
Jefferson won't be back in January, yet you act like he won in a walk.

Get rid of Cheney? Spiro Agnew's Birthday? "If I knew you were coming, I would have brought more news."

Johnny, I'm starting to think that KO is saying things on Countdown just to tweak you and Mr. Cox. Of course, that would imply that he reads Olbermannwatch, which I'm sure pleases you no end.

Codas and Colbert the leftwing Islamic loving Dhimmis.
What's your opinion on Rep. John Dingel and Charlie rangel's support oh Hizballah?
The Dems will behave like good Dhimmis!
I voted Libertarian so don't call me a Bush lover.

The only thing good Olby does is attack the neocons. Republicans need only to look at them and Bush's insane following of them for their defeat in this election. There is no punishment to great for these wolves in sheep clothes.

> Of course, that would imply that he reads Olbermannwatch

We know that he does, and it's a source of annoyance to him. He has even lifted things from this site, without attribution of course.

> Of course, that would imply that he reads Olbermannwatch

We know that he does, and it's a source of annoyance to him. He has even lifted things from this site, without attribution of course.

Posted by: johnny dollar at November 10, 2006 12:37 AM

If someone made a website specifacly to discredit everything you say, wouldn't you check it out? I have no doubt thst Keith has heard of and visited this site. I love the idea that he may have read a thing or two of mine and been encouraged by it. I hope like hell he has. It is actually one of the reasons I started giving my two cents here in the first place. Hey Keith. Keep up the good work buddy.

DNC Schedule for Jan 3,'07

8:00) HR1 Appeasement & Dhimmitude Act of 2007

8:30) Open Borders & General Amnesty on Immigration Act

9:00) Terrorist's Bill of Rights

10:00) Defense Deauthorization Bill

10:30) Destruction of Marriage Act

11:00) Income confiscation, wealth redistribution and success penalty act

11:30) Proposed Constitutional Amendment for the protection of prenatal infanticide, sodomy and pornography

12:00) Proposed Constitutional Amendment to repeal the 2nd Amendment

12:30) Proposed Constitutional Amendment to replace the word "prohibiting" to "permitting" in the 1st Amendment

>lunch

2:00)Articles of Impeachment for Richard Cheney

3:00)Articles of Impeachment for George W. Bush

4:00)Senate Trials

5:00)Inauguration of President Pelosi

Red Wolf:
"What's your opinion on Rep. John Dingel and Charlie rangel's support oh Hizballah?"

Unless you have DIRECT QUOTES that prove what you're saying, dipshit, shut your piehole.
This is how morons get their entertainment? Spreading UNFOUNDED RUMORS and LIES? No wonder people have NO FUCKIN' CLUE about politics - half of what they hear is someone's hallucination.

Asked about the refusal by some European governments to declare Hezbollah an Islamic terror group, Charlie Rangel told WWRL’s Steve Malzberg and Karen Hunter, “To call it Islamic terror is discriminating, it’s bigoted, it is not the right thing to say.”

Rangel even questioned whether, in fact, a worldwide Islamic terrorist movement even existed, saying, “We just take for granted that there is an Islamic terror movement because we do have some fanatic people who come from Islamic countries.”

The Harlem Democrat complained: “When we had the Ku Klux Klan we didn’t call them Baptist terrorists. When Hitler was killing Jews, we didn’t call it Christian terrorists.”

From: Little Green Footballs

Hitler was a Christian? I thought he was atheist with Jewish relatives.

Posted by a comedian:

"C'mon Johnny...fess up. You still haven't told the truth about the William Jefferson race - that he has no shot in his December runoff, that he has no support from the DNC, the DCCC or the Louisiana Democratic Party and that he got 30% of the vote on Tuesday. Jefferson won't be back in January, yet you act like he won in a walk."

Yes, and Hevesi in NY won by accident, as did Tedd Kennedy, Pat Kennedy, Robert Byrd, and Marion Barry in elections past.

The Democrat party is the party of low standards. You can drown a woman (Kennedy) drive drunk and lie (young Kennedy) run the Ku Klux Klan (Byrd) steal (Jefferson) do crack with hookers on video (Barry) and steal some more (Hevesi) with no consequence.

Like the leftists in Mexico, leftists in this country want to win by any means necessary. The law is an annoyance to them. That's why we hear NOTHING of "voter fraud" this time around. I saw one story about "right-wing vote suppression" when Allen still had a chance, but now that Webb won, all that is forgotten. Expect to see the lefty media start proping up Congress and start re-spinning news from the Middle East about actual successes.

The only thing separating the Mexican and Venezuelan leftists from the American left is the language barrier (which is decreasing by the month).

I congratulate the angry left on their "victory." I'm sure they will have the same resounding historical success that leftists have had wherever they have slimed their way into power.

Kissel,

Nope, we need our G&Ts right now.

As to your other fresh, inspired, orginal, and thought-provoking comments, we'll take them in the spirit in which they are offered and file them away accordingly...

You liberals asked for it, now you got it. You reap what ye sew.

Posted by: Brick at November 10, 2006 07:57 AM

Althogh I do believe one does reap what one sows, sometimes a responsible person has to come along and clean up after a spoiled child makes a mess.Like when certain people who like to act bad ass and start wars they don't know how to finish, someone has to come along and deal with the real consequences. Certain people think you can break the bank and then someone has to come along and restore some sanity with the budget. Certain people think you can shock and awe and torture. Someone has to restore honor and integrity back to our national policy. Or sometimes daddy will send his friends to make it all better.

"Perfessor Turley was rapturous over the new Democrat majority, and praised divided government. (So that means he will support a GOP President in two years?) "

Hilarious!

Come on l;et's give Olbermann credit. He's the Left's version of Goebels. He stays on message and never deviates. I give him credit. A great spokesman for the Left and their Hizballh/Iranian allies.

Posted by: Red Wolf at November 9, 2006 10:55 PM

Sour grapes.

Posted by: codas at November 9, 2006 11:03 PM
---
sorry codas, but how can this be sour grapes when its the smae kind of comment that has been made here for quite a while?

I congratulate the angry left on their "victory." I'm sure they will have the same resounding historical success that leftists have had wherever they have slimed their way into power.

Posted by: LEFTIES 4 LOWER STANDARDS at November 10, 2006 09:07 AM

Well I am not sure about leftists but I do know a progressive lean ALWAYS has triumphed over a desire to repress and conserve the status quo. Our country was progressive from the start and rejected the satus quo. On down the line from slavery to the rights of women to rights of workers and children, through segragation, not to mention technological advances it has always been the ones afraid of change that have been left behind.

Amen, Bolten has been one of our best representatives EVER and the Dems won't give him the position because he stirs the waters. Spare me... the UN is five time more corrupt than any of our political parties, yet Dems feel we should play nice. We need a hard ass to get them to reform. And anyone that disgrees, piss off. The UN poster boy Chavez just called Bush Hitler, and proclaimed 9/11 as an inside job. Yes- the same Chavez who was cheered months ago when he rebuked Bush. Piss off. The US need Bolton. Actually we all need Bolton.

Codas writes "technological advances it has always been the ones afraid of change that have been left behind."

Yes, Codas, I'm grateful to all those devoutly Christian abolitionists and educators who fought against slavery and for the rights of women, and for the non-religious crusaders as well...

Here's hoping that my future grandchildren will live in a nation where private citizens receive the same sort of tax deductions for health insurance premimums that businesses receive (deductions that will make insurance companies work for consumers instead of their employers),a school voucher program, and federal options to the Social Security program.

These sort of "progressive", individual-choice policies are too controversal to implement now...but in time our culture will catch up to these enlightened policies...

Here's hoping that my future grandchildren will live in a nation where private citizens receive the same sort of tax deductions for health insurance premimums that businesses receive (deductions that will make insurance companies work for consumers instead of their employers),a school voucher program, and federal options to the Social Security program.
These sort of "progressive", individual-choice policies are too controversal to implement now...but in time our culture will catch up to these enlightened policies...

Posted by: Cecelia at November 10, 2006 09:40 AM

Yes cecelia. You are right. When what was once progressive becomes the status quo it becomes repressive. I am all for a better way to deal with taxes, heath insurance and our education system.

Sorry if this is a repeat, but did anyone see that Matthews outed Olbermann as a voter on Tuesday's election coverage? I guess good ole' Olbermann can't claim impartiality now. Douchebag.

Posted by: codas at November 10, 2006 09:27 AM

You mean like the democrats who fought for segregation vs the republicans that passed the civil rights act?

Or the democrats that wanted welfare to stay the same vs the republicans who wanted welfare reform (yes signed by BJC, but not with much support from his party and after the lanslide 1994 elections)

I guess good ole' Olbermann can't claim impartiality now. Douchebag.

Posted by: Crash at November 10, 2006 09:48 AM

I am sure you hold O'Reily and Fox to the same standards of "Douchebag" as you do Olbermann. Do you think they voted? Did they vote for the Dems? Hell no. O'Reily claims to be independent. Ha ha ha hah ha. Fox puts liberals of their own choosing on for the most part and then humiliates them. Watching Fox the last couple days has been interesting. They think the country was brainwashed by the media to vote agianst the reublicans. Ha ha ha hah ha. They think everyone but them is stupid. Olbermann took a stand against a very stuborn and bull headed bunch of folks. The country agreed with him.

Codas writes,

"Yes cecelia. You are right. When what was once progressive becomes the status quo it becomes repressive. I am all for a better way to deal with taxes, heath insurance and our education system."

We're agreed, Codas. We can only hope the reactionaries in your party catch up with you.

You mean like the democrats who fought for segregation vs the republicans that passed the civil rights act?
Posted by: Anonymous at November 10, 2006 09:53 AM

You mean like the democrats who later became republicans in protest of progressive men who knew it was time for change, and later became the core of the republican party that remains a southern white party. Yeah.

Posted by: codas at November 10, 2006 09:19 AM

how to finish a war...hmmm, maybe we could finish it the way the last demcrat president finished a war...drop two atomic bombs...would that be ok?

I thought that the democrats ran on a platform that they would finish the war by pulling up stakes and leaving...talk abouth the Vietnamization of the Iraq war

Posted by: codas at November 10, 2006 09:57 AM

oreilly claims to be a registerd as an independent...he says he is a traditionalist and as such shares many (but not all) views with republicans so Ha ha ha hah ha.

"Fox puts liberals of their own choosing on for the most part" but CNN, MSNBC,NBC, ABC,CBS are all FORCED to use people the republicans tell them to use? ok...I think you tin foil hat needs aadjusting (oh and as far as the humiliation thing goes...they do that themselves, same as the ones that appear on the other networks)

"They think everyone but them is stupid" gee, isn't this item #1 on the democrat platform and in the employee manuals of the MSM...I mean, you guys were all telling us (and continue to if you look above) that the people of this country were stupid to put republicans in charge...now that those same people put democrats in the majority of congress they are not stupid after all

this is a test comment

HEY! IS THERE ANYBODY OUT THERE?

oreilly claims to be a registerd as an independent...he says he is a traditionalist and as such shares many (but not all) views with republicans so Ha ha ha hah ha.

What the heck is a traditionalist? Who can tell me what that means and how it relates to O'Riely. He believes in Christmas? Family values when he's not on the phone with his producer? He can't mean he is traditionalist in a religious sense. The laugh is on the ones that buy his books.

I don't generally think it's fair to bring up the ole Dixiecrats, because that was another era and people have changed.

So of course, with you're fine reasoning abilities, Codas you have to respond to such silliness by taking it a step farther and arguing that the south went Republican because southerners long for a return to the good ole days of segregation, even though the only southerners who remember those days as an adult,would have to be at least in their mid-fifties.

Of course things like gun laws, taxes, and changing the marriage tradition to include gays would have no influence on folks in the Bible-Belt going Republican...right...

Thanks, for calling the majority of southerners racists, simply because they aren't Democrats, Codas....

Don't you think Kulture of the Klan is rabid enough to handle this territory alone?

Of course things like gun laws, taxes, and changing the marriage tradition to include gays would have no influence on folks in the Bible-Belt going Republican...right...
Posted by: Cecelia at November 11, 2006 12:24 PM

The gun law issue surely is one of the reasons the south went republican. Gay marriage is something that will happen cecelia. It might be 50 more years, but it will. Society moves on. The sanctity of my marriage depends on me and my wife, not a gay neighbor. Yes, I am for taxing the very rich by first making sure that they WILL pay at least the same percentage that I do. I don't think the majority of southerners are racists. But it is another example, like it or not of a group of people who would like to maintain the status quo. A white protestant majority. I am white and every bit as proud to be as any other race. I grew up with 1/3 of my school mates black. In the future there will be a whole bunch of Latinos around. This country is progresing towards something it was not before. No getting away from it. Progresives will prevail and traditionalist will get left behind. Look around for some Indians. They wanted to maitain the staus qou too.

Codas writes:

"But it is another example, like it or not of a group of people who would like to maintain the status quo."

Since the majority of the population (that you've been complimenting after this most recent election) isn't for gay marriage, you're talking about a big group.

If you remember correctly Clinton backed the Defense of Marriage bill and John Kerry didn't back gay marriage when he ran. President Bush flatly stated that he's for gay civil unions. Hillary now says she's "listening" to arguments about gay marriage, we'll see in 'O8.

When you're doing your cliches, Codas, it would sure be nice if your memory was less convenient...

Since the majority of the population (that you've been complimenting after this most recent election) isn't for gay marriage, you're talking about a big group.

Posted by: Cecelia at November 11, 2006 01:50 PM

Hey, it is a big group. And I for one would place myself in the group that wants to keep some of that staus quo in my church. But, tha law and the state are not my church. Some politicians like Kerry, the Clintons, and many others on both sides are trying not to push the envelope to soon. You and I are both finding out about some republican "gayness" arent we. I am sure you will disagree but I think if the republican evengelicals didn't make such a noise about gay marriage, most of this country wouldn't give a care if they did or didn't. It is a politcal divide. A way to inspire the religious to vote republican or to be influenced by republicans. Do you think there are more gay people in the world than there was in the fifties? I say a lot of married women went to sleep next to a gay man back then. Human nature is stronger than political correctness in the long run. Gays will be married by the state, in almost every state within ten years.

Anon says

Posted by: codas at November 10, 2006 09:57 AM

oreilly claims to be a registerd as an independent...he says he is a traditionalist and as such shares many (but not all) views with republicans so Ha ha ha hah ha.

"Fox puts liberals of their own choosing on for the most part" but CNN, MSNBC,NBC, ABC,CBS are all FORCED to use people the republicans tell them to use? ok...I think you tin foil hat needs aadjusting (oh and as far as the humiliation thing goes...they do that themselves, same as the ones that appear on the other networks)

"They think everyone but them is stupid" gee, isn't this item #1 on the democrat platform and in the employee manuals of the MSM...I mean, you guys were all telling us (and continue to if you look above) that the people of this country were stupid to put republicans in charge...now that those same people put democrats in the majority of congress they are not stupid after all

Posted by: Anonymous at November 10, 2006 10:25 AM

Anon,

First, O'Reilly did claim, on multiple occassions, to be a registered indepedent despite that O'Reilly is not (nor ever was) a registered independent. Once it was discovered he lied, he then lied about the reason why. (He said that his voter registration did not allow him to choose independent. Copies of his voter registration slip show otherwise.) So, he lied once to pass himself as an impartial observer, and once to cover up his initial lie. As O'Reilly might say, "these facts are irrefutable!" Of course, when O'Reilly says it, it is usually a lie. Oh, and there's no such thing as a "traditionalist." O'Reilly made it up so he could keep the appearance of impartiality once he could no longer claim to be an independent. That might explain why he is, and always has been, a registered republican, not "traditionalist" or even independent.

Second, your deliberate mischaraterization of codas' comment is trite. He simply and obviously was referencing FOX's blatent tendancy to book democrats for it's programming to advance a clearly conservative agenda, as oppossed to selecting democrats for the purposes of reporting a story without bias. That brand of noble programming is reserved for real news networks.

Third, it is simply not true that average politicians on either side of the aisle "think everyone but them is stupid." Embarrasing conjecture like that is typically reserved for the arena of political pundits and blog postings. And, in that sense both republicans and demorats are broadly guilty of professing just that. Most notably I would site Ann Coulter and Michael Savage. Even more so than KO.

Sincerely,
Josh

Josh

Thanks.

Codas,

I've no problem with gay civil unions and anyone who had to "find out" that there are gays both out and in the closet who are Republican (or Democrat, etc) is the mental and emotional equivalent of a 7th grader.

The point is that you've used the issue of gay marriage to label Republicans as the party of those who don't want change, when you need look no farther than the past Democrat president Bill Clinton and the past Democrat presidential candidate, John Kerry, as well as the majority of the population, non-southerners included.

If you feel that both Kerry and Clinton feel otherwise about gay marriage in their heart of hearts, then you're going to have to include them among those who appeal to voters based upon the voter's prejudices.

So again, when you're setting forth with your cliches and general specious remarks about southerners, Republicans, etc.. you must include your own Democratic leaders when elucidating about the unenlightened...

I don't think O'Reilly has ever claimed that he doesn't vote and that this means he's "nonpolitical" because he doesn't have a horse in the race. Olbermann made that argument.

I don't think O'Reilly has ever claimed that he doesn't vote and that this means he's "nonpolitical" because he doesn't have a horse in the race. Olbermann made that argument.

Posted by: Cecelia at November 11, 2006 03:28 PM

Fox news has a horse in the race. The whole entity is a press secretary for the republicans. Fair and ballanced? Olbermann didn't hide his feelings for Bush. He didn't pretend to be impartial. O'Riely is a joke. A very rich and popular con.

Personally, I don't care if O'Reilly calls himself a Green Perotian Naderite Once Removed...just as I don't care that Chris Matthews is a Democrat and former Tip O'Neil staffer, that NBC News Chief Tim Russert is a former Mario Cuomo staffer, that Diane Sawyers once worked for Pres. Nixon, etc. What is important is that these people and these networks allow all views to air on their shows.

It's rather obtuse to make what is essentially a nonsensical point that Fox News in general, and Bill O'Reilly in particular, air the views of Democrats in order to promote Republicans?...when Countdown airs for weeks upon weeks before one Republican is allowed on the air and that overwhelmingly has been Republicans who are critical of the Administration rather that a Republican offering a conservative "take" on the issue or rebutting one of the myriad of charges Olbermann makes against the Party of the Administration.

Talk about straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel....your throat must ache, Josh.

Frankly Codas, being covertly biased AND allowing rebuttal on your show is a whole lot better than being overtly biased and allowing NONE.

But since it matters to you, Olbermann has indeed argued that he is impartial in a sense. He has called himself nonpolitical and has stated that he does not vote, and that this makes him more objective because he doesn't not have a candidate he is rooting for.

Countdown is one show. Fox has 24 hours of partisans saying they are fair and ballanced. Yes, you do get the other side represented by some of the poorer excuses for liberals you ever want to see. Olbermanns show was THE ONLY SHOW that I could hear a democrat talk without being talked over or have some ignorant pig like Hannity say how "shrill" the liberals are. Get almost any statement from Coulter and replace the word liberal with jew or negro and you can see how she associates them. It even goes to how Bush says the democrat party. It's the democratic party. More fun with twisting names.

http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:Ykx_lW2JPyUJ:www.ojr.org/ojr/stories/041130glaser/+olbermann,+non-political,+does+not+vote&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1

Here's Mr.Olbermann, declaring himself to be non-partisan and non-political.

"KO: I'm not political. I don't vote -- I don't believe journalists covering politics should (and I don't think the democracy would suffer if however many of us there are, recused ourselves). I have no more interest in the political outcome of an election than I did in the winner or loser of any ballgame I ever covered. I think transparency is vital; I think it's also, in these super-heated political times, unintentionally inescapable. If a reporter's work in turn winds up criticizing a candidate or party in some cases, and praising that same candidate or party in others, he's as close to neutral as he can be. If not, he's a partisan. The partisans outnumber the neutrals 1000:1."

"Relative to my being first, I think it's largely because I'm not a full-time political guy and not a partisan. "

"Relative to my being first, I think it's largely because I'm not a full-time political guy and not a partisan. "

Posted by: Cecelia at November 11, 2006 04:07 PM

Because someone is non partisan doesn't mean they are blind. Olbermann called out to people who should know better that they have a president who has "decided" that he alone, along with Cheney and Rove and Rumsfield should "decide" matters that were already decided by things like the constitution, the bill of rights and so forth. He said what a lot of Americans needed to hear. Some have already faced up to the fact that the republicans, led by Bush have carried this country down a dead end road. What is Limbaugh now saying? Now he doesn't have to carry water for those who don't deserve it. Lier and a hypocrite outright. Keith said it when it took guts to say it. If republicans now say the same things he said months ago they think they have integrity.

Olbermanns show was THE ONLY SHOW that I could hear a democrat talk without being talked over or have some ignorant pig like Hannity say how "shrill" the liberals are. Get almost any statement from Coulter and replace the word liberal with jew or negro and you can see how she associates them. It even goes to how Bush says the democrat party. It's the democratic party. More fun with twisting names.

Posted by: codas at November 11, 2006 04:06 PM

So now it's the whole of cable news shouting down Democrats?...huh, Codas...

Forgive me if I'm wrong but Democrats do appear on the show with Hannity and Alan Colmes is a Democrat too, is he not.

I'm not sure how Ann Coulter got into this, but I'm pretty sure that the next argument will be that Hannity shouts down Democrats and Colmes is a lousy Democrat or a Democrat who with too soft a voice...or whatever strawman you think of next to justify Olbermann not allowing political opponents on his show.

I'm not sure how Ann Coulter got into this, but I'm pretty sure that the next argument will be that Hannity shouts down Democrats and Colmes is a lousy Democrat or a Democrat who with too soft a voice...or whatever strawman you think of next to justify Olbermann not allowing political opponents on his show.

Posted by: Cecelia at November 11, 2006 04:20 PM

I don't have to justify Olbermann not having political opponents on his show. All I have to do is switch staions and I get Newt Ginrich, Ollie North, Dick Morris, Tom Delay treated like he was a great patriot or something. Even MSNBC has Scarborough and Tucker Carlson. I have been hearing republican talking points over and over for years now.

"Because someone is non partisan doesn't mean they are blind."

Who's arguing that? Olbermann argues that he's not a partisan and that this makes him more objective. Arguing too, nonsensically, that he doesn't vote and therefore this makes him more objective too.

But we both know Olbermann is a partisan, though he says otherwise. He doesn't just beat up on Bush, he beats up on Republicans in general. That's why you enjoy the show. I'd be fine with that too if he allowed one of them on the air to take him on. Certainly if he allowed a Bushie on the air to counter his charges. I'd be happy even if he tried to shout them down...

As far as Limbaugh goes, he wasn't agreeing with Keith. He was upset that Bush isn't conservative ENOUGH! That Bush was being TOO conciliatory in trying to reach out to the Dems in their feeling about Donald Rumsfeld and to the wishes of the voting public and therefore isn't as principled a conservative as he should be. Is that something Olbermann would argue, because ThAT would certainly be damned if you and damned if don't for Bush...

Now what strawman are you going to send up next? We've gone through Coulter, Hannity, and Limbaugh... who's next in order for you to avoid the point? Michelle Malkin?

As far as Limbaugh goes, he wasn't agreeing with Keith. He was upset that Bush isn't conservative ENOUGH! That Bush was being TOO conciliatory in trying to reach out to the Dems in their feeling about Donald Rumsfeld and to the wishes of the voting public and therefore isn't as principled a conservative as he should be.

Why didn't Limbaugh say how he felt before the election. And haven't we heard "Elections have consequenses" from republicans who were decieved into believing that they rules the world? Why does Limbaugh not think going along with the wishes of the voting public is principled. Because he is a hack. Like Hannity. Like O'reily. Like Coulter. Like the hack of a show that poses as a finacial show on Fox. The American public including conservatives spoke loud and clear, and if it was the other way I would be hearing how I am out of the mainstream and on and on.

By the way, the straw man is George Bush in case you haven't noticed.

Codas,

In other words you want a show that doesn't air the views of Republicans and doesn't allow them to answer the charges made against them. The mere fact that Republicans do appear with Democrats on other shows on all cable channels with various conservative and former staffers for Democratic pols hosts.... and that they are allowed to air their views with Democrats, is not a situation that you find just. You want a Republican-free zone.

Codas, regardless of how many Republicans appear on Fox or how respectfully they are treated.... Democrats are on air and voicing their opinions too. The only place you get the sort of one ideology/one-party only crypto partisan fest like YOU desire... is not with Fox, it's with Keith Olbermann.

But we knew that.

cecelia, why does every show have to be a debate? Cant the show be itself a point of view? How many times on Fox has there been 3 against 1. Their round table or whatever they call it with Chrystal and Barnes and Brit Hume and Krautenwhatshisname. It doesn't bother me. I know where they are coming from. I listen, sigh, laugh and then change the station to comedy central.

"Why does Limbaugh not think going along with the wishes of the voting public is principled. Because he is a hack. Like Hannity. Like O'reily. Like Coulter. Like the hack of a show that poses as a finacial show on Fox. The American public including conservatives spoke loud and clear, and if it was the other way I would be hearing how I am out of the mainstream and on and on."

So, I take it even you now see how bringing up Limbaugh as a means of arguing that Olbermann was "right" and therefore...objective... about Bush because Limbaugh now "agrees" with Olbermann is pretty idiotic of you.

Save yourself while their is a chance. Get off of the titanic. Bush was a rotten leader. Make all the excuses, point fingers everywhere, accuse, abuse,and amuse eachother all you want. Elections have consequences. Don't be so shrill. Don't be so out of the mainstrem.

So, I take it even you now see how bringing up Limbaugh as a means of arguing that Olbermann was "right" and therefore...objective... about Bush because Limbaugh now "agrees" with Olbermann is pretty idiotic of you.

Posted by: Cecelia at November 11, 2006 04:56 PM

Olbermann was right because he was right. The majority of the country agreed. Limbaugh has no credibility that I would compare to anyone I respect. I can't stand him, and I don't care what he says. I pointed it out only to expose him for the whore he is, not to justify anything Keith says.

Codas,

It's not enough that you reach for the nearest strawman whenever anyone calls you on your poorly thoughtout statements, you now are arguing with yourself in the same thread.

Although you've made the point that you're sick and tired of Republican talking points on cable channels and that Fox is heinously biased and that its hosts shout down all liberals NOW you're saying that this doesn't really bother you at all...

In other words...you've given up arguing that Fox News (with Limbaugh and Coulter thrown in for good measure) is so biased, and that other cable channels ...inexplicably ...allow conservatives on air.... so Olbermann is justified in providing you a republican-free zone...to arguing that Olbermann critics should just change the channel...

Well, then maybe you should change your channel from a site designed to critique Keith Olbermann....and quit wasting people's time with your endless strawmen and prevarications.

"I pointed it out only to expose him for the whore he is, not to justify anything Keith says."

Oh, please. You pointed him out in order to argue that Olbermann's views on Bush are objective because they are accurate and you tried to bolster your accuracy = objectivity notion by arguing that even Rush Limbaugh now argrees with Olbermann.

Of course you're incorrect on both counts, but I like the new...I merely wanted to condemn Limbaugh diversion...

Limbaugh is a slut for your fake hero. Olbermann was right. Limbaugh and fox and all the rest can bitch all they want, or twist the truth and say they are the real conservatives. This country handed over power to your leaders and they are sick of them. They lost. Not because of Keith, but because they are corrupted. If you want to find some good in them, great for you. I am not incorrect. Fox sucks. Olbermann told the truth. Deal with it cecelia. Your republican party was roundly and fairly thumped. And I am so fucking happy about it you cant imagine.

Codas,

So the Bush whores do bother you after all, huh....

So we've moved from you arguing from arguing that Fox News being biased so who cares if Olbermann is biased....to well, Fox lets Democrats on air but shouts them down....to Olbermann isn't biased ....to arguing that he isn't biased but accurate...to arguing that Olbermann is rightfully biased.... to arguing that other cable shows allow conservatives on and you want one conservative-free zone...

***to now arguing that it's okay for Olbermann to not allow alternative views on his show because Democrats ended up winning the House and Senate...

And we've thrown in Limbaugh as proof of Olbermann's non-bias, and Hannity and Ann Coulter for good measure....

That's a lot of work for you to justify your wanting a one-sided, one-party, one political view only crypto-liberal fest...that no other cable channel or news host but Olbermann is as biased and egocentric enough to provide....

Now go rest awhile, einstein...

oops...I left out the ...sure Olbermann is biased ...but Fox doesn't bother me... I merely laugh...ha ha ha ha...so why don't you just change the channel.... tract....

Forgive me, but like a bug in dish water, you drift so consistently, Codas, I'm bound to leave out one of your prevarications or two...

cecelia,

you seem very much to be reaching for anything. I will try to say it more clearly, Limbaugh is a pig. Fox gets on its knees to give head to its king everyday and it now has a sore ass to go along with a bad tast in its mouth.. Olbermann told the truth about bush. Plain and simple. There is no arguement. The lie of this self righeous bunch of greedy power hungry hacks at fox has been rejected. Bush has two more years. God help us until then.

"Your republican party was roundly and fairly thumped. And I am so fucking happy about it you cant imagine."

Codas....Codas...anybody who posts here could change to any party at anytime...

But you'll ALWAYS be stupid.

Codas, the only one reaching for anything in a discussion on whether it's right for Olbermann to allow conflicting views... is YOU.

But you'll ALWAYS be stupid.

Posted by: Cecelia at November 11, 2006 05:49 PM

May God bless you most abundantly cecelia.

May God bless you with the ability to think Codas.

May God bless you with the ability to think Codas.

Posted by: Cecelia at November 11, 2006 06:08 PM

He has.

Crash posted this on 11/10: "Sorry if this is a repeat, but did anyone see that Matthews outed Olbermann as a voter on Tuesday's election coverage? I guess good ole' Olbermann can't claim impartiality now."

I have long suspected Olby was lying his lying ass off about his not voting. See, he was called for jury duty last year. Juries are called from voter registration rolls and DMV records. So if Mr. Olbermann cannot drive, it had to be a voter roll they pulled his name from. Why his lunatic fans can't see his lying when it's on full display for them to see is beyond me. I guess just so long as he's spinning lies for MediaMatters and the DNC though they're perfectly happy with his dishonesty.

To Keith's a Fraud.

The fraud that has been played out on the American people for longer than any nightmare should has been exposed. You call Keith's fans lunatics while you support an administration that has started a war with a country that was no threat to our security and is still there almost 4 years later trying to figure what to do next. Sadam is gone. His sons are dead. Weapons, I know those weopons are around here somewhere. What are we doing there now? Lunatic? Your mirror smiles back at one.

You dare call Olbermann a liar when no weapons were found in Iraq!.... :D

It's a "right" to build technology that sabotogues someone's website site. It's their fault if they can't protect themselves from that...

Wow! Two primo examples of Olbyloon reasoning in one thread!

Look people, I know it's tough to take. And it took longer, a lot longer than I though to happen. Back in 94 a though well, when the country gets a full dose of the republicans they will never vote for one again. Bush came along and then 911 happened. Now it's over though. Make no mistake about it. It will be a long time before this country trust it's leadership to a bunch like the ones that have and still are running this country into the ground morally and financialy. Good ridance. Bye Bye. You can go back to doing what you do best now, not pretending to be able to lead. Play the victim game. Blame the media. Blame the seculraists. Attack from your moral high horse, don't let the fact that you have no moral ground to stand on stop you. Here's a clue. War is not the only solution to your problems. Go back to church and listen good to the scripture readings. Then pay little mind to the man or woman reading them, that's where the trouble starts.

We HAVE been doing what we do here.

The relevant question is-- how long will it take till you find it boring to go out finding opposition websites to gloat about the midterms elections?

We were sticking it to Olbermann long before the midterms and we'll be doing that long after you go your merry way...

But until then... canape?

We were sticking it to Olbermann long before the midterms and we'll be doing that long after you go your merry way...

Posted by: Cecelia at November 11, 2006 10:23 PM

But I've been here for so long now. I plan on staying until I can gloat about something else.

Cecelia, let me share (good liberal word for the new age) with you my analysis of codas.

He really believes that the Dems regaining control of both houses of congress makes HIM PERSONALLY a far better man than he was on 11/06. And he is, naturally, going to become upset when others don't recognize his new found intellectual brilliance and immediately kowtow to it.

Actually, at least with you, he did make an effort to use periods and mount an argument of sorts.

It put me in mind of Winston Churchill's dinner partner. She castigated Winston for being drunk. He replied that yes he was. However, he would be sober the next morning and she would still be ugly.

EVILLY AND STUPIDLY YOURS,

Janet Hawkins
AKA Grammie

Posting hate filled stupid drivel. Ask any KO fan!

Grammie says...
Cecelia, let me share (good liberal word for the new age) with you my analysis of codas.

He really believes that the Dems regaining control of both houses of congress makes HIM PERSONALLY a far better man than he was on 11/06.

codas says....
Wrong. It makes the Unoted States Of America a far better place to live.

Grammie says....
And he is, naturally, going to become upset when others don't recognize his new found intellectual brilliance and immediately kowtow to it.

Codas says...
Wrong. My new found intellectual brilliance is actually not new at all. It is only good common sense as a result of being raised by God fearing and hard working people.

Grammie says...
Actually, at least with you, he did make an effort to use periods and mount an argument of sorts.

It put me in mind of Winston Churchill's dinner partner. She castigated Winston for being drunk. He replied that yes he was. However, he would be sober the next morning and she would still be ugly.

Codas says...
It reminds me of an old saying...Don't shake the tree when the pears fall off themselves.

Codas, Codas is that really you? Hot damn, you owe me.

You answered point by point. I don't agree with all of your refutations but you mounted in some parts a reasoned and credible defense.

The common sense parents point was weak. No foundation for your version of common sense and most of us revere and love our parents.

I'm not sure I understand the pears. Should I be dodging them or shaking the tree?

Codas, if you could refrain from your outbursts of personal animus, think before you type and disassociate yourself from the sewer dwellers covered in slime I would enjoy a debate with you.

Think with your brain. Do not assume that all who disagree with you are brainwashed, evil, stupid or sexually perverted.

"Barkus is willing"

Janet Hawkins
AKA Grammie

Codas, I was mean and ugly to you. I shouldn't lash out at you because others are reprehensible.

You do sometimes go overboard. And you have never reprimanded any of them for invoking your name in the filth they spew. But you are so superior to many of the slimy perverts on this site I shouldn't respond to you as if you are a kindred spirit.

Janet Hawkins
AKA Grammie

"But I've been here for so long now. I plan on staying until I can gloat about something else."

No problem there. Stay and gloat forever. But can the implications that every counter point to you and Olbermann is a result of bad feelings over the recent election. If you've been here long, you know we were dissing Olbermann and Olberloonslong before Nov '06 and we'll joyfully continue long after.

Grammie, you're too kind....(to Codas). He doesn't mount arguments or directly answer points that have been raised. He regurgitates liberal memes and throws in a few references to Rush Limbaugh, while pirouetting a 360. The only direct point he ever makes is his all-purpose Republicans/conservatives/Bush/Bushies suck-- and he's perplexed when that doesn't halt all debate and discussion and satisfy every point for everyone else, as it has settled every nascent question and pondering in his little world.

Grammie, you're too kind....(to Codas). He doesn't mount arguments or directly answer points that have been raised. He regurgitates liberal memes and throws in a few references to Rush Limbaugh, while pirouetting a 360. The only direct point he ever makes is his all-purpose Republicans/conservatives/Bush/Bushies suck-- and he's perplexed when that doesn't halt all debate and discussion and satisfy every point for everyone else, as it has settled every nascent question and pondering in his little world.

Posted by: Cecelia at November 12, 2006 08:02 AM

I answered you directly. If you want to try to dissect my words like a prosecuter feel free. I am not on trial for disagreeing with your politics. If you disagree with mine, I will try to live with that. I hate to repeat myself but I will in case your not sure where I stand,

"you seem very much to be reaching for anything. I will try to say it more clearly, Limbaugh is a pig. Fox gets on its knees to give head to its king everyday and it now has a sore ass to go along with a bad tast in its mouth.. Olbermann told the truth about bush. Plain and simple. There is no argument. The lie of this self righeous bunch of greedy power hungry hacks at fox has been rejected. Bush has two more years. God help us until then."

Is there some pirouetting in that?

"Is there some pirouetting in that?"

Oh, it's all direct statements articulated in a way that reveals an adolescently smutty and simplistic closed mind, but it has NOTHING to do with a discussion on whether Olbermann is honest when he called himself non-political, or whether Countdown should allow political opponents on to air rebuttals and answer charges.

In other words, it's regrugitating liberal memes while substituting Fox News for ...Limbaugh..Colter...whoever the conservative pariah you can strawman at the moment...while pirouetting around the main topic.

Again--The only direct point he ever makes is his all-purpose Republicans/conservatives/Bush/Bushies suck-- and he's perplexed when that doesn't halt all debate and discussion and satisfy every point for everyone else, as it has settled every nascent question and pondering in his little world

Again--The only direct point he ever makes is his all-purpose Republicans/conservatives/Bush/Bushies suck-- and he's perplexed when that doesn't halt all debate and discussion and satisfy every point for everyone else, as it has settled every nascent question and pondering in his little world

Posted by: Cecelia at November 12, 2006 12:24 PM

I'm not perplexed by you at all. The only direct point you ever make is that you think I am stupid. Everything else is just looking for ways to put me on the defense about something I said. It must be lonely up their on that mountain of super smart people who have to put up with silly uneducated fools all around them. Try cheering up a little bit. And far be it from me to give advice to someone who is so clearly above me intelectually but maybe you can sometimes just take what someones says as their position on something and leave at that. You don't really have to twist a knife in their thoughts to make you feel you have won. The point sometimes is just that someone doesn't see it your way.

"The point sometimes is just that someone doesn't see it your way."

If you'll scroll up you'll see that this "someone" made several statements he tried to defend while dragging in Fox News and every conservative he could think of:

1. Olbermann never said he was nonpartial and Republicans suck.

He did and the link was provided where he said it.

Next!

2. Olbermann doesn't' have to be impartial because he's accurate and even Rush Limbaugh agrees with him...and Fox News sucks...

He didn't and our "someone" admitted as much in his next post...

The counterpoint that accuracy does not equal impartiality, was never addressed, of course.

Next!

3. Olbermann doesn't have to be impartial because our "someone" is sick and tired of mean ole conservative hosts and conservative talking points and wants the sort of one-sided republican-free zone that Olbermann provides...and Fox News sucks!

Well, that certainly makes him partian...and makes his show uniquely biased and that's the point isn't it....

Next!

4. Well, those mean ole conservative hosts don't' really bother me and I just laugh and change channels and why can't you do that....and conservatives suck!

So now the someone is arguing against what he just argued only minutes before...

Next!

5. Okay! Fox News and Bush suck! And Republicans... Republicans suck too...

Yeah, you're right Codas... you just innocently state your points and find yourself picked on when someone has the terimity to challenge them, especially when you keep digging yourself deeper and deeper.

"The only direct point you ever make is that you think I am stupid."

Read up, I met your halfway attempts at arguments point-by-point.

"...I am stupid."

As Christopher Hitchens said, "Now that's a fact."

"...I am stupid."

As Christopher Hitchens said, "Now that's a fact."

Posted by: Cecelia at November 12, 2006 01:09 PM

May God bless you most abundantly cecelia.