Krazy Keith.....We're #5!!!!

"What us Suck!"

Olby must have gotten a look at his horrendous Tuesday ratings - another Speshul Komment awaits on Thursday.

Go Senator Webb! What a breathe of fresh air!

"Go Senator Webb! What a breathe of fresh air!"

Even the parts where he says that elitist liberals have been waging war on white poor and middle class folks and other traditional institutions in the country?

Hmmmm?

I hope that bath water is warm. I bet he wears his tie.....and nothing else.

Johnny D:

It's like having a substitute teacher. You know she will be looking to you for a candid review.

It looks like she's reading straight from KO's script. No gravitas....not even for the lefties.

She did manage one Senator Macaca...Obviously, the alleged racial slur in some circles has not insulted her. It rolls off her tongue.

And know, the Prime Minister of Iraq has "blown off" the meeting.

It's really true that Olbyplanet exists.

L.F.

Would be interesting to see how Olbermann refers to Stewart in his e-mails.

As predicted once the election cycle was over and Nancy Disgrace was back from vacation KO numbers are back down..yep we're going to get another "Special Comment" soon.

No Ohboy, the part where he refused to role over for this president. You know, this president who has never earned the kind of respect he thinks he deserves.

God,, I am forced to watch Bill O.... It would be nice if some of Snoops' friends would use one of their guns on BO.

Typical O'lielly...calling for the assassination of a fellow American while claiming to support peace and "the troops" in his prior posts.

Olby's fall was expected, and it has nothing to do with Nancy Grace or the competition...it's what happens when you have the same "objective analysts" on night-after-night agreeing with the host about the same items that could have been read seven hours earlier on the DailyKos. It simply isn't compelling TV. I haven't watched in a week, but enjoy reading the reviews afterward!

"I cannot conjure up an ounce of respect for Bill Clinton when it comes to the military. Every time I see him salute a Marine, it infuriates me. I don't think Bill Clinton cares one iota about what happens in a military unit." JIM WEBB 1997

..of course that didn't stop him for using Bubba to raise money for him.

Yep mlong! I tend to believe that a very prominent Republican suggesting that we limit free speech might well merit a Special Comment.

Too bad KO is one of the only ones with guts enough to do it!

"No Ohboy, the part where he refused to role over for this president."

So you have no comment on Webb's scathing denunciations of liberals, denuciations that make what he did to Bush look trivial in comparison?

If you're going to invite someone to stay with you and break bread and let him stay in the master bedroom, make sure you know about all the luggage he'll be bringing.

You're going to be quite surprised about your new room mate.

" suggesting that we limit free speech"

How about prominent Democrats calling for limits of free speech on the radio?

Or calling for involuntary servitude to be instituted?

I guess KO will be doing special commentaries on those potential abridgements of freedom too?

Too bad KO is one of the only ones with guts enough to do it!
********************************************
If KO really has some guts why dosen't he invite Newt on to give his side?...Oh thats right KO never gives opposing views on his show...because the new "Murrow" is nothing but a COWARD whose afraid to debate the issues,

Ohboy:

There you go again labeling someone with the stereotypical image of "Liberals" and what you think Democrats are supposed to be all about. All I've got to say is you are wrong....again!

This "Democrat" voted for Bush in 2000, and boy am I ashamed of having been duped by this idiot. Al least I didn't repeat that mistake in 2004.

Who has the over/under for next Monday night for the next "Special Comment"?

"There you go again labeling someone with the stereotypical image of "Liberals" "

When did I label you a "liberal"?

I just asked you what you thought about Webb's denunciations of liberal attitudes toward white poor and middle class folks.

He's been quite scathing in his criticism of their "look down their noses" attitude.

Again, nowhere in my post did I label you a liberal (or anything else).

Me doth believe.....

mlong:

There YOU go again with your standard criticism of why KO doesn't invite this Conservative or that Neocon on to waste time in a token "Debate"! It's not that kind of a show and I for one, like it that way.

There are too many shows on the air with token debates on every issue. There is no reason why every show has to use the same tired format.

You are calling someone a "coward" because you think they are afraid to debate? How ridiculous. My standard of "coward" rises to a much higher standard than a stupid debate.

"It's not that kind of a show and I for one, like it that way."

It's not a news show? He's not a news anchor?

That's what MSNBC and he tells us. He says he has no agenda, he says he's a non-partisan, he says he an objective news anchor.

Isn't that true?

special comment....95% certainty either Mon or Tue latest....

You are calling someone a "coward" because you think they are afraid to debate? How ridiculous. My standard of "coward" rises to a much higher standard than a stupid debate.
*******************************************
Yes I am because if KO was a real "Murrow" he would want to have Newt on to ask him questions to give his viewers all sides of the issue to make an inform decision instead of a slanted one sided viewpoint stacked with cheapshots.

SayWhat:

If you have been reading my entries in this blog over the last couple of months, you would know that I could care less what MSNBC calls the show, or whether KO says he is partisan or not. Nitpicking like this only seems to be important to a few folks like you on this blog, so we keep having the same circular arguments about it.

I think viewers are smart enough to figure out what kind of a show they are watching.

By the way, a true news "anchor" doesn't debate issues either!

"special comment....95% certainty either Mon or Tue latest...."

On how Charlie Rangle wants to shred our liberties and freedoms and force Americans into Orwellian involuntary servitude?

Rangel is positively Nixonian and McCarthyite in his behavior. Who will rid us of this troublesome man!?

SayWhat:

If you have been reading my entries in this blog over the last couple of months, you would know that I could care less what MSNBC calls the show, or whether KO says he is partisan or not. Nitpicking like this only seems to be important to a few folks like you on this blog, so we keep having the same circular arguments about it.

I think viewers are smart enough to figure out what kind of a show they are watching.

By the way, a true news "anchor" doesn't debate issues either!

KOCrapola:

I think it is obvious that Rangel was just trying to make a "point" with his "draft" proposal. You DO kjnow what that point was, don't you?

I think viewers are smart enough to figure out what kind of a show they are watching.
************************************
As KO ratings prove.

By the way, a true news "anchor" doesn't debate issues either!
******************************************
Yes the "news anchors" on ABC,CBS,NBC,CNN and MSNBC have all proven themselves just to be part of the media wing of the DNC giving out left wing talking points everynight.

God,, I am forced to watch Bill O.... It would be nice if some of Snoops' friends would use one of their guns on BO.

O'lielly's gone "Coulter" on us. He should come up with his own schtick.

mlong:

So you think everybody but Fox is part of this left wing conspiracy?

All I can say is that you really are an extreme right wing extremist if thats what you think.

And, once again, a true "news anchor" would simply report the news in a manner so unbiased that it would be almost impossible to tell where he stands personally.

"You DO kjnow what that point was, don't you?"

Yep, he's trying to undermine our war efforts and garner political advantage.

If he's really concerned about the children of the wealthy not having to serve he would have been denouncing universities that ban military recruitment on campus.

Right?

We want the sons and daughters of the rich and powrerful to serve. Let's allow the military to recruit them on campus. And let's stop ridiculing those that serve in the military as chumps or losers, too.

A good way to get a more representative military is to not denigrate that institution.

KOCrapola:

And you saw today with the Webb slapdown what can happen when the son of a rich and powerfull politician actually does serve. It gets a little more personal, doesn't it?

Did you know that polling shows that the typical 20 something could pretty much care less what is happening in Iraq? There is something very wrong with that picture.

When I was in high school in the mid 60's, most of us saw this huge obstacle called Vietnam looming in front of us. We truly did not know if we would ever make it past that roadblock.

And you know what, Vietnam didn't even have to happen, just like Iraq!

Mike,

You tell me "what has to happen" to deal with the "War on Terror". Just pretend that it is Sept. 12, 2001. What would you have your country do? What is the objective? What is the strategery[sic]? Don't mention "Bush" or "Iraq" or I will laugh at you. It's Sept. 12, remember.
I would love to hear your plans.

Rico:

Your answers to your question is so easy to answer I am wondering if you are trying to set some kind of a verbal "trap".

OK. I'll bite: We did do the right thing right up until we started to turn undue attention away from afghanistan and AL Queda. The focus should have remained on Afghanistan to insure it's future and more pressure should have been applied to Pakistan and the Mountain border region in pursuit of you know who.

In addition, we should have put more focus on our own borders and ports. Did you know that we are STILL only inspecting 5 - 10% of incoming containers. That should scare you a little, if nothing else does.

I know that according to your rules, I'm not supposed to mention Iraq, but we had them in a box...we could have kept them there without invading them.

Mike,

Thank you for your response. We will get to Iraq soon enough. But now I have questions based upon your response.

When does victory happen?

When do 75 year old grandmothers and 5 year old girls get to stop getting felt up at the airport by the security people when they want to fly somewhere?

Mike:
"Did you know that polling shows that the typical 20 something could pretty much care less what is happening in Iraq? There is something very wrong with that picture. "

Who's to blame for that, Bush? Hell, the typical 20 something doesn't know a single Supreme Court Justice either. Or who Nancy Pelosi is. Or a hundred other simple questions.

Anyway, sorry that's not much of a response to my question. Where has Rangel been for the past two decades when we've seen military recruiters being banned from campuses and the American military characterized by those campus elites in such scathing terms?

One good way to get a more representative military is for we as a nation not to hold those who serve in the military as some sort of losers. Or that a career in the military isn't a noble calling.

Why didn't Rangel call for a draft in the 1990s when Mr. Clinton was sending troops on a thousand-and-one missions?

The dog that didn't bark.

Here is Mike's defense of Orange Boy's refusal to bring on guests who have viewpoints that differ from his own:

"There are too many shows on the air with token debates on every issue. There is no reason why every show has to use the same tired format.
You are calling someone a "coward" because you think they are afraid to debate? How ridiculous. My standard of "coward" rises to a much higher standard than a stupid debate."

Mike thinks Olbermann's one sided cheerleading for the left fringe is preferable to a show that gives both sides a chance to weigh in because:

1) Shows that allow opposing views (that is to say every other show of this kind EXCEPT Meltdown) engage in debates that are merely "token".

2) The format that allows both sides to weigh in is a "tired format".

3) Debates are "stupid"

Mike, I will concede that discussions in which there are two persons on opposite sides of an issue that last only for several minutes rarely allow for the complete exploration of an issue. But, the value in having a representative speaking for each side is that each can act as a "check" on the other if a misrepresentation is made. In the format favored by Orange Boy, he is free to misrepresent "facts". The "no dissenters allowed" policy encourages sloppy research (or no research at all except pulling stories off the blue blogs). Olby knows he will never be challenged so he does not have to make any effort to get it right. Is that really the kind of format you think makes for better journalism? This type of show is not "edgier" or "hipper". It is "shittier".

2) If the traditional "debate" format is "tired", the viewing public doesn't seem to be getting tired of it. Just check the ratings for the highest rated shows on cable tv.

3) If shows with debate formats are "stupid", then Orange Boy's nightly circle jerk with all his sycophant guests is stupider. As for whether Orange Boy is a coward? Orange Boy himself has said the debate format makes him "queasy". I think your Orange hero's own words speak for themselves.

"Where has Rangel been for the past two decades when we've seen military recruiters being banned from campuses and the American military characterized by those campus elites in such scathing terms?"

Um, because the military had been downsizing (remember the "leaner and meaner" military) and, with no wars to fight, there was no need for a large standing army.

"Why didn't Rangel call for a draft in the 1990s when Mr. Clinton was sending troops on a thousand-and-one missions?"

Because most (if not all) of the "thousand-and-one" missions didn't require occupying territory for large periods of time.

"Um, because the military had been downsizing (remember the "leaner and meaner" military) and, with no wars to fight, there was no need for a large standing army."

He's only concerned about the makeup of the military when it's "large"?

Which, of course, makes no sense. Because if we have a "large" army, we don't need a draft or need additional troops.

So, the principle that we need the sons and daughters of the wealthy to serve only applies when the military is "large"? Some principle.

"Because most (if not all) of the "thousand-and-one" missions didn't require occupying territory for large periods of time."

So, if the danger is only for a short period, we don't need to have a military that represents the country at large?

How do we know if a mission will be short term? Aren't we still in Bosnia/Serbia?

Sorry, this is not much of a defense of Rangel's "principles".

test post

Test post