Olbermann Watch - MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann: COUNTDOWN WITH KEITH OLBERMAN

Olbermann Watch, "persecuting" Keith since 2004

November 30, 2006

COUNTDOWN WITH KEITH OLBERMAN - NOVEMBER 30, 2006

"COUNTDOWN WITH KEITH OLBERMAN" (8:00 P.M.-9:00 P.M. ET)

Host: Keith Olberman

Topics/Guests:

BUSH AND MALIKI: Chris Cillizza, Washington Post
RIGHT-WING HATE MACHINE: Joe Trippi, Democrat political strategist

Tonight was a night for fear and scare tactics. Only it was Krazy Keith's turn to play the fear card, and wallow in his own self-indulgent scare tactics. The snake-oil salesman of cable news barked the headlines in his best carnival pitchman style: "Mister" Bush & Maliki, the "right-wing goes ape" over Danny DeVito, the "fascism" of News Gingrich [plug 1 for the latest Speshul Komment], Russian spy radiation poisoning, and Shamu.

Kicking off The Hour of Spin proper from LA, the infamous, deplorable Keith Olberman wove a tale about the leaked Maliki memo. "Entire passages of that document" sound like criticism of "Mister" Bush, declaimed Edward R Olberman. Krazy Keith intro'd Cillizza by talking about the delay in the Bush/Maliki meeting as "symbolism". ("Metaphor" had the night off.) KO was irritated that "Mister" Bush was "waving off" ideas leaked by the Baker Commission, but Cillizza said "pragmatism" will ultimately take over. He also eagerly adopted KO's notion about the Maliki memo really describing Bush, and ergo got great thanksed.

A recycled NBC report on the Baker Commission led "Fat Ass" Olberman to great thanks the unspooling tape, plus teases for another O'Reilly attack, the "right-wing attack machine", and the S.K.. The deranged one returned to go after "right-wing commentators" who were "grasping at straws". Attack #135 was on Bill O'Reilly for daring to criticize Danny DeVito. As an impartial analyst for all this right-wing eeevil, Mr Merkle brought in a political strategist. And, by golly, what a surprise, it just turned out to be a Democrat political strategist. What a coincidence (see: The List)!

It wasn't enough for Olby to attack Mr Bill, he also went after those who made criticisms of Nancy Pelosi (with defenses lifted almost verbatim from ThinkProgress, sans acknowledgement), Barack Obama, and others. Joe Trippi was happy to join in the nonpartisan analysis of the pathetic, contemptible, and always eeevil right-wingers, who will "pay the price". No surprise that he was great thanksed.

After another Pulitzer-nominated dose of oddball (which incorporated O'Reilly attack #136) and more plugs for the S.K., came the Russian poisoning cases. The story was relegated to more rerun video from NBC, and followed by more teases for the S.K. Next: more regurgitated reporting from the network mothership (the eeevil right-wing terrorist whale, Shamu), an alligator who was inspired to attack a naked man by the hate speech of Ann Coulter, The Wiggles, Anna Nicole Smith's uterus, a plug for (what else?) the Speshul Comment.

In the Media Matters Minute, Monkeyman went after all those who dared disagree with Bob Wright, the plastics tycoon, about the Iraq civil war. Rodger Hedgecock (conservative), O'Reilly (Fox, and attack #137--three in one show, an Hour of Spin record!), and "bozo" Brent Bozell (conservative). This last was especially brainless, criticizing the BB-gun for saying generals in the field don't agree with the "civil war" term by quoting some who have said Iraq could be headed to a civil war. Hey Dopeyman, that's exactly Bozell's point. Heading for something is not the same thing as being there. Olby may be headed toward certifiable lunacy; that doesn't mean he's already safely ensconced in Bellevue.

Finally, held for the last possible Nielsen minute, the Speshul Komment [see APPENDIX below]. It had everything--carefully scripted dramatic head bobs, bouncing eyebrows, stentorian tones, and a fistful of supercilious arrogance. Everything except the usual target. No, Rev Olberman didn't go after "Mister" Bush this time. You'll recall how he recently said that with the Dems in power, he might go after them? Silly rabbit. That just doesn't happen on OlbyPlanet. Instead, he turned his wrath on Newt Gingrich, a man who holds no office and weilds no power. A man whom the coward won't even talk to first-hand, preferring instead to smear from afar. Keith "Man on Fan" Olberman painted a paranoid picture of incipient fascism and totalitarianism, Olby's very own playing of the fear card, based on a few words of someone he's too cowardly to face. He had the nerve to pontificate:

I will awaken every day of my life thankful that you are entitled to tell me about it.

You ain't kidding nobody, Monkeyman. The last thing in the world you would ever want is to have Mr Gingrich sitting across from you on the Countdown set. You might actually learn something about what he is proposing, and possibly, maybe, even understand it better. But that will never happen, will it, Mister Olbermann, Sir?!?

Silent Schnauzers: The Pope in Turkey? Not news. The Secretary of State in the Middle East? Not news. Consumer spending up? Not news. The discredited sports guy has pounded everyone from Michelle Malkin to an ex-girlfriend who dumped him for words that "encourage" or "inspire" violence. It should surprise no one that he has been completely silent about James Webb talking about punching George Bush in the face. It's one thing to give tons of free publicity to the agenda of Congressional Democrats, but it's quite another to tell when the Dems reject one of the key 9/11 commission proposals that they claimed they would implement. Nothing from Herr Olberman about the American Taliban guilty plea. You'll recall he made a big story of "flying while Muslim", but continues to spike the new information that continues to emerge. And still KO refuses to tell his viewers how Jack Abramoff has pointed the finger of corruption at none other than Sen Harry Reid.

~~Olbermann's book~~ The book that bears Olberman's name plunged to #511 at amazon, while Mr Bill's "Culture Warrior" has risen to #13. At Barnes & Noble the OlbyTome languishes at #1,647, while O'Reilly's book is back up to #17. And nine weeks since it hit the stores, Mr Bill's literary triumph is still #3 on the New York Times Best Sellers list. The Tuesday night ratings were a humiliating embarrassment for Citizen Keith. According to Mr Nielsen, KO circled the drain in a miserable fifth place. Krazy Keith lost to The Factor, Paula Zahn, Nancy Grace, and even a rerun of Deal or No Deal, both in total viewers and in the critical, beloved, all-important, coveted "key demo". Tonight's MisterMeter reading: 5 [ELEVATED]

APPENDIX: The Speshul Komment

Here, as promised, a special comment about free speech, failed speakers and the delusion of grandeur.

"This is a serious long-term war," the man at the podium cried, "and it will inevitably lead us to want to know what is said in every suspect place in the country."

Some in the audience must have thought they were hearing an arsonist give the keynote address at a convention of firefighters.

This was the annual Loeb First Amendment Dinner in Manchester, N.H. -- a public cherishing of freedom of speech -- in the state with the two-fisted motto "Live Free Or Die."

And the arsonist at the microphone, the former speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, was insisting that we must attach an "on-off button" to free speech.

He offered the time-tested excuse trotted out by our demagogues since even before the Republic was founded: widespread death, of Americans, in America, possibly at the hands of Americans.

But updated, now, to include terrorists using the Internet for recruitment. End result -- "losing a city."

The colonial English defended their repression with words like these.

And so did the slave states.

And so did the policemen who shot strikers.

And so did Lindbergh's America First crowd.

And so did those who interned Japanese-Americans.

And so did those behind the Red Scare.

And so did Nixon's plumbers.

The genuine proportion of the threat is always irrelevant.

The fear the threat is exploited to create becomes the only reality.

"We will adopt rules of engagement that use every technology we can find," Mr. Gingrich continued about terrorists, formerly communists, formerly hippies, formerly Fifth Columnists, formerly anarchists, formerly Redcoats, "to break up their capacity to use the Internet, to break up their capacity to use free speech."

Mr. Gingrich, the British "broke up our capacity to use free speech" in the 1770s.

The pro-slavery leaders "broke up our capacity to use free speech" in the 1850s.

The FBI and CIA "broke up our capacity to use free speech" in the 1960s.

It is in those groups where you would have found your kindred spirits, Mr. Gingrich.

Those who had no faith in freedom, no faith in this country, and, ultimately, no faith even in the strength of their own ideas, to stand up on their own legs without having the playing field tilted entirely to their benefit.

"It will lead us to learn," Gingrich continued, "how to close down every Web site that is dangerous, and it will lead us to a very severe approach to people who advocate the killing of Americans and advocate the use of nuclear and biological weapons."

That we have always had "a very severe approach" to these people is insufficient for Mr. Gingrich's ends.

He wants to somehow ban the idea.

Even though everyone who has ever protested a movie or a piece of music or a book has learned the same lesson:

Try to suppress it, and you only validate it.

Make it illegal, and you make it the subject of curiosity.

Say it cannot be said, and it will instead be screamed.

And on top of the thundering danger in his eagerness to sell out freedom of speech, there is a sadder sound, still -- the tinny crash of a garbage can lid on a sidewalk.

Whatever dreams of Internet censorship float like a miasma in Mr. Gingrich's personal swamp, whatever hopes he has of an Iron Firewall, the simple fact is, technically they won't work.

As of tomorrow they will have been defeated by a free computer download.

Mere hours after Gingrich's speech in New Hampshire, the University of Toronto announced it had come up with a program called Psiphon to liberate those in countries in which the Internet is regulated.

Places like China and Iran, where political ideas are so barren, and political leaders so desperate that they put up computer firewalls to keep thought and freedom out.

The Psiphon device is a relay of sorts that can surreptitiously link a computer user in an imprisoned country to another in a free one.

The Chinese think the wall works, yet the ideas -- good ideas, bad ideas, indifferent ideas -- pass through anyway.

The same way the Soviet bloc was defeated by the images of Western material bounty.

If your hopes of thought control can be defeated, Mr. Gingrich, merely by one computer whiz staying up an extra half hour and devising a new "firewall hop," what is all this apocalyptic hyperbole for?

[insert dramatic look downward to nonexistent notes here]

"I further think," you said in Manchester, "we should propose a Geneva convention for fighting terrorism, which makes very clear that those who would fight outside the rules of law, those who would use weapons of mass destruction, and those who would target civilians are in fact subject to a totally different set of rules, that allow us to protect civilization by defeating barbarism..."

Well, Mr. Gingrich, what is more "massively destructive" than trying to get us to give you our freedom?

And what is someone seeking to hamstring the First Amendment doing, if not "fighting outside the rules of law"?

And what is the suppression of knowledge and freedom, if not "barbarism"?

The explanation, of course, is in one last quote from Mr. Gingrich from New Hampshire and another from last week.

"I want to suggest to you," he said about these Internet restrictions, "that we right now should be impaneling people to look seriously at a level of supervision that we would never dream of if it weren't for the scale of the threat."

And who should those "impaneled" people be?

Funny I should ask, isn't it, Mr. Gingrich?

[insert dramatic look downward to nonexistent notes here]

"I am not 'running' for president," you told a reporter from Fortune Magazine. "I am seeking to create a movement to win the future by offering a series of solutions so compelling that if the American people say I have to be president, it will happen."

Newt Gingrich sees in terrorism, not something to be exterminated, but something to be exploited.

It's his golden opportunity, isn't it?

"Rallying a nation," you might say, "to hysteria, to sweep us up into the White House with powers that will make martial law seem like anarchy."

That's from the original version of the movie "The Manchurian Candidate" -- the chilling words of Angela Lansbury's character, as she first promises to sell her country to the Chinese and Russians, then reveals she'll double-cross them and keep all the power herself, waving the flag every time she subjugates another freedom.

[look up from nonexistent notes here]

Within the frame of our experience as a free and freely argumentative people, it is almost impossible to conceive that there are those among us who might approach the kind of animal wildness of fiction like that -- those who would willingly transform our beloved country into something false and terrible.

Who among us can look to our own histories, or those of our ancestors who struggled to get here, or who struggled to get freedom after they were forced here, and not tear up when we read Frederick Douglass's words from a century and a half ago?: "Freedom must take the day."

And who among us can look to our collective history and not see its turning points -- like the Civil War, like Watergate, like the Revolution itself -- in which the right idea defeated the wrong idea on the battlefield that is the marketplace of ideas?

But apparently there are some of us who cannot see that the only future for America is one that cherishes the freedoms won in the past, one in which we vanquish bad ideas with better ones, and in which we fight for liberty by having more liberty, not less.

"I am seeking to create a movement to win the future by offering a series of solutions so compelling that if the American people say I have to be president, it will happen."

What a dark place your world must be, Mr. Gingrich, where the way to save America is to destroy America.

I will awaken every day of my life thankful I am not with you in that dark place.

And I will awaken every day of my life thankful that you are entitled to tell me about it.

And that you are entitled to show me what an evil idea it represents and what a cynical mind.

And that you are entitled to do all that, thanks to the very freedoms you seek to suffocate.

Posted by johnny dollar | Permalink | Comments (181) | | View blog reactions

181 Comments

By Keith's a Fraud on November 30, 2006 8:08 PM

Ratings in the toilet? Time to pull a "Special Comment" out of his ample ass. Predictable isn't he? Right down to the dramatic turn towards Camera 3, the shifting of the eyes dramatically up from his paper (like he doesn't have a teleprompter?) and at the camera and the mock outrage. It's called ACTING people.

By Edward Schatz on November 30, 2006 8:14 PM

And he goes after O'Reilly right off the bat. Shocking.

By Anonymous on November 30, 2006 8:14 PM

Has the right wing run out of ammo? Give them some of yours, Olby. Oh, I forgot - you're shooting blanks, KO.

By Anonymous on November 30, 2006 8:20 PM

Only Olby and Joe Trippi would glorify Danny DeVito's drunken, obscene rant on national television. Stay classy, fellas.

Well, it did kind of sound like one of Olby's rambling, incoherent Speshul Comments.

By Brandon on November 30, 2006 8:26 PM

please, DeVito was drunk. There is NO apologizing for that. Except in Olby-world.

By JohnE on November 30, 2006 8:28 PM

DeVito... slurring truth to power!!

By Bill O'lielly on November 30, 2006 8:29 PM

Obscene ? please 3K dead and thousands more hurt is far more obscene. But, we stand to gain from that.. we must win... What is it that we will win ?

Come on rightwingers.. sign up to fight.. then die.

By Anonymous on November 30, 2006 8:30 PM

And he was stinking drunk on one of the highest-rated daytime shows. Niiiice. Very classy.

By Jay Williams on November 30, 2006 8:31 PM

"Shooting blanks" (in more ways than one)!!!

My prediction for tonight's "WPITW" is BO'R will make nomination for the 3rd time this week to compensate for Keef's abscence yesterday.

By Bill O'lielly on November 30, 2006 8:31 PM

Why should anyone apoligize for being drunk, hell if that was a reason for shame Christopher Hidgens would never leave the house.

By Bill O'lielly on November 30, 2006 8:33 PM

Hitchens ? What is that drunk English blokes name ?

By Edward Schatz on November 30, 2006 8:34 PM

When has Hitchens been drunk on TV?

By Little Feechie on November 30, 2006 8:37 PM

Special Comment is the Quintessential "Citizen Keith." Defender of the people...speaking for the commoner...protecting OUR interests. A Great American....A Great Man.

He's making a difference as he declares his points of view, his principles.

The turn to Camera 3. Very Dramatic. He's thinking about the DVD aftermarket. 20 years from now on a Time Life Infomercial.

Olbyganda at it's finest.

By Bill O'lielly on November 30, 2006 8:37 PM

Watch him on the replays of Bill Maher's show on HBO.. it is available through In Demand.

By mlong on November 30, 2006 8:38 PM

Hitchens ? What is that drunk English blokes name ?
*************************************************
I think O'lielly been hitting a few.

By Bill O'lielly on November 30, 2006 8:39 PM

Mlong.. Nope I do not drink... I smoke pot,, but I am sober as can be right now, but I am not happy about it.

By Bill O'lielly on November 30, 2006 8:41 PM

Bernie Goldberg.. another self hating jew.. so sad,,, Prager, Medved and Goldberg. Drive all of them out of the tribe.

By JohnE on November 30, 2006 8:41 PM

Dooooooooooooooooooooooooooood!

By Little Feechie on November 30, 2006 8:47 PM

Monkeymann must hate kids...His venom towards the lead wiggle was despicable.

By Anonymous on November 30, 2006 8:48 PM

Olby still can't let go of Puff, the Magic Dragon. BOR is again Worser Person in the World. Olby, you're a liar and a loser.

By Bill O'lielly on November 30, 2006 8:50 PM

8 minutes of truth coming up after the commercial break, praise Keith.. We speak your name...

By Little Feechie on November 30, 2006 8:52 PM

love the Newt pictures....worst possible pictures of the man.

By Little Feechie on November 30, 2006 8:54 PM

What a pussy KO is...why don't you invite Newt to Olbyplanet?

He'd rip you to shreds.

By Anonymous on November 30, 2006 8:55 PM

To the left wing moron who said he wanted "right wingers" to "sign up and die", given that the military in the 2004 election went about 5 to 1 for Bush, and even in the 2006 election went for Republican candidates by something close to a 4 to 1 margin, it would appear that "right wingers" are the ones doing the fighting and dying.

Here;s an idea you left wing scumbag, why don't you root for America for a change? About the only good thing about the Islamofacists ultimately winning this global conflagration would be watching them butcher the useful idiot left.

By Sgt. Hulka on November 30, 2006 8:55 PM

By Sgt. Hulka on November 30, 2006 8:56 PM

By Little Feechie on November 30, 2006 8:58 PM

What a loon...

By Little Feechie on November 30, 2006 9:01 PM

No camera 3 tonight...he must be reading this blog...

Scarborough eating up the lead-in audience.
Whoring his once conservative values.

By AWOLbUSH on November 30, 2006 9:03 PM

The ReichWing Fascists and Freedom haters of the GOP have a new hero.

Newt The Free speech hating Fascist!

Consorship is free speech!

Burn books!

Tap phones!

another KO from KO

By Mike on November 30, 2006 9:08 PM

Little Freechie:

So standing up for free speech and criticizing a president who has totally lost touch with reality is "whoring your once conservative values"?

Amazing!

By Brandon on November 30, 2006 9:10 PM

So when is this all going to happen? Talk about fear-mongering. Seems that's going to be Olby's new tactics. And why? Because he's afraid of his own ratings, that's what's really terrifying him.

By Anonymous on November 30, 2006 9:11 PM

this left wingnut scumbag olbermann loves to defend the rights of terrorists and those who would do America harm. Gingrich has more intelligence in his little finger than douche bag olbermann has in his small liberal brain.
and then you have a--holes like this O'leilly cocksucker who yesterday called for some dope head monkeys to shoot a FOX news reporter.
To what depths will the left wing progressives or liberals or whatever they are calling ehmselves today go down to to turn America into the cesspool they so ardently desire.
Olbermann is an enemy of this country. Liberals are an enemy of this country. These are the same cocksuckers who will cry out the loudest that Bush did not do enough when we are attacked again.

By Anonymous on November 30, 2006 9:13 PM

Did Krazy Keith USE fear to forward a leftwing agenda?
Because I thought only the evil Republicans used fear fear tactics???

By AWOLbUSH on November 30, 2006 9:14 PM

Poor Bob Cocks! He thought he was going to be able to parlay his brief mention in KO's article into more hits.

The shows been over for 15 minutes and there are only 29 posts ! LOL ! Out of the 300,000 plus who watched.

A post about a broken shoelace would get more comments on FreakRepugnic or DU.

Olbywatch, just like ChimpenHawk-in-chief Bush = Miserable Failures!

LOOOOOOOOOOOOSERS!

By Bill O'lielly on November 30, 2006 9:15 PM

Anon 9.11,,,please do us a favor... Die.

By robny on November 30, 2006 9:15 PM

Yawn. It's only Keith Olderman.

By brandon on November 30, 2006 9:16 PM

This site still has more hits than ANY of the Olbermann fan sites. Most websites will kill to get the traffic that Owatch does. And you're the loser here if you believe that Olbermannc ares about his fans or the loony left, he's using you to get ratings, much as a pimp would use a whore.

By Kurt Kissel on November 30, 2006 9:19 PM

I fail to understand what the value of having Newt on the show would be. Newt runs in front of any camera he can find, and the airways are inundated by his dangerous drivel. Mr. Olbermann is using his show as he should: to remind us that a Newt who is trying to re-emerge as a credible voice is anything but that and to underscore that Newt's ideas strike a dagger deep into the American soul. To be sure, I think Mr. Olbermann could add an important element to his show by including articulate, reasonable and true conservatives. But to lavish yet another media opportunity on a looney reprobate serves no purpose. Newt and people of his tribe like Morris and Bennet are more-suited to FIX. Mr. Olbermann and someone like Ms. Noonan or Mr. Will would be a wondrous offering.

By Mike on November 30, 2006 9:23 PM

Scarborough is wound up tonight. I just can't quite figure out where he stands.

By Anonymous on November 30, 2006 9:25 PM

awolbush you sound like another liberal cocksucker who is so much of a loser that he has to post on this site to defend his hero the paranoid olby. better be careful awolbush the evil righties are out to get you .
maybe you and the O'lielly cocksucker should get together and vist you hero and you could all whine and snivel together. yeah a broken shoe lace would get more coverage on some a--hole liberal blog because of course it would be Bush's fault wouln't it?

By Belinda Reveles on November 30, 2006 9:25 PM

Phil Gramm and Newt Gingrich in 2008!

By Belinda Reveles on November 30, 2006 9:26 PM

Phil Gramm and Newt Gingrich in 2008!

By Anonymous on November 30, 2006 9:28 PM

actually I prefer Gingrich for president with Rick Santorum for VP. we nned srtong brilliant leader to stop the stupid commie leftists.

By Rob on November 30, 2006 9:29 PM

Wow..you know you've made it (i.e. correct) when you become the topic of a Special Comment. I didn't even like Newt until now. Thanks Keith!

By Anonymous on November 30, 2006 9:31 PM

Belinda:

So you LIKE the idea of limiting free speech and trashing the constitution! If thats the case, no need to worry about terrorists...they will have won without firing a shot.

By Anonymous on November 30, 2006 9:31 PM

hey O'leilly 9:15 brilliant comeback you little cocksucker! do you write for olbermann's comedy show?

By brandon on November 30, 2006 9:33 PM

Scarborugh is whoring himself out to the left to get ratings. Check your self-respect at the door there did you Joe?

By Rico on November 30, 2006 9:36 PM

Mike,

Your plan for the "War on Terror" treats it as merely a job for LE(law enforcement). Are you saying it isn't really a war?

By Kurt Kissel on November 30, 2006 9:38 PM

Which one is the strong, brilliant leader? The serial divorcee/child support evader who was such a radical right wing ideolgue that even the Republicans had to get rid of him, or the incumbent rubber stamp Senator who sees illusory WMD's and scarcely cracks 40% in a two (2) man race? I think the Republicans ought to do it. Happy Days Will Be Here Again, to Stay.

By Anonymous on November 30, 2006 9:38 PM

So you LIKE the idea of limiting free speech and trashing the constitution! If thats the case, no need to worry about terrorists...they will have won without firing a shot.

Posted by: Anonymous at November 30, 2006 09:31 PM

yeah the liberal anti gunners have been trying to trash the second ammendment for 40 years " for our saftey" of course.
when conservatives try to stop terrorists it's
a f---ing constitutional apocolypse but when liberal scumbags try to make the second ammnendment illegal it's for "the public safety" right.?

By Ohboy on November 30, 2006 9:42 PM

Does anyone really know what limits Gingrich was talking about?

Ferris?

I'm agnostic. So is Olbermann because he didn't mention any.

I think it would have been an interesting segment to have Professor Turley and Gingrich discuss the issue.

But in Olbermannland, having guests with views he doesn't agree with is a no-no.

If this is the future of news reporting (as Abrams claims), we need to teach the next generation of reporters that things such as objectivity, balance, fairness and accuracy are passe.

By Anonymous on November 30, 2006 9:44 PM

Poor Bob Cocks! He thought he was going to be able to parlay his brief mention in KO's article into more hits.

The shows been over for 15 minutes and there are only 29 posts ! LOL ! Out of the 300,000 plus who watched.

A post about a broken shoelace would get more comments on FreakRepugnic or DU.

Olbywatch, just like ChimpenHawk-in-chief Bush = Miserable Failures!

LOOOOOOOOOOOOSERS!

Posted by: AWOLbUSH at November 30, 2006 09:14 PM

Boy,

It's obvious, this guy is Mensa calibur>

By mlong on November 30, 2006 9:44 PM

As someone concern about "freedom of speach" I'm surprised KO didn't also go after Jesse Jackson who wants to make use of the word nigger illegal...of course I'm not surprised in KO's world its ok for the left to censor speech like threating to bring back the "fairness doctrine" to attempt to silence right-wing radio host like Limbaugh and Hannity because Air America tanked in the ratings.

By Sir Loin of Beef on November 30, 2006 9:45 PM

"Scarborugh is whoring himself out to the left to get ratings. Check your self-respect at the door there did you Joe?"

I agree completely with Brandon. Scarborough doesn't believe his new anti-Bush/anti-war position than he did the reactionary bullshit he peddled before. "Whoring" comes naturally to Free-Market fundamentalists.

By Anonymous on November 30, 2006 9:46 PM

olbermann could NEVER debate anybody like Gingrich because he would get his stupid liberal ass handed to him.
olbermann is the original chickenshit liberal.

By Mike on November 30, 2006 9:47 PM

Rico! Hello!

We got cut off by a site posting failure last night...and it was just getting interesting.

Thank you for being one of the few posters from the right who don't load up their posts with cuss words and insults!

If your talking about Iraq? It's definitely a civil 'war'. If you are talking about the "war on terror", it certinly is not a war in the traditional sense of the word.

By Kurt Kissel on November 30, 2006 9:49 PM

If using crude language and slaughtering the English language were signs of intelligence, those who comment on this blog would shame Solomon.

By Anonymous on November 30, 2006 9:50 PM

this the 1,234th day of olbermann not having enough balls to have anybody on his so called news show who he will disagree with or debate.
I guess having no balls is a requirement for being a bona fide member of the liberal media.

By Rico on November 30, 2006 9:51 PM

Mike,

Damn Internets!

We are still on the War On Terror(not Iraq yet). As a war it is like no other, that is true. But are you saying that there is nothing to win?

By puck on November 30, 2006 9:52 PM

"A looney reprobate serves no purpose."

Okay...... I guess that would be a good enough excuse why a 5th place has been sportscaster doesn't have a contract yet.

I want to pass this along to all my looney libby buds. I had Jerry Doyle on today and he closed his show asking for people with deep-seeded hatred for Pres. Bush to call in tomorrow (12-1). 12:00-3:00 p.m. P.S.T. on K.N.E.W..

Oh! Just for the record, I think the real Edward R. Morrow would have interviewed Newt. But along with cut and run, Olby also likes to practice DUCK & HIDE.

By Sir Loin of Beef on November 30, 2006 9:57 PM

Gingrich was a student of Leo Strauss, the paranoid mid-20th century fantasist who postured as a political philosopher. He is at the core of the neocon Trotskyite movement that has f---ed with America's head for the past several decades. As a dyed-in-the-wool Straussian, nothing he says is what he means.

By Anonymous on November 30, 2006 9:59 PM

"If using crude language and slaughtering the English language were signs of intelligence, those who comment on this blog would shame Solomon."

Because one should always look on the Internet for otherwise ...

By Mike on November 30, 2006 10:01 PM

Rico:

I think your comment last night ended with something like "when will there be victory" or when will we not have to "frisk 75 year old ladies or 5 year olds at the airport".

To me, that kind of sounds like you are asking "when are we going to have a perfect world"? Unfortunately the answer is never. I'm 55 and I've never seen one, nor have I ever lived in a world without dangerous enemies.

I think the only realistic 'war' we can fight is to prevent a major attack and to go after the REAL threats to our security. We are never going to eliminate radicals os radicalism, and the wrong moves only are going to create MORE radicals and radicalism.

By Rob on November 30, 2006 10:05 PM

"We are never going to eliminate radicals os radicalism, and the wrong moves only are going to create MORE radicals and radicalism." -- Mike

I would agree with that except to say that ALL moves that don't appease them create more radicals.

By Little Feechie on November 30, 2006 10:05 PM

Olby is pinning his hopes on winning the final 1/4 hour against O'reilly with S.K

He longs to win a single solitary 1/4 hour of his beloved demographic.

By Ohboy on November 30, 2006 10:06 PM

"nothing he says is what he means."

So, when he says he wants to (allegedly) limit free speech, he doesn't really mean it?

Which means that Olbermann's little soliloquy was meaningless?

I'll certainly go with the latter but not the former.

Besides, Gingrich never studied under Strauss. Strauss taught at the University of Chicago. Gingrich went to Emory and Tulane.

Nice story though. You could work for/with Olbermann.

By Sir Loin of Beef on November 30, 2006 10:07 PM

"We are still on the War On Terror(not Iraq yet). As a war it is like no other, that is true. But are you saying that there is nothing to win?"

There is absolutely nothing to win proceeding the way we are. Try to find a single current opinion poll or set of economic/demographic data that dispute this - you will fail. Al Qeada-style terrorism is a law enforcement and public-relations problem, there is no military solution.

By Little Feechie on November 30, 2006 10:07 PM

Why doesn't the pussy invite Newt on the show?
What a wimp.

By Rob on November 30, 2006 10:13 PM

"Al Qeada-style terrorism is a law enforcement and public-relations problem, there is no military solution."

Al-Qaeda style terrorism? Is this the nuance the left wants so badly from its leaders? Terrorism is terrorism. From the IRA to Al Qaeda to Hizbollah -- it's the same thing.

What is the law enforcement solution? Stakeouts?

What is the public-relations solution? Maybe we can build a Disneyland in Basra...or buy up their TV stations and broadcast MSNBC 24 hours a day because no one makes America look good like MSNBC.

By Rico on November 30, 2006 10:13 PM

Mike,

I find it amazing that you have so little desire for victory. After Pearl Harbor we could have worked out a deal with Japan and they never would have attacked us again. Lots of leftists now think we should have done that very thing. But that is not what we did. We annihilated that country. We killed millions of soldiers and civilians. Was that wrong? Our demand was unconditional surrender, and we got it.

Can someone walk up to you at work and slap you in the face without your doing something about it? It doesn't really affect your health or well being. You will get over it. Would you do nothing about that?

By Mike on November 30, 2006 10:15 PM

To all you people who keep trashing KO because he won't change his show to a 'debate' format...the answer lies in the show that proceeds his:

You may not like his personal politics, but Criss Mathews runs a show chock FULL of spirited debate. He knows how to ask tough questions that sometimes spur spirited debate between both sides and the host. He is not afraid to debate anyone, or have anyone on the show.

Sadly, his ratings are not nearly as good as KO's. So what do you think Olby might have learned from that?

By mlong on November 30, 2006 10:18 PM

Sadly, his ratings are not nearly as good as KO's. So what do you think Olby might have learned from that?
**********************************************
Based on KO's ratings against O'Reilly...not much.

By Rob on November 30, 2006 10:18 PM

"So what do you think Olby might have learned from that?" -- Mike

That HUGE melons are not TV friendly regardless of format or guests.

By Anonymous on November 30, 2006 10:22 PM

"So what do you think Olby might have learned from that?" -- Mike

That lefties won't watch you if intellectual debate, where both sides are allowed to confront issues, is offered and guaranteed. They only like the straight talking points, mixed in with a little Oddball, condensed in the Hour Of Spin.

By Sir Loin of Beef on November 30, 2006 10:24 PM

Technically you are correct. Gingrich did not become a cultist directly at the feet of Strauss. But he eagerly wallowed in the first-generation wellspring of the Straussian gene pool at the Weekly Standard during his early career. Also, his frequent congressional jeremiads regarding “whether or not our civilization will survive,”(due to his perception of "cultural malaise", and not any external threats)echo almost precisely Strauss's curmudgeonly but devious concern regarding a “sense of crisis in Western civilization".

By Mike on November 30, 2006 10:27 PM

Your answer and your analogy was not an accurate depiction of my views.

Where have we been 'slapped' as a nation and done nothing about it? I thought toppling an entire government in Afghanistan and driving out Al Queda was more than a 'slap' in return.

In you Japan analogy, we knew we could do it, and we did. However, I am not prepared to debate the history of that phase of WWII because the truth is, we really don't have a clue as to whether occupying them and almost completely anilating their Military was absolutely necessary or not. If you will recall, we did not 'completely' humiliate them...we left the Emporer in power. Yes, there was a compromise...even there!

In any 'war", you have to define exactly what 'victory' will look like, and then come up with a strategy that will actually work. Good stategy doesn't always involve the military, or giving them an 'ass kicking'! If you don't do that, you may just end up in a worse position than when you atarted.

By Kurt Kissel on November 30, 2006 10:28 PM

When one says "X was a student of Y," he or she can mean that literally (a teacher : pupil relationship) or figuratively (reads, studies and critiques the works of Y). At one point in time I was referred to as a student of Hegel although several centuries separated us and I studied in Texas, New York and England, not Germany. The Strauss reference is extremely important and useful in understanding the truly and almost undeniably warped perspective Newt holds.

By Ohboy on November 30, 2006 10:31 PM

"But he eagerly wallowed in the first-generation wellspring of the Straussian gene pool at the Weekly Standard during his early career."

What? He never worked for the Weekly Standard.

The Weekly Standard first came out in 1995. At that time, Gingrich was Speaker of the House.

Please don't tell me he was also moonlighting as an editor of the Standard?

And I thought liberals have been saying that the past 6 years are the beginning of the end of America. In fact, Olbermann used those very same words in one of his infamous commentaries.

Try again.

By Scot on November 30, 2006 10:32 PM

Actually, Newt Gingrich was talking about how terrorists use free speech against us, especially on the internet, which is where a lot of their recruiting is done. He did'nt say anything about limiting free speech of Americans, just terrorists.

By Mike on November 30, 2006 10:39 PM

This is going to make some of you rightys LOL, but believe it or not, KO does not really run a "left wing show", not in the traditional sense anyway.

I haven't watched him forever, but I don't recall him tackling Abortion, gun control, Social conservatism, or many of the other traditional consevative issues.

His main issues that he is very opinionated about involve the war and the president's war on the constitution and the Geneva convention.

Pre-emptive war is NOT, and never has been a 'conservative' principal! Neither is trashing traditional American values such as the right to privacy, habeus corpus, and freedom of speech. THOSE are the things driving KO these days, and they are not necessarily 'Liberal'!

By Rico on November 30, 2006 10:40 PM

Mike,

We did not compromise in Japan. We demanded unconditional surrender and got it. We chose to allow the Emperor to continue to exist.

You talk about how to win a war but you don't even want to win this one, remember?

If we did only what you wanted us to do after 911 and did a beautiful job of it, was another 911 ever going to happen again?

By Ohboy on November 30, 2006 10:40 PM

"When one says "X was a student of Y," he or she can mean that literally (a teacher : pupil relationship) or figuratively (reads, studies and critiques the works of Y)."

Right; but the commentator above suggested that he learned under or was taught by Strauss.

Anyway, where in Gingrich's writings has he referred to the thoughts or views of Strauss?

I know that's a bit of an unfair question. But if someone is saying that Gingrich is a Straussian, there should be evidence in his (Gingrich's) writings.

AFAIK, there is nothing in Gingrich's academic career (he's got a Ph.D in history; Strauss was a scholar on ancient philosophy) that indicates he was influenced in any way by Strauss's teachings.

This is crazy. Just because some guy took a course in college by a professor who took a course taught by Strauss doesn't mean they are "Straussians".

By Sir Loin of Beef on November 30, 2006 10:42 PM

" After Pearl Harbor we could have worked out a deal with Japan and they never would have attacked us again."

Japan is a sovereign nation - they could be fought with a conventional military. We knew where the Emperor and his generals were so we could launch military operations in their direction. Iraq war veterans I have met say they spent their time there kicking-in doors of average people, looking for people and stuff that may or may not be there - a total crap-shoot that contributes to our alienation from an entire population.

Hypothetically, what would have to happen for you to concede that the war is a hopeless disaster? Can you imagine any possible scenario at which point you would agree that our occupation must end? - or do you find such an eventuality to be simply impossible?

By Mike on November 30, 2006 10:43 PM

Scot:

Have you figured out how to only limit the free speech of the terrorsts without also threatening the free speech of the rest of us in the process? I haven't either!

By Mike on November 30, 2006 10:48 PM

Rico:

Instead of saying I "don't want victory', which is totally wrong, you have to define what 'victory' will look like, and you have not done that. Not unless you really do believe it really IS possible for us to achieve the perfect world that suits us in every way.

By Kurt Kissel on November 30, 2006 11:00 PM

Your point about specific references in Newt's writings is sound, Ohboy, and I am at a loss to address it. In tone and in attitude, Newt is most decidedly and unfortunately Straussian. In content, he may be as well. He may not be. Perhaps, I cannot offer proof because Newt is, by any objective standard, a feather weight academician and, perhaps subjectively, a political simpleton. In Texas terms, he is a self-described rancher living on a cattle-less ranchette. To better understand the content issue, however, I ought to read Newt more thoroughly and critically. I have not because he disinterests me and because I often find him and his limited writing so repugnant. I confess that, and I recognize it as a limitation which ought to be addressed.

By Sir Loin of Beef on November 30, 2006 11:01 PM

"I know that's a bit of an unfair question. But if someone is saying that Gingrich is a Straussian, there should be evidence in his (Gingrich's) writings."

If you refer to my previous post on this topic I believe you will find one example of such a linkage - if you want more I will start looking; but I'm not a Newt Gingrich scholar with all of his writings at immediate control; and convincing you of the obvious is not high on my list of priorities.

However, I do know that his favorite "Big Lie" straw-man (e.g. liberalism as "cultural malaise") is directly out of Strauss's guide-books on how to befuddle a population through condescension and fear. He has also surounded himself throughout his carreer with the likes of Elliot Cohen, Ken Adelman, and Bill "Slouching toward Las Vegas". Are going to assert that these characters are not dedicated Neocons with direct connections to Strauss?
Bennett. Neoconservatism IS fundamentally Straussian.

By Sir Loin of Beef on November 30, 2006 11:02 PM

"I know that's a bit of an unfair question. But if someone is saying that Gingrich is a Straussian, there should be evidence in his (Gingrich's) writings."

However, I do know that his favorite "Big Lie" straw-man (e.g. liberalism as "cultural malaise") is directly out of Strauss's guide-books on how to befuddle a population through condescension and fear. He has also surounded himself throughout his carreer with the likes of Elliot Cohen, Ken Adelman, and Bill "Slouching toward Las Vegas" Bennett. Are going to assert that these characters are not dedicated Neocons with direct connections to Strauss?
Bennett. Neoconservatism IS fundamentally Straussian.

By Shellback Steve on November 30, 2006 11:05 PM

Keith sticking up for Danny DeVito eh. Could this have anything to do with Mr. DeVito calling President Bush "numb nuts"? It's also interesting that Keith chose not to mention the Democrats going back on there campaign promises of implementing 9/11 recommendations or passing ethics reform.

By Rico on November 30, 2006 11:17 PM

Mike,

We cannot debate if you do not answer my questions.

If we did things your way after 911 was another 911 ever going to happen again?

If somebody slapped you at work are they ever going to do it again?

By Anonymous on November 30, 2006 11:44 PM

Rico:

Your 'debate' ground rules are getting ridiculous!

Question #1: What kind of a question is that? I can't predict the future...neither can you. You question should have been something like; "if we did things my way after 911 rather than your way, would the likelyhood of another 911 be increased or decreased? But you aleady know I believe my way is less likely to instigate another attack than your way.

Question #2: "If somebody slapped you at work are they ever going to do it again"...once again, what kind of a question is that? And more importantly, what does it have to do with this discussion??

By the way you haven't touched my question either: Is your definition of 'victory' mean creating a perfect world free from any threat?

I'm starting to feel like this is a waste of time!

By Rico on November 30, 2006 11:54 PM

Anonymous,

I assume you are Mike!

I understand that there is no such thing as a perfect world. I don't seek that. When we defeated the Japanese we did not think that we had made the world perfectly safe forever. But the threat from Japan was solved. They were never going to attack us again.

I am trying to establish "universal truths" about fighting and war. That is the purpose of these questions, including the slap in the face deal.

You can answer the questions now. By doing so we can move on. I will be done soon but without completing one step we cannot get to the next.

By Anonymous on December 1, 2006 12:37 AM

Anyone named Newt shouldn't be taking seriously about anything.

By Anon. on December 1, 2006 1:04 AM

Boy, those 1500 visitors per day will really take a bit out of the 600K Olbermann's getting nightly. What an influential blog!

By codas on December 1, 2006 1:05 AM

Why doesn't the pussy invite Newt on the show?
What a wimp.

Posted by: Little Feechie at November 30, 2006 10:07 PM

Another great special comment from Keith. Keep up the great work. I am so glad someone is on the air saying what needs to be said. Newt is a political whore.

By Mike on December 1, 2006 1:52 AM

Rico:

I guess if I killed the son of a bitch after he slapped me, he would never do it again! But nothing short of murdering him could possibly guarantee that he wouldn't do it again. Your question(s) was(were) illogical because the only way to positively guarantee the desired outcome would be overkill, which could only result in mutual self destruction.

You cannot frame a war exactly as you choose any more than you can frame a debate on your own terms.

WWII Japan can never a reasonable analogy for this so called war on terror. Japan was a country...Islamic based terrorism is an ideology....an evil, misguided ideology, but an ideology nonetheless. You cannot defeat an ideology with military means alone.

Maybe that is the fundamental difference between you and I; I say there is no such thing as a "universal truth" when it comes to fighting, and war.

By I am a liberal therefore I hate Christmas except it's the holiday I've celebrated for all my life so on December 1, 2006 5:58 AM

My god, imagine if there was more than one Olbermann. I mean, the right has O'Reilly, Hannity, Limbaugh, Gibson, Cavuto, okay, an entire cable news network, whereas the left has... Olbermann. Wahhhhh! No fair!!! Grow up Johnny Dollar.

Hey Dollar, has Olbermann been responsible for any dead Iraqis lately??? Your boys have. I'm sure you think they all deserved it too. Being all Iraqi and stuff. How dare they live in another country?

I know it sucks being wrong all the time and having to blame other people for your amazing ability to never get anything right, but I'm sure things will get better in Iraq in another six months? Right????

Will an intern suck off this Bush so we can actually convict him of an impeachable offense??? This lying about wars stuff isn't working...

By cee rightwing bot on December 1, 2006 7:22 AM

My programming says.....

"If Keith Olbermann says it is wrong....it must be right."

I was not aware of Gingrich's speech. I will now seek out the transcript, read the speech intensly, then prepare to implement.

Kill freedom.

Destroy America.

Fear is my fuel....I must find more!

SEEK, KILL, DESTROY!

By Xbot on December 1, 2006 7:32 AM

The amusing thing here is, when you point at Olbermann's comment on people stupidly attacking Pelosi, you state that he lifted the words from ThinkProgress.

Understand this: If I say 'The Cold War ended in 1989', you could find hundreds of sources that say verbatim the same thing. There are only so many ways you can flip around the words of a fact. Olbermann merely stating facts that sound similar to a website that prints said facts doesn't mean he gets his news from TP. It means Olbermann and TP both talked about the same story, and there are only seriously so many ways to move words around in a given fact.

As for book ratings: It's because liberals don't need to buy books to know about their favorite TV newscaster. Conservatives, however, work at the whim of any Bill O'Reilly or Rush Limbaugh, especially if they say it'll make the evil facts go away.

Get a life.

By cee rightwing bot on December 1, 2006 7:42 AM

NY TIMES 12/1/06....

"Idea of Rapid Withdrawal From Iraq Seems to Fade"

"The Joint Chiefs of Staff are signaling that too rapid an American pullout would open the way to all-out civil war. The bipartisan Iraq Study Group has shied away from recommending explicit timelines in favor of a vaguely timed pullback. The report that the panel will deliver to President Bush next week would, at a minimum, leave a force of 70,000 or more troops in the country for a long time to come, to train the Iraqis and to insure against collapse of a desperately weak central government.

"Even the Democrats, with an eye toward 2008, have dropped talk of a race for the exits, in favor of a brisk stroll."

Umph...

The election was not even one month ago and Pelosi has not even been sworn-in as speaker, but already the Democrats are abandoning the far left for more practical matters.....

Interesting.....it is going to be so nice not to see Bush and the Republicans only be "blamed." What did Michael Moore now call the Iraq war.....The Bush/Democratic Party War.

Where is this generation's George McGovern?

Special Comment soon on this turn of events, Mr. Olbermann?

SEEK, KILL, DESTORY

By Little Feechie on December 1, 2006 9:25 AM

People love to compare the WW2 timeline to The Current War in Iraq.

Well, it's nice to see that the pundits finally realize that we are in a World Wide war on terror.

While any loss of life is truly regrettable, none of these people compare the casualty figures between WW2 and the Current War...We're talking a couple of hundred thousand dead american soldiers on WW2 compared to 3,000 today.

We've never lost a battle on the ground in Iraq. We are our own worst enemy.

While any loss of life is terrible, one must put this current war in perspective with other wars.

Newt IS the best choice for the republican base.
He is a smart articulate man with a solid vision for the future. It's his nomination if he truly wants it.

It's a shame the PussyKeith won't invite him to Olby Planet.

I was a left in the 1990's and did not care for Newt. Call me a flip-flopper, but Newt has aged well with me and we need that type of honesty to return to the Republican Party.

L.F.

By heywood J on December 1, 2006 9:35 AM

It's funny, I cant stand Olberman as much as most of the people in here, he did make me laugh last night when he referred to general allesimo O Reily....Hey I thought that was funny what can I say. When you look at the list attached above though it does reveal keef for who he is, he is a tool of the left in all meaning of the term

By Little Feechie on December 1, 2006 9:41 AM

Hey... Olby puts on a compelling show. It's very entertaining.

But, you have to frame it all within OLBYPlanet.

By Anonymous on December 1, 2006 9:42 AM

"The Joint Chiefs of Staff are signaling that too rapid an American pullout would open the way to all-out civil war."

Don't those idiots know anything!!!!!Iraq is already in civil war.....just check with DNBC and OLYB...oh my bad its "ALL OUT" CIVIL WAR.....guess I'll wait till matty boy gives us the definition on that one.

Cee,
How can the Dems do anything about Iraq when Nancy DUUHHHlosi lacks even a basic understanding of the
situation there???
even have a

By Little Feechie on December 1, 2006 9:46 AM

In NBC's desire to BE the News, they went for a "Cronkite moment" and failed miserably. Kind of like FOX with "Homicide Bombers" It won't catch on.

Funny how no one really is challenging the NY Times for another major leak of a document that impacted the outcome of the recent talks in the Middle East.

It's obvious that the NY Times and NBC News are own home-grown versions of Al Jazeera.

By Sir Loin of Beef on December 1, 2006 9:53 AM

Picking up from the "Gingrich is/isn't Straussian" discussion with Ohboy last night:

In retrospect I find it interesting that Ohboy objects so strongly to the "straussian" label. Do you, as a neoconservative, object to the philosophy of Leo Strauss? DO you find it to be an inconvenient label, or an embarrassment?

If that is the case, can we move the discussion to other opinion leaders of your movement like Adelman, Kristol, and the Kagans? Do you concede that these highly influential neocons are Straussian whelps?

By Anonymous on December 1, 2006 10:16 AM

Newt IS the best choice for the republican base.
He is a smart articulate man with a solid vision for the future. It's his nomination if he truly wants it.

Posted by: Little Feechie at December 1, 2006 09:25 AM

There is NO CHANCE that Newt Ginrich will be president. He has a lot to answer for, like 3 marriages. He probably knows a lot more about interns than Clinton. He is the standard hypocrite of the day about moral values.

By Little Feechie on December 1, 2006 10:21 AM

People have an odd way of getting rehabilitated in Washington...

Newt is making sense....I also like some of the things that Wesley Clark says, when he is not towing the democratic party line.

By Anonymous on December 1, 2006 10:24 AM

Newt said there should be a debate about the limits of free speech and those that would like harm to come to America. DEBATE is a good thing, Olbermann may not like debate. This is not the first or last time free speech has been debated. Remember that free speech is not absolute, porn is a good example. Again Newt called for debate, not a bad idea even if he is wrong.

By cee rightwing bot on December 1, 2006 10:26 AM

Don't take the bait from Sir Loin of Milquetoast.....When he tries to define the debate in his terms, you know he has the next 10 posts ready....It's a waste of time.

BTW, Loin, I would never be embarrased to say I agree with Strauss...Especially this quote which is fundamental and 100% correct....

"…no bloody or unbloody change of society can eradicate the evil in man: as long as there will be men, there will be malice, envy and hatred, and hence there cannot be a society which does not have to employ coercive restraint."

I know as a secular humanist this belief is anathema....so debate with you OVER Strauss is pointless!

By Anonymous on December 1, 2006 10:52 AM

"Why doesn't the pussy invite Newt on the show?"

Because Newt is an occassional guest host on Fox News and a paid contributor to that cable outlet, he would be prohibited from appearing on other news programs without permission from FNC.

By Anonymous on December 1, 2006 10:59 AM

"Mr. Gingrich, the British "broke up our capacity to use free speech" in the 1770s.

The pro-slavery leaders "broke up our capacity to use free speech" in the 1850s.

The FBI and CIA "broke up our capacity to use free speech" in the 1960s."

---According to Olbermann we don't have free speech three times over. Newt can't take away free speech if we don'thave free speech.

By Fred Bear on December 1, 2006 11:06 AM

loin of tofu-

two days ago, you referred to Iran's MA as a poised and thoughtful statesman...

now you call terrorism a public relations problem?
(Pelosi: quick call the madison ave boys to fight the war...)

And we are supposed to take you seriously in deabtes...?

By Anonymous on December 1, 2006 11:15 AM

The great significance of Strauss for mainstream conservatives is that his is the deepest philosophical analysis of what is wrong with liberalism. Technocratic, legalistic, and empirical criticism of liberalism is all very well, but it is not enough. He believes that contemporary liberalism is the logical outcome of the philosophical principles of modernity, taken to their extremes. In some sense, modernity itself is the problem. Strauss believed that liberalism, as practiced in the advanced nations of the West in the 20th century, contains within it an intrinsic tendency towards relativism, which leads to nihilism. He first experienced this crisis in his native Germany’s Weimar Republic of the 1920s, in which the liberal state was so ultra-tolerant that it tolerated the Communists and Nazis who eventually destroyed it and tolerated the moral disorder that turned ordinary Germans against it. A Jew, he fled Germany in 1938. We see this problem repeated today in the multiculturalism that sanctions the importation into the West of Moslem fundamentalists whose foremost aim is the destruction of the Western society that makes that tolerance possible, and in an America so frightened of offending anyone that it refuses to carry out the basic duty of any normal state to guard its own borders.

By anonymous on December 1, 2006 11:23 AM

There are so many quotes in his special comment. How much did he write it and I doubt it is his writings, maybe he is changing his style so as his outfits. Oops, maybe SHE wrote it, shhhhh.

By Brandon on December 1, 2006 11:25 AM

Who is "she"?

By Little Feechie on December 1, 2006 11:40 AM

Anon Wrote....

Why doesn't the pussy invite Newt on the show?"

Because Newt is an occassional guest host on Fox News and a paid contributor to that cable outlet, he would be prohibited from appearing on other news programs without permission from FNC.

*****************************

That's a crock of shit.
Wesley Clark can be found on CNN and FOX.

Pat Buchanan has been on NBC and FOX.

By Little Feechie on December 1, 2006 11:53 AM

Even if it were true, ... Like FOX would not give Newt a waiver to bury PussyKeith on MSNBC?

It would not even be a fair fight.

Edward R. Olbermoron reminds me of the Baseball Owner in "The Natural" that wields power from the security of his office.

By anonymous on December 1, 2006 12:04 PM

SHE is his new employee and new “girlfriend”, Katie. Just a thought, if the relationship does not go well, fired her? Does it mean no more special comment?

By Fred Bear on December 1, 2006 12:14 PM

BTW...what is it now 4 out of 5 or 5 out of 6?
KO claimed on ESPNradio, he was over BillO, he had grown up...but since that day, KO has included BillO as part of the WPITW trio each night save 1...

Real over him KO? Grown up KO?

Please!

By anonymous on December 1, 2006 12:19 PM

If this is what he means over Billo, 2,000,000 viewers

By anonymous on December 1, 2006 12:26 PM

Oh, by the way, in case he does not know how to use a calculator, 2,000,000 is 3.33 times of 600,000.

By Anonymous on December 1, 2006 12:37 PM

"That's a crock of shit.
Wesley Clark can be found on CNN and FOX.

Pat Buchanan has been on NBC and FOX."

Has Clark or Buchanan been a guest host for a FOX show? Newt has, and that's the difference.

By Anonymous on December 1, 2006 12:39 PM

FRIST ABANDONS 2008 PRESIDENTIAL BID

-- Makes Concession Speech To Terry Schiavo --

WASHINGTON -- Senate Majority Leader and part-time quack Bill Frist renounced a bid for the White House in 2008 on Wednesday. Frist was widely criticized for pandering to religious conservatives by injecting himself into the debate over the brain-damaged woman by viewing a videotape of her, then publicly questioning the diagnosis of her vegetative state -- which was later confirmed by autopsy. Frist's plans for the future include using his medical degree in combination with his legislative experience to subvert the living wills and last wishes of patients existing in a persistently vegetative state.

By Anonymous on December 1, 2006 12:48 PM

I love it when Olbermann goes after Bill-O. Cracks me up. You wingnuts are such babies.

By Anonymous on December 1, 2006 12:52 PM

I know as a secular humanist this belief is anathema....so debate with you OVER Strauss is pointless!

Posted by: cee rightwing bot at December 1, 2006 10:26 AM

As long as I live in The United States Of America I will do my best to make damn well sure you never have your christian theocracy. Strauss is not the founding father of this nation. If they try some coercive restraint on your religion someday you might be singing a different tune.

By codas on December 1, 2006 1:00 PM

The Terry Schiavo "SHE WAS BLIND" case is one of the many examples of the delusional Republicans. Another was mission accomplished. They will throw flowers and candy. The last throes. If we would have stayed in Vietnam we would have won. Nixon was railroaded. We only lose if we quit. On and on it goes.

By hank on December 1, 2006 1:01 PM

"[Frist}then publicly questioning the diagnosis of her vegetative state -- which was later confirmed by autopsy."

With this statement you show that you are simply parroting what the vast majority of media outlets have fed you regarding this tragic story. Terri Schiavo's autoposy DID NOT reach a conclusive pathological finding of persistent vegatative state (PVS). The fingings were equally consistent with a diagnosis of "minimally conscious state", a condition from which patients have improved. In order to make a conclusive diagnosis of PVS, a patient must be examined while alive. Such a diagnosis cannot be made on a dead person. The IME who conducted the autopsy, Dr. Thogmartin said as much:

"PVS is a clinical diagnosis arrived at though physical examination of living patients"

Do your research instead of swallowing the bullshit fed to you by liars like Olbermann.

By Anonymous on December 1, 2006 1:06 PM

Repuglicans are good at telling you when you can be born and when you can die, but they suck at everything in between.

By Anonymous on December 1, 2006 1:17 PM

"minimally conscious state"

sounds like fun.
like being one of the resident OW dimwits.

-----------

"a condition from which patients have improved."

big deal.
Terry had DNR wishes,
which you would usurp.

----------

besides, even if she were in PERFECT health,
Terry's life was hers to do with as she wished,
not yours to usurp.
for whatever reason,
even an imagined deity.

By cee rightwing bot on December 1, 2006 1:19 PM

Anon,

If you really believe you live in a humanistic free society, I have a bridge to sell you.....BTW there are hundreds of examples of coercive restraining of my religious practice and the bigotry has been ensconced by judicial stupidity. But, I respect my government authority and obey.

How about you?

Maybe this great man can convince you....

"If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?" Alexander Solzhenitsyn

Like I do with all of the silly secular humanists I encounter here and in the real world.....I will recommend you read a great book....

CRIME & PUNISHMENT....Dostoevsky seems to have a good idea about what I meant with the previous post.

(On that subject....I wonder if Colbert has taken my suggestion to read UNCLE TOM'S CABIN)

By codas on December 1, 2006 1:21 PM

Repuglicans are good at telling you when you can be born and when you can die, but they suck at everything in between.

Posted by: Anonymous at December 1, 2006 01:06 PM

I think that about says it.

By Crash on December 1, 2006 1:21 PM

Religion has nothing to do with wanting to finish a job or fighting till the end or wanting to be able to actually fight a war. Being a skeptic doesn't make you enlightened. Calling out republicans for telling you what to do is no worse than liberals redistributing wealth, or confiscating land, or telling us where to smoke, what to drive, etc...

Self-righteousness sux and frankly, no one on this site does that.

By codas on December 1, 2006 1:27 PM

Calling out republicans for telling you what to do is no worse than liberals redistributing wealth, or confiscating land, or telling us where to smoke, what to drive, etc...
Posted by: Crash at December 1, 2006 01:21 PM

Your wrong. Republicans have been telling us to fight a war in country that we don't have a winning situation to get out of. They have accused people of treason. They want the right to search without a warrant. I'll have my ciggarette outside. I drive a Sunfire. I would love the government to offer me a good price for my house.

By Crash on December 1, 2006 1:30 PM

Brainwashed religious extremists have no idea they are evil It is like a dog that is beaten as a puppy until it becomes a raving psychotic animal. What do we do with said dog? We put it down. Problem solved. Trying to rationalize with the irrational is just stupid.

By Keith's a Fraud on December 1, 2006 1:38 PM

Is Keith's girlfriend/employee OLD enough to know HOW to write?

By codas on December 1, 2006 1:39 PM

I hope Keith is having a hayday with his young girl friend. Good for him. Is he married? Then it's none of you alls business.

By anonymous on December 1, 2006 1:49 PM

Codas:

You are right, it is none of our business. But it is a kind of strange his could-be father-in-law is younger than him. Furhter, it is our business if the special comment is not written by him, it does not represent his beliefs, his opinions and you guys are still watching and believeing him.

Jost another thought, I am wondering what qualifications she has, she could be on his staff. KO is well-known of the most difficult boss to work for or with. She must be good at something else.

By hank on December 1, 2006 1:57 PM

"minimally conscious state"

sounds like fun.
like being one of the resident OW dimwits

It's interesting that you can talk with such an air of levity about the life of a young woman whose life was snuffed out by her creepy husband who, once he got the big bucks from a civil judgement, decided he didn't want to use the money to take care of her, so the solution for him was to neglect her to the point of death

Do you even know what your talking about anyway you, idiot? Of course you don't. I can recite for you plenty of case histories of people who were is a MCS state and who recovered. A dimwit is someone who is uniterested in educating himself but only wishes to live in ignorance by latching on to the shit they read in People magazine and other equally uninformed outlets (Meltdown being one of those). That means people like you.

"Terry had DNR wishes,
which you would usurp."

Why don't you actually find out what the basis for this supposed DNR wish was before you show further prooof of your ignorance by citing it as fact? Can you tell me what written document existed to support the contention that Terri ever made a DNR wish? Can you tell me what evidence exists (other than self serving statements by Michael Schiavo and his relatives) to support the claim that Terri made oral statements that she should not be given nutrition through a feeding tube and that she should be starved and dehydrated to death instead? You won't find any such evidence in the courts that decided this issue so don't bother to try to convince me by citing such cases. You can't dicuss this intelligently because you don't know the facts and I do. I have taken the time to find out what really happened while you wallow in stupidity and joke telling about a precious life that was snuffed out because of the greed of Michael Schiavo.

By Murphy on December 1, 2006 2:14 PM

LOL...

Keith is brilliant!! O'Reiley's ratings are great, so it makes sence for KO to just incorperate O'Reiley into his show!! (Bet the Libs never thought that the few increases in his ratings may be from O'Reiley fans needing another fix of Mr.O!!)

Maybe they should remane the show MELTDOWN. Truth in advertising!!

By cee on December 1, 2006 2:19 PM

"Frist was widely criticized for pandering to religious conservatives by injecting himself into the debate over the brain-damaged woman by viewing a videotape of her, then publicly questioning the diagnosis of her vegetative state -- which was later confirmed by autopsy. Frist's plans for the future include using his medical degree in combination with his legislative experience to subvert the living wills and last wishes of patients existing in a persistently vegetative state."

A shameful, idiotic and disgusting comment. Give me one example of Dr. Frist trying to subvert ANY patient's wishes. And ditto on hanks' slam dunk about the autopsy confirmation......stop talking about things you know nothing about, anon and codas.

What angers me as a patient advocate about the Shiavo case is the stark political opportunism both sides display. The right AND LEFT!

Terry Shiavo's parents pursued the help of elected officials including Jeb Bush, Delay and Frist. My goodness, even Jesse Jackson got involved. The secular left who supported Michael Schiavo, makes it sound like the Republicans acted on their own, autocratically, to interfere....they did not.

So for shallow imeciles like codas and anon to use Terry Shiavo, again, as political fodder is no better than what the Republicans did. Hypocrisy examples keep on coming from codas!

The family should have settled this problem within their community and I hold both Michael Schiavo and Terry's parents responsible for making Terry into a cause celebre....they were all guilty. It was nothing but tragic.

Stop trying to make political points over a young woman's tragic death and abuse by her parents and husband.

By mlong on December 1, 2006 2:46 PM

I think South Park explained the Shiavo case just right...both sides where right but for the wrong reasons.

By Anonymous on December 1, 2006 2:48 PM

"Give me one example of Dr. Frist trying to subvert ANY patient's wishes."

Terri Schiavo.

-----

The courts,
the autopsy,
and public opinion,
all wisely decided against you and quack Frist in this matter.
Which is precisely why his '08 favorability numbers are so dismal among the electorate,
which is why he is washed up and dropped out.

By mlong on December 1, 2006 2:55 PM

Senate Majority Leader and part-time quack Bill Frist
*****************************************
A quack?....He has performed over 150 heart transplants and lung transplants, including pediatric heart transplants and combined heart and lung transplants...now tell me how he's a quack?..I think there are atleast 150 people that might disagree with you.

By Fred Bear on December 1, 2006 3:11 PM

I love it when Olbermann goes after Bill-O. Cracks me up. You wingnuts are such babies.

Posted by: Anonymous at December 1, 2006 12:48 PM
------

Personally, I do not care either, I only point out how he seemed to think he was above it all (his one sided fued w/ billo) and beyond it and then has continued to attack him over and over and over again (WPITW top 3 5 out of last 6 times; attacked him 3 times last night alone)

Even if you love Olby...you gotta admit he's got QUITE a chip on his shoulder about billo that is starting to border on sickness

By Anonymous on December 1, 2006 3:16 PM

"A quack?"

yes, a quack.

-----------

Frist was widely criticized for pandering to religious conservatives by injecting himself into the debate over the brain-damaged woman by viewing a videotape of her, then publicly questioning the diagnosis of her vegetative state [on the floor of the Senate].

if it walks like a duck (on the floor of the Senate),
and talks like a duck (on the floor of the Senate),
AND as an MD, no less,
then yes, it's a quack.

quack diagnosis.
quack injection.
quack politician.
quack '08 candidate.
quack, quack.

By Fred Bear on December 1, 2006 3:17 PM

As long as I live in The United States Of America I will do my best to make damn well sure you never have your christian theocracy.

Posted by: Anonymous at December 1, 2006 12:52 PM
----

Hey! Anonymous doofus! Nobody asked for one! Hello!!!!

By Fred Bear on December 1, 2006 3:19 PM

On and on it goes.

Posted by: codas at December 1, 2006 01:00 PM
---

So you like the D way better? If we juxt continue to throw money at something it will fix itself in time!

Belief like that lead to the creation of the misery index

By Sir Loin of Beef on December 1, 2006 3:23 PM

Fred Bear: "loin of tofu-

two days ago, you referred to Iran's MA as a poised and thoughtful statesman...

now you call terrorism a public relations problem?
(Pelosi: quick call the madison ave boys to fight the war...)

And we are supposed to take you seriously in deabtes...?"

Interesting way to debate, smokey: you list my comments and declare them out of bounds without any refutation or debate. Gosh, I guess you win...

By Anonymous on December 1, 2006 3:30 PM

Repuglicans are good at telling you when you can be born and when you can die, but they suck at everything in between.

Posted by: Anonymous at December 1, 2006 01:06 PM

I think that about says it.

Posted by: codas at December 1, 2006 01:21 PM
-------

Wrong, R's let God decide when you are born...D's determine WHETHER you can be born or if you will be "suck"ed out of a mother's uterus in cold blodded murder.

D's suck worse at the in-between

___
Personally as a moderate R, I have always wondered about both sides

Conservatives believe in protecting the unborn lives in a mother's womb...but want to kill overly bad criminals

Liberals want to kill unborn lives, but want overly bad criminals to live

Its only people in the masses that seem to want to allow both or neither. I am a cotholic and my church leaders want to have both parties live

By Sir Loin of Beef on December 1, 2006 3:35 PM

"So you like the D way better? If we juxt continue to throw money at something it will fix itself in time!

Belief like that lead to the creation of the misery index"

Ha Ha! You mean like throwing four billion dollars a week at Iraq for four years?, where well-connected American corporations scoop it up without oversight, accountibility, or equitable taxation?? The Bush administration - the most spendthrift and irresponsible leadership this country has ever had compounded by a factor of 10 - has endebted our country for generations in the future, and in return has only overseen: the worsening of conditions in their little civic laboratory in Iraq; making record number of enemies in the Arab world; and widening the wealth gap in the US.

You guys don't get to use the "tax and spend" label on us anymore.

By mlong on December 1, 2006 3:35 PM

"A quack?"

yes, a quack.

-----------
How many lives have you saved?...I brought up the 150 people he saves though transplants but I didn't even mention all the people in Africa he's helped though donating his time and medical talents too..I find it amazing you choose to ignore all that just because of the Shiavo case..bottom line is Frist has helped a lot of more people than you could ever hope to.

By Anonymous on December 1, 2006 3:49 PM

"I brought up the 150 people he saves though transplants but I didn't even mention all the people in Africa he's helped though donating his time and medical talents too"

yes, it was a lovely non-sequitur.
as is the number of lives i've saved.

any points duck duck Frist gets for personally saving lives,
is offset thousands fold
by him quacking his way about the Senate regarding Terri.
and with that, the public seems to agree.
which is why he's washed up and dropped out.

By Fred Bear on December 1, 2006 3:50 PM

Fred Bear: "loin of tofu-

two days ago, you referred to Iran's MA as a poised and thoughtful statesman...

now you call terrorism a public relations problem?
(Pelosi: quick call the madison ave boys to fight the war...)

And we are supposed to take you seriously in deabtes...?"

Interesting way to debate, smokey: you list my comments and declare them out of bounds without any refutation or debate. Gosh, I guess you win...

Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at December 1, 2006 03:23 PM

-------
Tofu-
Fine...
Item 1 - as has been pointed out before, your poised and thoughtful statesman wants to try to bring about the great conflagration that will in turn bring out the 12th Imam...essentially, the Rapture

Item 2 - terrorism a public relations problem? no...people of different beliefs from us killing innocents to incite fear in their enemy so that enemy will either convert or be killed is not PR, it is war....Terrell Owens has a PR problem...he is a good receiver but has a laundry list of past problems that bring the view of him down in the public spotlight.

Item 3 - the sky is blue because of the sun's light (the human visible spectrum) filtering thru our atmosphere (Earth, class M planet with a smallish single star it revolves around)...whoops sorry, got carried away with debating obvious things

By mlong on December 1, 2006 4:07 PM

any points duck duck Frist gets for personally saving lives,
is offset thousands fold
*****************************************
I wonder if you would feel that way if it was you or a family member that had one of those transplants?

By Anonymous on December 1, 2006 4:12 PM

BUSH: NO GRACEFUL EXIT FROM IRAQ

-- Vows to Delay Inevitable U.S. Withdraw With Bloody, Protracted Ordeal --

Aman, JORDAN -- President Bush said Thursday there will be no graceful exit from Iraq and promised that U.S. troops will continue to remain until no hope of success remains. "One of Prime Minister Maliki's frustrations with me," said Bush, "is that he believes we've been slow in giving him the tools necessary to protect the Iraqi people; he doesn't have the capacity to respond, so we want to accelerate that capacity." After four years of steadily increasing violence, and with U.S. support for the war gone and troops already stretched unprecedentedly thin, there was no explanation from either side how such a capacity to respond could be accelerated.

By Anonymous on December 1, 2006 4:15 PM

"I wonder if you would feel that way if it was you or a family member that had one of those transplants?"

another lovely non-sequitur.

By Dave Wyndorf on December 1, 2006 4:27 PM

You poor right wingers. You lost the election but thank god you still have Keith to kick around. You are all hypocrites. The same stuff you complain about Keith is the same stuff O'Reilly or Hannity or Limbaugh does yet you don't complain about them. That makes you HYPOCRITES. The only difference is they say what you want to hear and Olbermann doesn't. So he has different opinion of politics. OH NO!! Get a life, get some new ideas, and please remember all the things you complain about with Olbermann you are all guilty of yourselves(spin, misuse of facts, reciting talking points, blah, blah, blah). I watch both Olbermann and O'Reilly and they are the same monster. If you were educated and not blinded by your own opinions and agenda, you could see that but no you would rather be hypocrites.

By johnny dollar on December 1, 2006 4:40 PM

> The same stuff you complain about Keith is the same stuff O'Reilly or Hannity or Limbaugh does yet...

Hmm. Calling people old bags, or cunts, or fat ass, or swine? Referring to a Jewish journalist as a monkey? Not interviewing people who disagree? Booking endless Democrat strategists and left-wing bloggers without giving a hearing to the other side? Attacking more successful competitors day after day, often with made-up fiction? Masquerading as an impartial, nonpartisan journalist?

I don't think you can nail O'Reilly OR Hannity on even one of these counts.

By Fred Bear on December 1, 2006 4:44 PM

Posted by: Dave Wyndorf at December 1, 2006 04:27 PM

-----
Umm dave...Nooooooo, you are wrong.

Olby is a "news anchor" on a "news" show who claims "non-partisan"-ness

The others you list are aknowledged commentators, pundits, what have you...

They are not the same or comparable...its like apples and hot dogs...you complain that this apple tastes meaty, but hot dogs taste like meat so you are hypocrites

By Bill O'lielly on December 1, 2006 4:52 PM

Bush Nuts
Are George W. Bush lovers certifiable?
November 23, 2006
By Andy Bromage

A collective “I told you so” will ripple through the world of Bush-bashers once news of Christopher Lohse’s study gets out.

Lohse, a social work master’s student at Southern Connecticut State University, says he has proven what many progressives have probably suspected for years: a direct link between mental illness and support for President Bush.

Lohse says his study is no joke. The thesis draws on a survey of 69 psychiatric outpatients in three Connecticut locations during the 2004 presidential election. Lohse’s study, backed by SCSU Psychology professor Jaak Rakfeldt and statistician Misty Ginacola, found a correlation between the severity of a person’s psychosis and their preferences for president: The more psychotic the voter, the more likely they were to vote for Bush.

But before you go thinking all your conservative friends are psychotic, listen to Lohse’s explanation.

“Our study shows that psychotic patients prefer an authoritative leader,” Lohse says. “If your world is very mixed up, there’s something very comforting about someone telling you, ‘This is how it’s going to be.’”

The study was an advocacy project of sorts, designed to register mentally ill voters and encourage them to go to the polls, Lohse explains. The Bush trend was revealed later on.

The study used Modified General Assessment Functioning, or MGAF, a 100-point scale that measures the functioning of disabled patients. A second scale, developed by Rakfeldt, was also used. Knowledge of current issues, government and politics were assessed on a 12-item scale devised by the study authors.

“Bush supporters had significantly less knowledge about current issues, government and politics than those who supported Kerry,” the study says.

Lohse says the trend isn’t unique to Bush: A 1977 study by Frumkin & Ibrahim found psychiatric patients preferred Nixon over McGovern in the 1972 election.

Rakfeldt says the study was legitimate, though not intended to show what it did.

“Yes it was a legitimate study but these data were mined after the fact,” Rakfeldt says. “You can ask new questions of the data. I haven’t looked at” Lohse’s conclusions regarding Bush, Rakfeldt says.

“That doesn’t make it illegitimate, it just wasn’t part of the original project.”

For his part, Lohse is a self-described “Reagan revolution fanatic” but said that W. is just “beyond the pale.” ●

abromage@newhavenadvocate.com

Subscribe to the Hartford Courant today and receive up to 50% off!

UTILITIES

E-mail story
Printer-friendly version

By Anonymous on December 1, 2006 5:08 PM

"Calling people old bags, or cunts, or fat ass, or swine?"

Johnny, I know you have a low opinion of MSNBC management. But even they would not allow any member of their staff to utter the "c-word" on the air. And unless you have PROOF Olbermann has said this IN PUBLIC or ON THE AIR, I would suggest you revise your statement.

"Referring to a Jewish journalist as a monkey?"

Out-of-context - Olbermann was referring to Wallace doing the bidding of his bosses at Fox News. A better (and synonomous to the context) term would have been "tool", but KO isn't that hip.

And do I really need to lay out the litany of abuses, distortions and FLAT-OUT LIES perpetrated by the right-wing noise machine? If I did, it would be a tl;dr.

By Anonymous on December 1, 2006 5:09 PM

DEAN: What I'm saying is that there has been fear mongering, the likes of which we have not seen in a long time in this country. It happened early in the cold war. We got accustomed to it. We learned to live with it. We learned to understand what it was about and get it in proportion. We haven't done that yet with terrorism. And this administration is really capitalizing on it and using it for its' political advantage. No question, the academic testing show -- the empirical evidence shows -- when people are frightened, they tend to go to these AUTHORITY figures. They tend to become more conservative. So, it's paid off for them politically to do this.

OLBERMANN: This all seems to require, not merely, venality or immorality but a kind of amorality where morals don't enter into it at all. "We're right. So anything we do to preserve our process, our power -- even if it by itself is wrong -- it's right in the greater sense." It's that wonderful rationalization that everybody uses in small doses throughout their lives. But, is this idea, this sort of psychological sort of review of the whole thing, does it apply to Dick Cheney? Does it apply to George Bush? Does it apply to Bill Frist? Who are the names on these AUTHORITARIAN figures?

DEAN: You just named three that I discuss at some length in the book. I focused in the book, not on the Bush Administration and Cheney and The President because they had really been there done that, but what I wanted to understand is what they have done is made it legitimate to have AUTHORITARIANISM.

By johnny dollar on December 1, 2006 5:26 PM

>I would suggest you revise your statement.

Thank you. Suggestion rejected. Olbermann's lexicon of invective is fully documented in the Olbersaurus.

By Anonymous on December 1, 2006 5:45 PM

"Olbermann's lexicon of invective is fully documented in the Olbersaurus."

Again, I said IN PUBLIC or ON THE AIR. Your "citation" shows neither, and given your track record I am not "going to take your word for it".

In fact, ANY journalist who even jokingly used that word in public or on the air while representing their employer would be fired. You cannot use that word in public. It's considered obscene.

And don't give me a bunch of bullshit about it being in his e-mails. Unless those e-mails were MEANT for public consumption, they do not count because they weren't intended for the world to see.

By johnny dollar on December 1, 2006 5:54 PM

> they do not count because they weren't intended for the world to see.

Right. Because emails are secret. Classified for your eyes only. Nobody ever publishes them. Especially when they are sent using the company email account.

Now, do you want to put aside his use of the c-word and address ANY of the other points? Calling other people repulsive and even racist names, ON AIR? Only presenting one side of almost every story? Interviewing a string Dems and leftist bloggers? Attacking more successful competitors virtually every broadcast? Giving demagogic rants and not allowing anyone on to give the other point of view?

By jt on December 1, 2006 6:03 PM

"Thank you. Suggestion rejected."

God forbid you go for accuracy.

By cee rightwing bot on December 1, 2006 6:06 PM

Hey anon....

Did you personally know Terri Shiavo, or were you present for the conversation between her and her husband regarding her wishes? Were her wishes in writing? The answer to these questions are: NO.

As her health care proxy, Michael Schiavo was charged to carry-out her wishes AS HE UNDERSTOOD THEM. So ethically and legally, her wishes, not being known, could not be subverted. At first he said that she would want everything done to keep her living in the state she was in....then the settlement came in and now he claimed a conversation took place prior to the medical catastrophy that actually made it clear to him that Terri would not want to exist as she had been. He changed his understanding of his wife's wishes.....Very odd. I have never seen this happen before.

The choice made by her proxy was subverted, wrongly in my opinion, but none the less, Mr. Schiavo's decision was questioned.....Get your facts straight, dingbat.

As a physician, I question people constantly about the decisions they make for their impaired loved ones.....usually the family is too aggressive, but sometimes they are not....Financial and more disturbing things can get into the analysis...it is a shame. Michael Schiavo was pretty scuzzy when it came to his change in opinion once the money was in, if you ask me, however, the parents did not do right by their daughter going to the legal and political arena. It should have been settled within their family and local religious/civic community.

To repeat: Dr. Frist did not subvert the patient's wishes because the patient's wishes were not known. Please find a real example of Frist subverting a patient's wishes, anon.

Stop demagoging the issue and go back under the rock you came out from. But please write a declaration/living will prior to doing that.

By Anonymous on December 1, 2006 6:10 PM

"Right. Because emails are secret. Classified for your eyes only. Nobody ever publishes them. Especially when they are sent using the company email account."

Sarcasm does not work for you, sir. And I resent your tone.

"Calling other people repulsive and even racist names, ON AIR?"

YOU say it's racist. I disagree and say he's referring to the ACTIONS, not the PERSON. Find me one OBJECTIVE person who AGREES with you (and no, the idiots over at Little Green Footballs are not "objective") and then we'll have a discussion.

By Olbermann on December 1, 2006 6:24 PM

Liberals can't be racist. Only we can use the race card.

By Anonymous on December 1, 2006 6:36 PM

IRAQ STUDY GROUP TO CALL FOR U.S. WITHDRAW, INCREASED DIPLOMACY

-- White House Launches Pre-Emptive Rejection of Group's Findings, Facts On Ground, Electorate --

WASHINGTON -- Continuing its embrace of the policies of pre-emption, the White House has rejected the bipartisan Iraq Study Group report expected next week which will call for a pullback of U.S. troops in Iraq and increased diplomacy in the region. Speaking in Jordan President Bush said, "I know there's a lot of speculation that these reports in Washington mean there's going to be some kind of graceful exit out of Iraq. This business about a graceful exit just simply has no realism to it whatsoever." Bush has repeatedly rejected suggestions of withdraw or diplomacy during the four years of escalating violence in a now destabilized Iraq, which has to date cost the U.S. close to a half trillion dollars and thirty thousand dead and wounded military personnel.

By johnny dollar on December 1, 2006 7:06 PM

> Find me one OBJECTIVE person who AGREES with you...

Well, the Anti Defamation League seems to think Herr Olbermann has been dabbling with anti-semitism. But then again, anyone whom I point to you'll just claim is not OBJECTIVE because they don't AGREE with you.

On the other hand, that makes you like Olbermann. Nobody who disagrees with him is worth interviewing. Bloggers are only worthy guests if they are left-wing bloggers. Political strategists have to be Democrats or they are not invited on. Yep, that's what makes Countdown the most biased hour of "news" on television.

By jt on December 1, 2006 7:21 PM

"Well, the Anti Defamation League seems to think Herr Olbermann has been dabbling with anti-semitism. But then again, anyone whom I point to you'll just claim is not OBJECTIVE because they don't AGREE with you."

No. The Anti Defamation league thought it was in poor taste for Olbermann to use the "Sieg Heil" salute. But in no way did they imply they thought Olbermann was racist. In fact, unlike you, they seemd to understand that Olbermann was slammng O'Reilly.

By JohnE on December 1, 2006 7:28 PM

Bush Orders Preemptive Redeployment to Iran, Syria

by Scott Ott

-(2006-12-01) — Just days before the Iraq Study Group releases its top-secret report, President George Bush today ordered the Pentagon to preemptively redeploy U.S. troops from Iraq to "neutral neighboring countries including Iran and Syria."

"I’ve said that I won’t order our troops to make a graceful exit from Iraq," said Mr. Bush, "But I never ruled out making a graceful entrance into Iran and Syria where I expect our partners in peace to welcome us with open and raised arms."

The order surprised many, coming as it does on the heels of news that the Pentagon has discovered "smoking gun" evidence that terrorists in Iraq use weapons shipped from Iranian factories to kill U.S. troops and others.

But Mr. Bush said the Iraq Study Group, Kofi Annan and other Democrats have convinced him that engagement with Iran and Syria is crucial to finding a "holistic solution" to the Iraq situation.

"At the very least," said Mr. Bush, "Redeploying our troops to Iran should help Iranian weapons manufacturers save some money on shipping."

(via Scrappleface)

By JohnE on December 1, 2006 7:33 PM

Anon said: "YOU say it's racist. I disagree and say he's referring to the ACTIONS, not the PERSON"

Er, what actions of Chris Wallace was he referring to when Olberdork called Wallace a monkey?

By Anonymous on December 1, 2006 7:41 PM

"Er, what actions of Chris Wallace was he referring to when Olberdork called Wallace a monkey?"

When Wallace interviewed former President Bill Clinton.

And Johnny, I don't remember the ADL making ANY noise about this - and I've checked the ADL website and googled it. If they did complain, it never made it into a press release.

By Fred Bear on December 2, 2006 7:00 AM

And don't give me a bunch of bullshit about it being in his e-mails. Unless those e-mails were MEANT for public consumption, they do not count because they weren't intended for the world to see.

Posted by: Anonymous at December 1, 2006 05:45 PM
----------------------

So you give a pass to Mark Foley?

By Anonymous on December 2, 2006 10:07 AM

"So you give a pass to Mark Foley?"

No, because there's a difference between Foley and Olbermann. Foley is a public official - and as such his constituents have a right to expect full transparency in his activities. It's for the same reason we make congressmen file financial statements - to ensure the process is not corrupted.

Olbermann is a public figure, not a public official. He still has the expectation of a modicum of privacy.

By Keith's a Fraud on December 3, 2006 11:42 AM

Yeah, I bet Bill O'Reilly thought that too. Seems to me that KO has far more skeletons in his closet that haven't even begun to emerge yet. Is this who you really want to pin your hopes on? Someone who is so obviously flawed personally? Just wait til he's caught with an underage girl or in some other unsavory situation. It's not "if", it's when.

By Keith's a Fraud on December 3, 2006 11:44 AM

By DavidBrock on December 5, 2006 1:13 AM

krazykeef was always picked last for neighborhood sports. Poor keef is cursed with those womanly thighs and that awful sashay when he walks.

OlbyWatchTweets

Former Obama Support/Donor Releases Song Supporting Romney/Ryan: "We'll Take It Back Again" by Kyle Tucker

Blue-Blog-a-Palooza: Ann Romney Edition!

No Joy in Kosville...Mighty Olby Has Struck Out

If It's Sunday, It's Meet the Obsessed

Keith Olbermann: An Infantile, Dysfunctional, Empty Vessel

Olbermann Watch, "persecuting" Keith since 2004

181 Comments