Buy Text-Link-Ads here
Recent Comments

    follow OlbyWatch on Twitter

    In

    John Gibson Welcomes Back the Infamous, Deplorable Keith Olbermann

    tonyome wrote: <a href="http://twitchy.com/2014/07/28/voxs-laughable-praise-of-keith-olber... [more](11)

    In

    Welcome Back, Olby!

    syvyn11 wrote: <a href="http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/keith-olbermann-reviving-worst... [more](9)

    In

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

    syvyn11 wrote: @philly I don't see that happening. ESPN has turned hyper left in recent... [more](64)

    In

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

    djthereplay wrote: By mkdawuss on August 29, 2012 6:17 PM Will John Gibson be having a "Red-B... [more](4)

    In

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

    djwolf76 wrote: "But the FOX-GOP relationship (which is far more distinguished and prevalen... [more](23)

    KO Mini Blog



    What's in the Olbermann Flood Feed?
    Subscribe to Olbermann Flood Feed:
    RSS/XML

    KO Countdown Clock


    Warning: mktime() [function.mktime]: It is not safe to rely on the system's timezone settings. You are *required* to use the date.timezone setting or the date_default_timezone_set() function. In case you used any of those methods and you are still getting this warning, you most likely misspelled the timezone identifier. We selected 'America/New_York' for 'EDT/-4.0/DST' instead in /home/owatch/www/www.olbermannwatch.com/docs/countdown.php on line 5
    KO's new contract with MSNBC ends in...
    0 days 0 hours 0 minutes

    OlbermannWatch.com "My Faves" Set

    OlbermannWatch.com Favorited Photos from other Flickr Users

    Got OlbyPhotos? See some on Flickr? DO NOT email us. Send us a FlickrMail instead. Include a link to the photo. If we like the photo you will see it displayed in the Olby Flickr Flood above.

    New to Flickr? Sign up for a FREE Flickr account!


    Got some OlbyVideo? See some on YouTube? DO NOT email us. Send us a YouTube Messages instead. Include a link to the video. If we like the video you will see it displayed in our favorites list in our YouTube page.

    New to YouTube? Sign up for a FREE YouTube account!

    Red Meat Blog
    Keith Olbermann Quotes
    Countdown Staff Writers

    If they're not on Keith's payroll...

    ...they should be...

    Crooks & Liars
    Daily Kos
    Eschaton
    Huffington Post
    Media Matters for America
    MyDD
    News Corpse
    No Quarter
    Raw Story
    Talking Points Memo
    Think Progress
    TVNewser
    Keith Lovers

    MSNBC's Countdown
    Bloggerman
    MSNBC Transcripts
    MSNBC Group at MSN

    Drinking with Keith Olbermann
    Either Relevant or True
    KeithOlbermann.org
    Keith Olbermann is Evil
    Olbermann Nation
    Olbermann.org
    Thank You, Keith Olbermann

    Don't Be Such A Douche
    Eyes on Fox
    Liberal Talk Radio
    Oliver Willis
    Sweet Jesus I Hate Bill O'Reilly

    Anonymous Rat
    For This Relief Much Thanks
    Watching Olbermann Watch

    Keith Olbermann Fanlisting Site I
    Keith Olbermann Fanlisting Site II
    Keith Olbermann Links
    Olberfans
    Sports Center Altar
    Nothing for Everyone

    Democratic Underground KO Forum
    Television Without Pity KO Forum
    Loony KO Forum (old)
    Loony KO Forum (new)
    Olberfans Forum (old)
    Olberfans Forum (new)
    Keith Watchers

    186k per second
    Ace of Spades HQ
    Cable Gamer
    Dean's World
    Doug Ross@Journal
    Extreme Mortman
    Fire Keith Olbermann
    Hot Air
    Inside Cable News
    Instapundit
    Jawa Report
    Johnny Dollar's Place
    Just One Minute
    Little Green Footballs
    Mark Levin
    Media Research Center
    Moonbattery.com
    Moorelies
    National Review Media Blog
    Narcissistic Views
    Newsbusters
    Pat Campbell Show
    Radio Equalizer
    Rathergate
    Riehl World View
    Sister Toldjah
    Toys in the Attic
    Webloggin
    The Dark Side of Keith Olbermann
    World According to Carl

    Thanks for the blogroll link!

    Age of Treason
    Bane Rants
    The Blue Site
    Cabal of Doom-De Oppresso Libre
    Chuckoblog
    Conservative Blog Therapy
    Conservathink
    Country Store
    Does Anyone Agree?
    The Drunkablog!
    Eclipse Ramblings
    If I were President of USA
    I'll Lay Down My Glasses
    Instrumental Rationality
    JasonPye.com
    Kevin Dayhoff
    Last Train Out Of Hell
    Leaning Straight Up
    Limestone Roof
    Mein BlogoVault
    NostraBlogAss
    Peacerose Journal
    The Politics of CP
    Public Secrets: from the files of the Irishspy
    Rat Chat
    Return of the Conservatives
    The Right Place
    Rhymes with Right
    seanrobins.com
    Six Meat Buffet
    Sports and Stuff
    Stout Republican
    Stuck On Stupid
    Things I H8
    TruthGuys
    Verum Serum
    WildWeasel

    Friends of OlbyWatch

    Aaron Barnhart
    Eric Deggans
    Jason Clarke
    Ron Coleman
    Victria Zdrok
    Keith Resources

    Google News: Keith Olbermann
    Feedster: Keith Olbermann
    Technorati: Keith Olbermann
    Wikipedia: Keith Olbermann
    Wikipedia: Countdown
    Wikiality: Keith Olbermann
    Keith Olbermann Quotes on Jossip
    Keith Olbermann Photos
    NNDB Olbermann Page
    IMDB Olbermann Page
    Countdown Guest Listing & Transcripts
    Olbermann Watch FAQ
    List of Politics on Countdown (by party)
    Mark Levin's Keith Overbite Page
    Keith Olbermann's Diary at Daily Kos
    Olbermann Watch in the News

    Houston Chronicle
    Playboy
    The Journal News
    National Review
    San Antonio Express
    The Hollywood Reporter
    The Journal News
    Los Angeles Times
    American Journalism Review
    Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
    St. Petersburg Times
    Kansas City Star
    New York Post/Page Six
    Washington Post
    Associated Press
    PBS
    New York Daily News
    Online Journalism Review
    The Washingon Post
    Hartford Courant
    WTWP-AM
    The New York Observer
    The Washington Post


    Countdown with Keith Olbermann
    Great Moments in Broadcast Journalism
    Great Thanks Hall of Fame
    Keith Olbermann
    MSM KO Bandwagon
    Olbermann
    Olbermann Watch Channel on You Tube
    Olbermann Watch Debate
    Olbermann Watch Image Gallery
    Olbermann Watch Polling Service
    OlbermannWatch
    OlbyWatch Link Roundup
    TVNewser "Journalism"

    July 2013
    September 2012
    August 2012
    April 2012
    March 2012
    February 2012
    January 2012
    December 2011
    November 2011
    October 2011
    September 2011
    August 2011
    July 2011
    June 2011
    May 2011
    April 2011
    March 2011
    February 2011
    January 2011
    December 2010
    November 2010
    October 2010
    September 2010
    August 2010
    July 2010
    June 2010
    May 2010
    April 2010
    March 2010
    February 2010
    January 2010
    December 2009
    November 2009
    October 2009
    September 2009
    August 2009
    July 2009
    June 2009
    May 2009
    April 2009
    March 2009
    February 2009
    January 2009
    December 2008
    November 2008
    October 2008
    September 2008
    August 2008
    July 2008
    June 2008
    May 2008
    April 2008
    March 2008
    February 2008
    January 2008
    December 2007
    November 2007
    October 2007
    September 2007
    August 2007
    July 2007
    June 2007
    May 2007
    April 2007
    March 2007
    February 2007
    January 2007
    December 2006
    November 2006
    October 2006
    September 2006
    August 2006
    July 2006
    June 2006
    May 2006
    April 2006
    March 2006
    February 2006
    January 2006
    December 2005
    November 2005
    October 2005
    September 2005
    August 2005
    June 2005
    May 2005
    April 2005
    March 2005
    February 2005
    January 2005
    December 2004
    November 2004

    Google

    Olbermann Watch Masthead

    Managing Editor

    Robert Cox
    olby at olbywatch dot com

    Contributors

    Mark Koldys
    Johnny Dollar's Place

    Brandon Coates
    OlbyWatch

    Chris Matthews' Leg
    Chris Matthews' Leg

    Howard Mortman
    Extreme Mortman

    Trajan 75
    Think Progress Watch

    Konservo
    Konservo

    Doug Krile
    The Krile Files

    Teddy Schatz
    OlbyWatch

    David Lunde
    Lundesigns

    Alex Yuriev
    Zubrcom

    Red Meat
    OlbyWatch



    Technorati Links to OlbyWatchLinks to OlbermannWatch.com

    Technorati Links to OlbyWatch Blog posts tagged with "Olbermann"

    Combined Feed
    (OlbyWatch + KO Mini-blog)

    Who Links To Me


    Mailing List RSS Feed
    Google Groups
    Subscribe to Olbermann Watch Mailing List
    Email:
    Visit this group



    XML
    Add to Google
    Add to My Yahoo!
    Subscribe with Bloglines
    Subscribe in NewsGator Online

    Add to My AOL
    Subscribe with Pluck RSS reader
    R|Mail
    Simpify!
    Add to Technorati Favorites!

    Subscribe in myEarthlink
    Feed Button Help


    Olbermann Watch, "persecuting" Keith since 2004


    January 4, 2008
    Top Five Things OW Readers "hate" About Keith

    Happy News Years!

    What better way to celebrate the arrival of 2008 than by putting together a list of the Top Five Things OW Readers "hate" About Keith! Please join in.

    A reporter asked me this morning for my top five things Olbermann Watch readers "hate" about Keith Olbermann. He is on deadline for next week.

    I would like to invite OW readers to submit THEIR top five lists in the comments section below. Next Tuesday I will compile your responses, publish the "best" five and send a link to the post to the reporter. I will then link his piece when it runs (assuming he decides to use the results). Your list can include specific things KO has said or done, or more general observations about his appearance, his tone or mannerisms, his books or style, whatever - and the top five can be on Countdown, on his football show or anywhere else. There are no rules here except my definition of best will elevate replies that are pointed but clever and preferably with a degree of wit and demote those that are crass, boorish and foul-mouthed (the paper won't publish bad words any way).

    Good luck!

    Bob

    PS, I want to give credit to winning entries so the name you use to sign your post is how I will credit you if you win.


    Posted by Robert Cox | Permalink | Comments (257) | | View blog reactions

    257 Comments

    Hey Bob....good to hear from you.

    They needed to clear a bed at the funny farm for Britney- look who got paroled! Way to go lil' buddy.

    1. The total lies told on Meltdown.

    2. His constant distortions of the facts.

    3. His deionization tactics used on his enemies.

    4. He is a total shill for Hillary Clinton.

    5. His use of hateful partisan left wing blogs as "factual" information that he does not source.

    3. His demonization tactics used on his enemies.

    Sorry spelled it wrong.

    1. How everything he hates is coincidently against the Constitution.

    2. Impeccible smarm.

    3. Worst Person in the World award given daily and to Republicans exclusively for flimsy reasons.

    4. Champion of websites to the left of Castro.

    5. Facts for him are needless things.

    It says something that in a 50/50 nation KO is no more of a ratings threat to Bill O'Reilly than Air America is to Rush Limbaugh. Which is appropriate since MSNBC is nothing more than Air America with pictures. Just ask Rachel Maddow.

    1. Claims he is either and TV host or 'journalist' as he see fit.

    2. Stole his entire closing act from Letterman (breaking glass with paper or pencils) and Murrow's signoff

    3. Cry's poor after signing a multi million dollar contract.

    4. Fully engaged in the early ESPN culture of stalking/harassing women and continues to refer to them in an assortment of degrading terms.

    5. Those glasses! Not only are they the immediate hipster doofus fad of the moment wait and see how ridiculous they'll seem 10 years from now.

    Why are you guys so blind to the evils of the Bush administration that KO has become your whipping boy?

    His absolute refusal to debate anybody he fundamentally disagrees with. That's called cowardice. You got that, Bill Moyers?

    1:08 - you are spot on about #1 and 2

    Bob:
    Here's my top 5 problems with the show:

    (1) Mr. Olbermann and his producers repeatedly use stories garnered from liberal (or even non-ideological) non news-accredited web sites or blogs without either: (a) properly attributing those sites as the source of the item or, more important (b)
    undertaking any original reporting that verifies the substance of the story.

    (2) Following on from (1), Mr. Olbermann and his producers continually fail to allow
    critical subjects of news stories to appear on the show to respond to their criticism.

    It's a basic rule of journalism to allow the subject of a news story to respond to the allegations in that report.

    (3) Mr. Olbermann repeatedly fails to separate his opinion on issues from the new stories he is reporting on.

    Since he identifies his commentaries as just that, "Special Commentary", he obviously understands that news anchors are required to leave their own views and opinions outside of the news room when engaged in hard news reporting.

    Opinions must be labeled as that: opinion. To mix opinion and fact violates another
    basic rule of journalism.

    (4) Related to item (2) above, Mr. Olbermann regularly covers contentious issues by inviting only guests with one view - almost alway his own - on his show to discuss that topic. That is not balanced or fair reporting.

    As we all know, the very contentious issues of the war on terror, Iraq, treatment of
    alien detainees, along with other related subjects are enormously complex ones.

    Men and women of goodwill and sincerely held beliefs come down on opposite sides
    of these issues.

    Mr. Olbermann, however, apparently does not believe that those with views he
    disagrees with argue in goodwill. Or even have an argument worthy of being
    presented.

    (5) After listing items (1) through (4) above, one can only conclude that
    "Countdown" fails in providing its viewers objective, balanced news.

    The program is simply not a news show.

    Mr. Olbermann is simply not a news anchor.

    If Mr. Olbermann and his producers wish to broadcast an opinion show where topics
    are only covered from one perspective, where the host uses the program as a
    platform to personally and professionally attack those he dislikes, where opinion and
    fact are mixed, then please advertise the program as just that: an opinion show.

    Steven M. Galbraith

    Ugh, sorry about the above spacing.

    Looked good with preview.

    Too lengthy too. As the saying goes, it would have been shorter but I didn't have the time.

    Steve

    Just pulling up the CD of "Ugly Kid Joe" and the song "I hate everything about you" seems apropos.

    For me it's the top 5 things I love about olbermann:

    1. How he truly hates America, and always takes the time to demonize anything the Bush administration does to fight terrorism.

    2. How he distorts the facts so blantantly to fit into his anti-American views.

    3. How he always attacks Bill O'Reilly on his show, as he knows O'Reilly is one of the true Americans who has been against everything I believe in.

    4. How he never has an opposing view on his show, knowing full well that any opposing view would expose him as the incompetent shrill that he is. (Allah forbid!)

    5. How he takes such glee in noting every American killed in their fight against my most loyal subjects.

    5 (a). How he has influenced so many Americans to go against their own country with his clever disguise of being a "concerned citizen."

    Yes, for me Mr. Olbermann has been one of my most deceitful and powerful cells carrying out everything I've asked of him.

    He has done more harm to America than any other being on this planet,
    which makes it impossible for me to make a list of even 1 thing I hate about him.

    Akuba!!! Ayeee!!!!

    Ah, RK even though I hate how a true American you are, you can be sure that the imposter known as OSama Bin Laden (with the capital S) is only a pale imitation of me, and one I'm also sure who loves my little Olbermann and his anti-American ways.

    OSama rest assured that I know you are on my side, and for that I once again have to thank Olbermann.

    Akuba!!! Ayeeee!!!!

    For me it all boils down to one simple category: bias. Olbermann's show reeks of it, yet he wants to be portrayed as an alternative to Fox and their alleged biases. So Olbermann seems to think that the way to address what is perceived as Fox's bias for the GOP is to respond with MORE bias in favor of Democrats. That is such an insult to journalism that I don't even know where to begin. And yet, he holds himself out as a journalist when he's clearly nothing more than a sports anchor with a huge chip on his shoulder. His natural arrogance and ego have come together to create a program that is anti-anything that Fox is. In the process, Olbermann has trashed what journalism is and should be. I can't applaud that. It's like pronouncing that a criminal is guilty of murdering a person and trying to make it better by going out and murdering two more people. He ignores any facts that aren't flattering to the Dems. He ignores any facts that are flattering to the Republicans. His rabid fans can't seem to get that it is this willful and blatant disregard of the facts is what is truly wrong with Olbermann's show. I'd condemn it with Fox, I'll condemn it with anyone, but Olbermann seems to have taken this approach for one reason and one reason alone: to score attention and viewers (and possibly comely young viewers into his bedroom). Deplorable.

    For me it all boils down to one simple category: bias. Olbermann's show reeks of it, yet he wants to be portrayed as an alternative to Fox and their alleged biases. So Olbermann seems to think that the way to address what is perceived as Fox's bias for the GOP is to respond with MORE bias in favor of Democrats. That is such an insult to journalism that I don't even know where to begin. And yet, he holds himself out as a journalist when he's clearly nothing more than a sports anchor with a huge chip on his shoulder. His natural arrogance and ego have come together to create a program that is anti-anything that Fox is. In the process, Olbermann has trashed what journalism is and should be. I can't applaud that. It's like pronouncing that a criminal is guilty of murdering a person and trying to make it better by going out and murdering two more people. He ignores any facts that aren't flattering to the Dems. He ignores any facts that are flattering to the Republicans. His rabid fans can't seem to get that it is this willful and blatant disregard of the facts is what is truly wrong with Olbermann's show. I'd condemn it with Fox, I'll condemn it with anyone, but Olbermann seems to have taken this approach for one reason and one reason alone: to score attention and viewers (and possibly comely young viewers into his bedroom). Deplorable.

    Posted by: Disgusted at January 4, 2008 4:58 PM

    He he. I think it's funny when people post their topic where the name is supposed to be.

    I think the fake Obama has already forgotten about my great victory on 9/11. This is good though, and exactly what Olbermann and the rest of my cells have spread with their propaganda throughout your demon country.

    The fact that the demon Bush has killed more of my fellow terrorists than any other American has me licking my lips looking for a weak democratic presidential victory.

    I already had the terrorists doing my work for me long before 9/11 (beriut bombings, 2 African embassy's, first evil twin towers attack, cole bombing, etc.) so if the fake osama thinks I needed more help from Bush attacking my followers in Iraq he is truly a fool.

    A weak anti-American fool, which is good for my cause, as he too has forgotten about all the attacks on America which I have applauded and orchestrated in some way.

    Recruitment for my cause, my lying phony OSama, has been going on probably before you were even born, but unfortunately the only president who has stepped up to fight my cause is the one who we both hate, Bush, as he has caused me more setbacks than any before him.

    Yes, my easily fooled dupe, a democratic president will only pave the way for the easiest attacks on your democratic nation causing the most American civilian deaths since my most thrilling attack on the evil towers!

    Democratic President! Praise Allah, and let this sheep run as they always do!

    Akuba!!! Ayeee!!!

    The top 2 things that I hate about you, Mr. Olbermann, is that you need to


    A) Concentrate more on actual issues! Though the occasional calling out of Rush Limbaugh or Michael Savage comments are amusing, there are more important things in the world to talk about. Leave the right-wing douches alone. And even though Fox News reports on celebrities three times as much you do, it would be better to drop the celebrity news altogether.

    -and-

    B)Stop giving out any details on your personal life! There are really deranged haters on this site that obsess over any small fact you leak out. I'm not sure if the obsession is with you or your girl but better safe than sorry.

    Sincerely your humble viewer,

    Trent the Anarcho-Syndicalist


    oh and one more thing:
    please leave msnbc for pbs.

    oh and one more thing:
    please leave msnbc for pbs.

    Posted by: Trent the Anarcho-Syndicalist at January 4, 2008 5:28 PM

    That's rich. Why so his audience of 600,000 people can drop to 600 people? Besides, I think Dr. Who does not need a twin brother.

    B)Stop giving out any details on your personal life! There are really deranged haters on this site that obsess over any small fact you leak out. I'm not sure if the obsession is with you or your girl but better safe than sorry.

    Posted by: Trent the Anarcho-Syndicalist at January 4, 2008 5:28 PM

    Yes good idea...too bad the man who never had a serious girlfriend until he was 47, (and who was having one night stands with fans only months before meeting "the girlfriend"), had to "CROW" about having a 22 year-old girlfriend in EVERY interview he gave.

    Also, nothing screams: "Look everybody, I HAVE A GIRLFREIND, really, I'm NOT a LOSER!" than giving out the petname your lover calls you in the acknowledgements in your political book of essays.

    B)Stop giving out any details on your personal life! There are really deranged haters on this site that obsess over any small fact you leak out. I'm not sure if the obsession is with you or your girl but better safe than sorry.

    Posted by: Trent the Anarcho-Syndicalist at January 4, 2008 5:28 PM

    Yes good idea...too bad the man who never had a serious girlfriend until he was 47, (and who was having one night stands with fans only months before meeting "the girlfriend"), had to "CROW" about having a 22 year-old girlfriend in EVERY interview he gave.

    Also, nothing screams: "Look everybody, I HAVE A GIRLFREIND, really, I'm NOT a LOSER!" than giving out the petname your lover calls you in the acknowledgements in your political book of essays.

    Posted by: Keith "Bear" Olbermann at January 4, 2008 6:52 PM


    Hate to say I told you so, Keith.

    Trent, most of the Bear comments and gf comments are meant to be funny, not stalking. Lighten up.

    This, among other items, is probably why Olbermann doesn't like Obama.

    8/1/07:
    "The terrorists are at war with us. The threat is from violent extremists who are a small minority of the world's 1.3 billion Muslims, but the threat is real. They distort Islam. They kill man, woman and child; Christian and Hindu, Jew and Muslim. They seek to create a repressive caliphate. "

    Note: "The threat is real" and "They seek to create a repressive caliphate".

    This is called "scare mongering" or "shameless fear tactics" when a Republican says it.

    Olbermann doesn't want to hear things like this.

    No, for him and his ilk, the threat comes from the "terrorist" Republican Party.

    Amazing.


    1. Olby is a pathological liar.
    2. Olby is a misogynist.
    3. Olby is a hypocrite.
    4. Olby is an egomaniac and pompous ass.
    5. Olby is a moonbat, libnut, socialist, insane, creepy orange loon!

    Olbermann presents both in persona and content, many things to dislike....but only one thing he does every night, one behavior that has obviously lost any real meaning or purpose to him, really causes me to cringe....

    How he closes his show.

    Olbermann always closes MSNBC COUNTDOWN by stating the number of days since President Bush held his now infamous MISSION ACCOMPLISHED rally on board the USS Abraham Lincoln. The reason is obvious, Keith Olbermann has been a critic of the administration and its policy in Iraq for sometime now. This position is his and he has every right to take it and express it.

    However, there have been instances when this little dig, follows such discussions as Britney Spears' breasts with regular contributor Michael Musto or even more disgusting and adolescent segments. If one watches the online video resources of these closings, one still sees the prepubescent smirk on Olbermann's face as he disrespects the ongoing sacrfice of Americas true heroes and patriots. Sometimes he is even chortling from the last segment as he says "mission accomplished."

    The next regular aspect of his closing is the Edward R. Murrow quote, "Good night and good luck." The famous line from the McCarthy era show SEE IT NOW has great dramatic effect and once again it is obvious to the informed viewer why Olbermann uses it. As a critic of the administration in regards to the use of covert operations and worry over unconstitutional activity, Olbermann has been vocal and has devoted much of his show to analyzing and commenting on the President's policies. In addition, Olbermann has expressed his great respect for Mr. Murrow and using his famous concluding line is a fitting tribute.

    However, to the informed viewer, Olbermann cannot claim any connection or resemblance to Ed Murrow. Mr. Murrow was an objective journalist who investigated his own stories and did the actual labor and foot work that such great accomplishment demand. Olbermann is a desk jockey who has never done the investigative journalism Murrow was known for.

    Murrow also allowed the subjects of his investigative work equal time to address what he had uncovered. This ethical journalistic practice even was afforded to Murrow's most famous target, Senator Joseph McCarthy. SEE IT NOW publically announced it would allow Senator McCarthy total and uninteruppted access to its time slot to counter any or all of what Murrow and his fine staff presented.

    Keith Olbermann has never made such an offer and has never allowed the subjects of his stories time to respond to his accusations. From former Defense Secretary Rumsfeld to President Bush to former POW and Navy pilot Senator John McCain, Keith Olbermann has made wild and crazy accusations but has never allowed them, or their easily found public defenders, access to him or his program to refute the same.

    To end COUNTDOWN like Murrow ended SEE IT NOW suggests Olbermann is acting like his idol. He is not. He is a partisan pundit who pushes the agenda of the establishment Democratic Party. He is not an independent, objective voice and to use the words of a great journalist to end his broadcast is an injustice.

    Just this past Wednesday, 1/2/08....the official MSNBC transcript reads:

    "OLBERMANN: And the premise on this, perhaps, dating a paparazzo is “if you can‘t beat ‘em, join ‘em”, so to speak?

    "MUSTO: Oh, talk about sleeping with the enemy, this is like Olivia de Havilland sleeping with Joan Fontaine or Hillary with anybody. It‘s just ridiculous.

    "OLBERMANN: All right, I‘ve got an Olivia de Havilland-Joan Fontaine reference. I‘ll close it out with Lindsay Lohan—three make-out sessions reported in 24 hours, three different guys. Is it refreshing that her sobriety has not impeded her joie de vive? Or, is she just figuring out that at least one of them had to have a drink and she didn‘t get a contact guy.

    "MUSTO: Yes, she was sucking on her tongue a little too intensely. But it is amazing that it‘s just an energy drink and some Altoids—that kind that gets you zingy and have you scoring anything with facial hair, short of Queen Latiffa.

    "OLBERMANN: That‘s right. Garron, give me a kiss and a lime. The one and only Michael Musto. Thanks, Michael.

    "MUSTO: Thank you.

    "OLBERMANN: And that‘s COUNTDOWN for this, the 1,708th day since the declaration of mission accomplished in Iraq. From New York, I‘m Keith Olbermann. Remember, throughout the day tomorrow, join us here for the best coverage of the Iowa caucuses. We‘ll probably get the first results, maybe even a call of Iowa when I join you for COUNTDOWN at 8:00 Eastern, 5:00 Pacific. Chris Matthews then joins me and we will caucus the night away with you until midnight Eastern. That‘s tomorrow night. For now, good night and good luck."

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22488624/

    Along with smearing the continued accomplishments of The United States armed forces by counting up the days since Iraq had been officially liberated (sometimes with the rhetorical residue or laughter of stories mentioning celebrity undergarments, genitalia and/or breasts), the foreboding, "Good night and good luck" phrase illustrates an imposter of ethical journalism. Keith Olbermann is guilty of hubris and sanctimony everytime he concludes COUNTDOWN.

    And this is my post today, the 1,710th day since the declaration of Mission Accomplished in Iraq.....

    I am cee, good night and good luck.

    "Al Qaeda really hurt us, but not as much as Rupert Murdoch has hurt us, particularly in the case of Fox News. Fox News is worse than Al Qaeda--worse for our society. It's as dangerous as the Ku Klux Klan ever was."
    KEITH OLBERMANN

    That's good, Trent.

    Posted by: A N O N Y M O U S at January 4, 2008 5:35 PM

    Thank you, thank you. I aim to please.

    The top thing I hate about OlberLimp is his way of brushing off all the interupted terrorist attacks (i.e. Fort Dix) as a being perpetrated by a bunch of morons.

    Of course, if these morons happened to be successful, Limpy would be the first to blame the Bush Administration.

    Scott Benner
    Canton, MI

    The most revolting thing for me is the use of Murrow's sign-off.

    1) it sounds as if Olbermann isn't imaginative enough to come up with one of his own.

    2) He's planting the idea in his audience's mind to view him as another Murrow, and there is no comparison there. Not even close. No investigative work, no real job insecurity in pushing the envelope, no traveling to dangerous areas, no legacy of war coverage, and the list goes on.

    5. Won't allow rebuttal

    4. Won't allow rebuttal

    3. Won't allow rebuttal

    2. Won't allow rebuttal

    1. See 5-4...


    Let me add #6.

    When Republicans claim that Democrats are weak against terror, that's shameless scare mongering.

    "How dare your, sir!"

    When Democrats claim that Bush and the Republicans have made the terror threat worse through their policies (Iraq, harsh interrogation techniques, alienating our allies), that's okay.

    Apparently you can criticize the Republican policies on terror but can't criticize the Democrats.

    Y'now, somewhere that makes sense. But not on this planet.

    1. He's a Liar - When Rosie O'Donnell called American Soldiers fighting in Iraq terrorists with this quote: "655,000 Iraqis are dead, who are the terrorists"?, Keith defended Rosie by lying about her quote, he said that Rosie said "655,000 Iraqis are dead, who is the terrorist"?. He lied about Rudy Giuliani when he said that Rudy said that one of the candidates would invite a certain person to the White House, when Rudy never said such thing.

    2. He's a Hypocrite - He has named people "Worst Person in the World" for doing the exact same things he has done, such as comparing people to Nazis or Al Qaeda, not informing viewers that you have done fund raising for a certain guest, and calling people names.

    3. He's a Terrorist Symathizer - He's always taking the side of the terrorists. He defends Al Qaeda terrorists in Gitmo. He defends terrorists who attack or threaten Israel. He rails against pretty much every terrorist fighting program such as listening to terrorist's phone calls or tracking there financial transactions.

    4. He's Biased - His show has been on the air for five years, and he has yet to invite one conservative to his show. His "Worst Person in the World" list never includes any liberals.

    5. He Steals Material - He's always lifting material from left wing blogs. He hardly ever does any of his own research like a real journalist such as Edward R. Murrow.

    James: "He hardly ever does any of his own research like a real journalist such as Edward R. Murrow."

    Olbermann is no Murrow....BUT....I'll lay you odds of 10:1 that IF Edward R Murrow was around today, people like James would be calling him:

    1) - A "terrorist symathyzer".
    2) - "Biased".
    3) - 'Stealing' his material.
    4) - A "hypocrite".
    5) - A "liar".

    5. Thinks being an unhinged liberal nutbag and hosting Sportcenter qualifies him for the next Edward R Murrow mantle

    4. Is to hack sports "journalists" turned unhinged self important liberal nutbags what Bill Maher is to hack comedians turned unhinged self important liberal nutbags.

    3. Stole glasses from Ashleigh Banfield.

    2. Shaved off The 'Stache and Mullet.

    1. Buys his suits at Chess King.

    1. The hypocrisy: Claiming to be a journalist with no agenda, when he clearly is left-leaning.

    2. His sourcing: He got caught spectacularly with his misquoting Giuliani right after he and guest Huffington supposedly watched and listened to him. KO then tried to shift the blame for his deception to AP.

    3. His Media Matters connection: What KO says gets amplified by Hillary's website, regardless of the truth. I especially remember the Limbaugh caller who told he was upset about "this Cindy Sheehan thing", meaning how liberals were supporting the lady who lost her son in Iraq. Rush said "this Cindy Sheehan thing" is all phony, clearly meaning that the liberals were not supporting Cindy Sheehan for her loss, just using her. Both KO and MM claimed that Rush doubted the death of Sheehan's son, something he clearly did not do.

    4. His obsession with his timeslot competitor who has 3 times the overall ratings. This obsession is getting freakier the longer it goes on.

    5. The whole schadenfreude thing: KO seems to get a kind of sadistic pleasure with his misrepresentations of his targets. Again, freaky.

    Mike:
    "people like James would be calling him:

    1) - A "terrorist symathyzer"."

    Okay, Olbermann calls the Republican Party a terror group. In fact, in one of his "Special Commentary" segments he called it the leading terror group in America.

    Which of these two is worse?

    (1) Someone on a blog calling a public figure - a new anchor - a terrorist sympathizer?

    Or

    (2) A news anchor on a news program calling an entire political party - and all of its members - terrorists?

    I'd be interested in your response.


    3. Stole glasses from Ashleigh Banfield.
    2. Shaved off The 'Stache and Mullet.
    1. Buys his suits at Chess King.
    Posted by: meng at January 4, 2008 9:33 PM

    not sure why you would hate that he shaved off his stache & mullet, but Banfield & Chess King references are priceless, LOL funny!

    The extremely arrogant and ignorant manner of righteous indignation he conjures up nightly.

    "The extremely arrogant and ignorant manner of righteous indignation he conjures up nightly."

    And after one of these self-righteous speeches, he takes his paycheck from MSNBC, accepts the accolades from the media critics, goes to a Yankees game and then retires to his million dollar home in upper Manhattan.

    Oh, what sacrifices our brave Olbermann does for the country! The outrageous assaults and pain he endures for standing up for Truth, Justice and the American Way!

    Ya see, if I thought America was truly, deeply in the throes of a dictatorship, if I truly thought our liberties were being extinguished, if I truly believed our government was run by fascists, I sure as hell wouldn't be enjoying it as much as Mr. Olbermann does.

    Do I think he's a phony? Hell yeah.

    I couldn't tell. He probably does a lot of charity work though. Maybe donating cellulite from his ass for starving models yearning for lip implants

    (2) - "A News anchor on a news program calling an entire political party - and all of it's members - terrorists?"

    Can you post the entire segment, in it's prper context? .....Because, having seen most of the special commentaries, I never saw that, ... and I tend to believe that what you are accusing him of having said here is merely another INTERPRETATION.

    MISTER Bush!!!! I love that one, he doesn't have enough respect for the office to call him President. What balls, what a hero, what a way to stand up to the evil govt. What a douchebag.

    Mike:
    "Can you post the entire segment, in it's prper context?"

    Olbermann: "The leading terrorist group in America right now is the Republican Party".

    Entire commentary here:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVERJZmBGqY

    If that doesn't work, just go to Youtube and type: Olbermann Republicans terrorists.

    Good luck and, well you know the rest....

    Thanks Steve, thats a telling video. I just love it when Mike tone of indignation has to be retracted.

    What I hate about Keith is

    1. His big fat ass, orange face, and young girlfriend.

    2. He never reads any hilarious limericks on his show that people take the time to post out here

    3. He has never had RK on for a debate.

    4. He acts like Phony Soldier doesn't even exist, when we all know he is just afraid of what a real man thinks

    5. He's a chicken shit with an orange face, big fat ass, young girlfriend, orange face, no tolerance for limericks, orange face, and big fat ass.

    Thanks Steve:

    I just watched the clip and fully AGREE with it!....That said, your statement was an oversimplification of the point. A good example of how sound bytes taken out of context trump truth and common sense in today's world of news and politics.

    It was a commentary about how the administration, with the full backing of the republican party, has shamelessly used fearmongering as a political tactic.

    They HAVE done exactly that!

    By definition, fearmongering IS a form of terrorism.

    AND a BIG FAT ASS

    "By this definition, the leading terrorist group in this world right now is al Qaeda, but the leading terrorist group in this country right now is the Republican Party." (Olbermann)

    McCool: "I just love it when Mike tone of indignation has to be retracted."

    Does my 11:00 PM comment sound like a "retraction"?

    Thanks Steve:

    I just watched the clip and fully AGREE with it!....That said, your statement was an oversimplification of the point. A good example of how sound bytes taken out of context trump truth and common sense in today's world of news and politics.

    It was a commentary about how the administration, with the full backing of the republican party, has shamelessly used fearmongering as a political tactic.

    They HAVE done exactly that!

    By definition, fearmongering IS a form of terrorism.
    Posted by: Mike at January 4, 2008 11:00 PM

    NOW MCCOOL is a terrorist! Dammit I KNEW IT! DAMN FEARMONGERER.

    Are you out of your mind ?? Wait, i know the answer to that one. It was a slow process, decades in the making but slowly the neurons have shrivelled, the synapses clogged. Figures you would agree with him.

    To further my point, I have never been so angry at a political party for shameless fearmongering as with the dispicable 'wolves in the woods' campaign comercail that was run in key states prior to the 2004 election.

    And I have never been so ashamed of my fellow countrymen for apparently falling for such a shameless political ploy either.

    McCool: "I just love it when Mike tone of indignation has to be retracted."

    Does my 11:00 PM comment sound like a "retraction"?
    Posted by: Mike at January 4, 2008 11:03 PM

    No sounds like an indictment

    To further my point, I have never been so angry at a political party for shameless fearmongering as with the dispicable 'wolves in the woods' campaign comercail that was run in key states prior to the 2004 election.

    And I have never been so ashamed of my fellow countrymen for apparently falling for such a shameless political ploy either.
    Posted by: Mike at January 4, 2008 11:08 PM

    And much of rational americana is ashamed of delusional hacks like yourself and Olbermann

    "Now MCCOOL is a terrorist!

    No, McCool is a kool aid drinking follower willing to allow himself to be duped by such shameless fearmongering.

    When I become resentful about it is when me and my country get taken along for the ride.

    No, you know what? You can take you shame and stick it up your ass. Like your faux moderate liberal opinion matters. Who cares what YOU are ashamed of?

    http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

    10314 Fatal Islamic Terror attacks worldwide since 9/11 Mike


    Here you go douchebag, this isn't real is it?

    Wow, this thread is going better than RCox could have dreamed...

    He's gonna have a dickens of a time whittling this list down to something that can fit in the publication.

    BTW, what publication is that?
    Anyone have 5 guesses??

    10314 Fatal Islamic Terror attacks worldwide since 9/11

    How many of those have been on American soil?
    Just send your thanks via check to the RNC

    I'll go first. These are my guesses for where this list will end up:

    1. HQ (Hillbilly Quarterly)
    2. RK!
    3. Torture and Stream
    4. The Idiot's Guide to Blogging
    5. The Jawa Report

    Mike just said he agrees with Keith Olbermann that Republicans are terrorists. That is very telling and should be remembered every time we view one of Mike's many posts defending his hero Keith Olbermann.

    How many of those have been on American soil?
    Just send your thanks via check to the RNC

    Posted by: McCool at January 4, 2008 11:19 PM

    I will.
    My message will be, "Thanks for only allowing the biggest terrorist attack on our soil ONCE in your savior's administration."

    "How many of those have been on American soil?"

    I WOULD rhetorically ask you 'what's your point?', but you would probably tell me, while letting the intended sarcasm fly right over your head.

    That said, I have always thought THAT was about the silliest talking point of them all....and have always been utterly amazed that anyone would actually SERIOUSLY buy into it.

    Wasted Keystrokes, what did your savior Bill Clinton do in his eight years in office to stop Al Qaeda?

    I WOULD rhetorically ask you 'what's your point?', but you would probably tell me, while letting the intended sarcasm fly right over your head.

    That said, I have always thought THAT was about the silliest talking point of them all....and have always been utterly amazed that anyone would actually SERIOUSLY buy into it.

    Nuff Said

    Go take your medicine Mike.

    "10314 Fatal Islamic Terror attacks worldwide since 9/11

    How many of those have been on American soil?
    Just send your thanks via check to the RNC"

    Posted by: McCool at January 4, 2008 11:19 PM

    So you're hung up on "American soil"?

    What about American flesh and blood? Does your figure include the nearly 4000 soldiers killed in Iraq? What about the more than 20,000 brain injuries and amputations? Thank you, RNC.

    ...and all we're really doing there is making more enemies faster than we can kill tem.

    ...and all we're really doing there is making more enemies faster than we can kill tem.
    Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at January 4, 2008 11:28 PM

    Typical left nonsense. You act like the enemies weren't there to begin with and Bush and this war created them and aggravates them! When you don't understand the nature of the enemy, just shut up.

    James, do you even realize just how simplistic your 11:22 PM comment is?

    Do you REALLY look at the world in terms of such simplistic stand alone sound bytes?

    If so, the differences between you and I will never be reconciled.

    Wasted Keystrokes, what did your savior Bill Clinton do in his eight years in office to stop Al Qaeda?

    Posted by: James at January 4, 2008 11:27 PM

    I seem to remember the whole country waiting in anticipation of attacks deemed iminent just prior to Jan 1, 2000.

    I don't remember any either. It was later pointed out that the intelligence foiled a number of high level plots at that time.

    That's one thing off the top of my head.

    20,000 brain injuries and amputations? Boy, you liberals sure love to inflate statistics.

    yes! Mike throws out the "I am so much more intelligent than you are that you could not possibly comprehend the intended nature of my comments " card. I LOVE that one. You are such an insecure arrogant back peddling jackass

    "So you're hung up on "American Soil"?"

    He's obviously also hung up on the false and utterly ridiculous axiom that invading and occupying Iraq has been the reason.

    Mike I don't know if your tired act actually works on children when you convince them of your intellectual superiority, but it just so transparent here.

    Typical left nonsense. You act like the enemies weren't there to begin with and Bush and this war created them and aggravates them! When you don't understand the nature of the enemy, just shut up.

    Posted by: McCool at January 4, 2008 11:31 PM


    Well, McPetulent, you seem to forget the findings of 16 federal intelligence agencies in the July, 2007 NIE; As of last summer Al Qeada had only grown stonger and more popular world-wide, and the primary reason given by the report was the invasion of Iraq.

    Do you give a shit?

    Mike, say "MISTER Bush" for us will ya?

    Yea Mike, go back to trying to convince children that Bush is bad.

    Everyone here knows for a fact he's been doing a great job and is headed for Mt. Rushmore. He'll be the only one smirking.

    McCool: "Yes, Mike throws out the "I am so much more intellegent than you are that you could not possibly comprehend the intended nature of my comments" card. I LOVE that one. You are such an insecure arrogant and back peddling jackass"

    And, whether you like it or not, the nature of your ad hominem 'you are a jackass' type response pretty much proves it.

    Do you give a shit?
    Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at January 4, 2008 11:38 PM

    Well, lets here your masterplan to resolve the dilemma of assholes in this world who are hostile to our way of life. Retreat? Build consensus with the cowardly Euros? or maybe the corrupt UN? Oh right that hasn't worked since 1991..

    Sir Loin of Beef, we were not in Iraq on 9/11.

    Let's review the topic of this thread

    Top Five Things OW Readers "hate" About Keith

    Kids, take your pissing contest to another thread

    Everyone here knows for a fact he's been doing a great job and is headed for Mt. Rushmore. He'll be the only one smirking.
    Posted by: Wasted Keystrokes at January 4, 2008 11:38 PM

    Fine hyperbole by the way.
    I have never said the man is perfect but he means well and the thought of one of these Democratic candidates winning scares the hell out of me giving the near complete non comprehension of how the world outside our borders actually functions

    And, whether you like it or not, the nature of your ad hominem 'you are a jackass' type response pretty much proves it.
    Posted by: Mike at January 4, 2008 11:40 PM

    OH BRAVO. I'm glad that is SO beneath you princess. Thats not politically correct of me is it??

    "Sir Loin of Beef, we were not in Iraq on 9/11"

    And what exactly did Iraq have to do with 9/11?

    Let's review the topic of this thread

    Top Five Things OW Readers "hate" About Keith

    Kids, take your pissing contest to another thread
    Posted by: at January 4, 2008 11:42 PM

    Good point, sorry.

    20,000 brain injuries and amputations? Boy, you liberals sure love to inflate statistics.

    Posted by: James at January 4, 2008 11:32 PM

    ...and you Chickenhawks will sweep any costs of your Napoleonic belligerence under the rug just so you can continue to pretend you're right about everything.

    Are you denying that there are more than 20 thousand American brain injuries and amputations resulting from your TV war?

    Posted by: McCool at January 4, 2008 11:44 PM

    Hi, sweety!

    Are you denying that there are more than 20 thousand American brain injuries and amputations resulting from your TV war?

    This is EXACTLY the problem. Democrats view the sacrifices made in a political context. This war MUST be being fought for political reasons. When in reality this is going to be a generational war for the basic freedoms many Americans take for granted, including the right to sound like a pompous indignant jackass every night in a special commentary.

    Trent, you forgot your Trotsky glasses if you want to look completely gay

    Trent, you forgot your Trotsky glasses if you want to look completely gay

    Posted by: McCool at January 4, 2008 11:51 PM

    Hopefully I won't look as silly as your post sounded at 11:49.

    McCool: "I have never said the man is perfect but he means well and he thought of one of these democratic candidates winning scares the hell out of me giving the near complete comprehension of how the world outside of our borders actually functions."

    WOW....where do I start?

    1) - "but he means well".....Well now, THAT'S a great argument. Chicken Little MEAN'T well too. How many people do you know who don't MEAN well?

    2) - "giving the complete non comprehension of how the world outside of our borders actually functions.".....THAT one is a doozy too considering the fact that Bush didn't know the difference between Shia and Sunni when he decided to forcefully change their culture and actually had to retain a foreign policy tutor just to try to learn a little SOMETHING about "the world outside of our borders".

    3) - Speaking of the "world outside our borders" McCool, how many times have you been outside of our borders? You want to ask me that same question?

    This is EXACTLY the problem. Democrats view the sacrifices made in a political context. This war MUST be being fought for political reasons. When in reality this is going to be a generational war for the basic freedoms many Americans take for granted, including the right to sound like a pompous indignant jackass every night in a special commentary.

    Posted by: McCool at January 4, 2008 11:49 PM


    I prefer to excersize my freedoms to the end of stopping this cynical, criminal war for profit through our political system. So do the large majority of my fellow Americans.

    Your're living in an Orwellian comic book; can't you see? The "generational" fear and knee-jerk hostility you advocate are the things that erode our freedoms; something that a few furtive cells of seminarians and goatherders armed with box-cutters and lumps of explosives could never hope to do...without the help of an American fifth column like th eone you represent.

    "RW'ers never seem to realize that if we give up our rights, our principles, we have surrendered, if we fear, the terrorists have won. I'm pleased to see that you're no coward."

    This seems like such a simple and self evident concept....yet for some reason, they just don't get it.

    Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 - Declares that it should be the policy of the United States to seek to remove the Saddam Hussein regime from power in Iraq and to replace it with a democratic government. H.R.4655

    I have brought this up before, and the only response I received is from Mike, stating that the legislation did not call for military action. True, but what was the purpose? Kucinich, the progressive, signed on to the policy. I would like an explanation as to why this legislation, signed by Pres. Clinton, came to be. I'll assume he knew the difference between Shia and Sunni.

    DESIGNATION OF IRAQI DEMOCRATIC OPPOSITION ORGANIZATION.

    (a) INITIAL DESIGNATION- Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act , the President shall designate one or more Iraqi democratic opposition organizations that the President determines satisfy the criteria set forth in subsection (c) as eligible to receive assistance under section 4.

    90 Days! Think about that. And this is with the President determining whether criteria are met.

    to penalize the Saddam administration;

    No- to remove and replace with democracy.

    Ron Paul (in the Congressional Record) called it giving the President virtual war power.

    90 days to establish opposition organization(s). And Bush is short-sited?

    not establish but designate

    to have been the correct course with Iraq and Libyia.

    If the course were seen as providing stability, what was the need to state that the policy SHOULD be one of removal of the regime and replacement with democracy. When did Libya pledge to dismantle WMD program?

    Sharon,

    You are spending more time talking about foreign policy tonight than Huckabee has done in the last six months. Yet you would like him to be the Republican nominee? Very strange. Why have you been snookered by his Gomer Pyle routine? Do we really need to have another Southern governor "Aw, shucks" his way into 1600 Pennsylvania Ave?

    Rico,

    I do have concerns about his foreign policy experience, and caught up in the moment of his performance in Iowa, I was leaning towards him as the candidate. However, I have not made a final decision for voting. I like McCain and Thompson. Romney not as well, but I think he has accomplished some noteworthy things. Point taken, though.

    I hate the 'funny voice' stuff.
    I hate when he thinks he is being 'cute'.
    I hate when he speaks with all the authority of Dana Carvey's "Church Lady"

    Ah well, I don't know where "Libyia" is Daddy FLUCKER (cue Mr. Magoo theme), but I do know that Saddam Hussein was given ample opportunity to leave office without one shot fired and refused to.....Oh and the insurgency that the left like you only wants to paint as a civil war....it was instigated and inflammed by whom?.....oh yes, representatives of Al Queda....mmmmm.....even willing to kill their Sunni brothers and destroy sacred Sunni mosques to spur on sectarian violence.....

    And the anti-freedom American left sits in their leather armchairs and decries the work our forces are doing....tsk, tsk, tsk......

    Yep, Mr. blank-FLUCKER (cue OLD SPICE jingle) or now the old and senile Daddy FLUCKER (cue Mr. Magoo theme) who thinks he single-handedly liberated the oppressed in Alabama, claims the war against totalitarianism is not a political issue for his ruling elite while real men and women are willingly sacrificing for an American value.....tsk, tsk, tsk.....

    Just look how your leftist ruling elite have handled the war, gents.....Now that it is not a "popular" issue that benefits them politically....Where is it on the rhetorical radar?.....Where are the protests?......How about that war funding that the Congress could simply cut off with majority vote and force The President to remove the forces out of Iraq?......

    THE LEFT ONLY SEES IRAQ AS A SELFISH POLITICAL ISSUE THAT IS REALLY AN ISSUE OF IDEAS, LIFE, DEATH, PHYSICAL AND MENTAL SACRIFICE.....how typical.....

    Good luck with those leaders of your worldview....so honorable and compassionate....willing to use the troops as toys and props when it suits them and then willing to leave them to their dishonorable, imperialistic and evil task when the issue has no traction....

    And nevermind the Iraqi people wishing to remain free from totalitarianism....same attitude....not our problem....there are seats in Congress to win, and a Presidency to reclaim!

    Nice.

    1. Keith's ultra-weird obsession with Bill O'Reilly and FoxNews

    2. Keith's ridiculous claim of "I'm not politically biased" and "I am politically neutral"

    3. Keith's "Good night and good luck" is an insult to Edward R. Murrow (a man who actually reported from the war)

    4. Keith's sophomoric insults and name-calling of fellow colleagues

    5. The fact that Countdown is billed as the "news show of record" for MSNBC

    excellent list, merkle923

    JD--Please delete the OFF-TOPIC posts in this thread. Maybe that will teach the distractors here a lesson.

    Mike:
    "By definition, fearmongering IS a form of terrorism."

    Please, Olbermann's statement was indefensible.

    He didn't say that the Republicans were using a "form of terrorism". He said they were the leading terrorist group in the country.

    Second, when Democrats say that Bush has not made us safer, indeed has made the danger of terrorism worse by invading Iraq, is that "fearmongering"? Is it?

    Political parties in this country - and, to my knowledge, every multi-party democracy - are regularly accusing the other side of having harmful policies. "If you vote for my opponent", one party says, "terrible things will happen".

    Republicans say Democrats are soft on crime. Or terrorism. Or national security.

    Democracts say Republicans are soft on caring for the poor or elderly. All my adult life, I've heard Democrats say that Republicans want kids to starve or that the elderly will have to eat dog food to survive.

    If accusing the other side of having dangerous policies is fearmongering and terrorism, then the Republican party is not the only terror group in this country.

    I'll await Olbermann's denunciation of the liberals' terroristic claim that Republicans want children to starve and the elderly to freeze to death.

    It'll be a long wait.

    Mike:
    This is the danger - threat if you will - that Olbermann and his fans simply cannot - or will not - see.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/06/books/review/Ajami-t.html?_r=1&ref=review&oref=slogin

    For some reason, you folks have convinced yourself that because Republicans have used the threat for electoral gains - and I admit they have - that the entire threat is a chimera.

    The danger comes in many forms.

    I can just picture Olbermann reading Ajami's piece and rolling his eyes.

    Apparently you guys think that if we just get rid of Bush and the Republicans, this will all go away.

    It's not.

    And what exactly did Iraq have to do with 9/11?

    Posted by: Mike at January 4, 2008 11:45 PM


    You wouldn't understand if someone explained it to you, why try? Read much?

    Posted by: Mike at January 5, 2008 12:00 AM

    Posted by: Wasted Keystrokes at January 5, 2008 11:33 AM


    Are you referring to the post where he 'answers' questions wit more questions? Typical 'debating' from 'mike.'

    Keith is a narcissist of the first order.

    Q: What do Bill O'Reilly and Keith Olbermann have in common?
    A: They are both obsessed with Bill O'Reilly

    All the political bias aside, all you need to know why KO sucks is that he can't get over the fact that Bill and FOX wipe the floor with him and MSNBC every day of the week and twice on Sunday. Ever seen ratings for Football night in America?

    Personally, I'd like to see FOX move Red Eye against Countdown. Neither is a news show, though Red Eye is hilarious.

    Keith is a narcissist of the first order.

    Q: What do Bill O'Reilly and Keith Olbermann have in common?
    A: They are both obsessed with Bill O'Reilly

    All the political bias aside, all you need to know why KO sucks is that he can't get over the fact that Bill and FOX wipe the floor with him and MSNBC every day of the week and twice on Sunday. Ever seen ratings for Football night in America?

    Personally, I'd like to see FOX move Red Eye against Countdown. Neither is a news show, though Red Eye is hilarious.

    Posted by: Karen at January 5, 2008 12:26 PM

    Red Eye has to be the worst show on cable news. Oh and Countdown IS a news show.

    What I hate about Keith is

    1. His big fat ass, orange face, and young girlfriend.

    5. He's a chicken shit with an orange face, big fat ass, young girlfriend, orange face, no tolerance for limericks, orange face, and big fat ass.

    Posted by: Wasted Keystrokes at January 4, 2008 11:00 PM

    Hey, I do have a fat ass, what of it!?! It's great when my young girlfriend rubs it down with soothing oils every night when I get home from promoting Hillary on Countdown.

    or now the old and senile Daddy FLUCKER (cue Mr. Magoo theme) who thinks he single-handedly liberated the oppressed in Alabama,...

    Posted by: cee at January 5, 2008 9:01 AM

    Yeah... all those posts from Clucker about old women, spent women, dried-up women, etc... and it turns out that Gramps here is older than dirt...

    Isn't that always the way (in one sense or another) with these clowns?...

    Oh and Countdown IS a news show.

    Posted by: Trent the Marxist at January 5, 2008 12:32 PM


    "ROFLMAO" to quote a certain spolbyloon!

    Steve: "Second, when democrats say that Bush has not made us safer, indeed has made the danger of terrorism worse by invading Iraq. Is that fearmongering, is it?"

    No it isn't! ..... Because the republicans started that whole snowball rolling in the first place by making such shameful politically motivated charges against the democrats their standard procedure first.

    Your argument makes no sense. It's as if you are defining fundamental fairness as your 'right' to be able to slug someone...but then your right to cry "foul" when, to your utter surprise,....they slug you back.

    Oh and Countdown IS a news show.

    Posted by: Trent the Marxist at January 5, 2008 12:32 PM


    "ROFLMAO" to quote a certain spolbyloon!

    Posted by: royal king at January 5, 2008 1:39 PM

    Sorry RoKi, I don't have enough energy today for your perplexing rhetorical banter.

    And nevermind the Iraqi people wishing to remain free from totalitarianism....same attitude....not our problem....there are seats in Congress to win, and a Presidency to reclaim!

    Nice.
    Posted by: cee at January 5, 2008 9:01 AM

    Well said Cee

    McCool: "Well said Cee"

    Now why can't you say something "well", instead of just calling people "jackasses"?

    "Because the republicans started that whole snowball rolling in the first place by making such shameful politically motivated charges against the democrats their standard procedure first. "

    Geez, one standard for Republicans and no standard for Democrats?

    So, it's okay to use fear tactics in response to fear tactics?

    If fear tactics are wrong, aren't they wrong no matter who is using them?

    Let me try again: BEFORE 9/11, Democrats would claim that Republicans were going to take away grandma's social security. They were going to take away children's food and let them starve.

    Et cetera, et cetera.

    Is that "terrorism"? Is that using shameless scare tactics in order to win elections?

    Look, I'm NOT saying that Republicans don't use fear. That they don't engage in scare tactics.

    Of course they do.

    But political parties always claim that if the other party wins, it'll be the end of the country.

    What I really can't understand though when you say that the threat from radical Islam is negligible and has been exaggerrated by Republicans is how do you respond when Tony Blair and Sarkozy and Merkel and other leaders and ex-leaders also say that it's a threat?

    There are legions of Islamic scholars and political experts who warn about the danger from radical Islam.

    Are all these people - Blair and Sarkozy and Lewis and on and on - none of whom work for the Republican Party - wrong? Are all the people outside of the US also using scare tactics?

    That's quite a conspiracy engineered by Karl Rove.

    Steve: "What I really can't understand though is when you say that the threat from radical Islam is negligible and has been exagerated by Republicans is how you respond when Tony Blair and Sarkozy and Merkel and other leaders and ex-leaders say it's a threat?"

    That is because you have just jumbled several different falsehoods and misrepresentations within the same stereotype based presumptive assumptions as to what I, or "we" actually believe.

    So lets break it down into relevant parts:

    1) - "You say the threat from radical Islam is neglegible".....Wrong! I have NEVER said that! .....What I HAVE said is that republicans are overrating it's relative overall threat to America to the point in which our collective reaction is causing more harm to America more than initial action (911). My point all along is that if we allow ourselves to collectively give in to an irrational fear of Terrorism, then terrorism will have worked exactly as they intended it to work. By "irrational", I don't mean there is no threat....I simply mean it's REAL threat should be kept in it's proper perspective. America is great enough to survive almost anything....A major city under water, an entire region destroyed by a hurricane, major buildings destroyed by airplanes, and yes, even a low level Nuclear explosion (and God forbid if THAT happens)....BUT we CANNOT survive an extended period of succumbing to irrational fear.

    2) - "and has been exagerated by Republicans":....Well, sort of, but it's not so much that it has been exagerated, but the notion that our reaction to the threat must be so extreme that it forces us to change who we are....which, once again...means the terrorists win!

    3) - What people like me have been saying all along is that we have pretty much been reacting WRONGLY to the threat....it was more of a knee jerk reaction.

    As soon as republicans STOP trying to justify an invasion of a country that did not attack us as a meaningful step in the war on terrorism, ..... and as soon as they STOP excusing our cessation of the pursuit of the REAL enemy; the one that actually DID attack us (Bin Laden), ....then and only then can we begin to have some meaningful dialoque.

    The answer is simple: America "wins" by remaining America...and by standing by it's principles. And if we do that, radical Islam can NEVER really touch us.

    1) - "You say the threat from radical Islam is neglegible".....Wrong! I have NEVER said that!

    posted by mike

    "Fake war" is what you called it.

    instead of just calling people "jackasses"?

    Posted by: Mike at January 5, 2008 2:46 PM


    Just our daily dose.....

    ...but then your right to cry "foul" when, to your utter surprise,....they slug you back.

    Posted by: Mike at January 5, 2008 1:44 PM


    Second dose of hypocrisy, today. Geez.

    I think Keith would say, just like me, that even at it's worst, the threat of terrorism from ragtag terrorists is miniscule compared to the everyday threats we all already accept and face day in and day out.

    It pains me personally to see so many Americans seemingly cringe in apparent fear because several planes hit some buildings 6 years ago, and something similar COULD happen again.

    I suspect that Keith, like me, believes Islamic Terorist could NEVER defeat us, unless we LET them do it psychologically.

    If America ceases to be America because of something as relatively insignificant as Islamic Terrorists, then they will have succeeded in making us defeat ourselves.


    Posted by Mike at September 26, 2007 12:12 AM

    On a mroe serious note, I'm glad it doesn't bother you that so many Americans are allowing themselves to be consumed with irrational fear of the terrorist boogyman.

    Posted by Mike at September 26, 2007 12:42 AM

    I can assure you that John Edwards never chased an ambulance.

    Posted by Mike at September 26, 2007 1:48 AM

    As for Rush, I stopped listening to him after he was caught as a drug user...after listening to countless diatribes from him about how druggies should be crucified.

    But I'm sure YOU have no problem with that kind of hypocrisy, do you Jeff?


    Posted by Mike at September 26, 2007 3:10 AM

    I'll bet you think Ahmadinejad is dangerous, but God help the world if anyone who thinks like you ever come to power.

    Posted by Mike at September 26, 2007 11:48 PM

    Cee, every single word of every single paragraph you just posted is pure unadultrated BS. I could easily and factually refute every sentence individually but I don't have the time and I'm not sure this blog has the space.


    Posted by: Mike at September 27, 2007 12:23 PM

    1) His Deplorable "List". 99.9% Democratic Politicians Interviewed on his Show.

    2) He has helped turn a once proud and respectable News Network into "Al Jazeera @ 30 Rock."

    3) Over personal 400 attacks on O'Reilly.

    4) Making John McCain a worst person in the world on a number of occassions.

    5) His smirk, which needs wiping.

    Here are a few things I hate about Keith Olbermann:

    1. His pathological obsession with Bill O'Reilly and the flimsy excuses he uses to attack him.

    2. His reliance on Media Matters as gospel.

    3. That he uses his Worst Person in the World segment as a vehicle for personal attacks on political opponents.

    4. The inappropriate and embarrassing sexual references used to attack Bill Orally, er... I mean "O'Reilly".

    5. That he sincerely believes in much of what he says.

    That's all that comes to mind at the moment...

    5 dislikes:

    1. He's a proven liar

    2. He's a partisan hack

    3. He's very immature

    4. He's very unprofessional

    5. He has no credibility

    Steve, that was a great read that you gave us the link to.

    The global political ideas underpinning different positions are laid out in a fundamental way.

    Grammie

    PS MIKE, do miniscule and negligible have essentially the same meaning?

    They have slightly different denotation but essentially the same connotation, with "miniscule" denoting a smaller unit.

    What was your point Janet, .... except to prove how proficient you are at taking the word "miniscule" completely out of context, and then comparing it to the word "negligible", ..... used in a.n entirely different context?

    PS: You do yourself NO favors by continuing to align yourself with the most dispicable troll on this discussion board.

    After all, We are often judged by who we chose to associate with!

    After all, We are often judged by who we chose to associate with!

    Posted by: Mike at January 5, 2008 7:51 PM


    i.e. patsy, slob, why, philby, etc.

    PS: You do yourself NO favors by continuing to align yourself with the most
    [dispicable]sic troll on this discussion board.


    Posted by: Mike at January 5, 2008 7:51 PM


    I thought you liked patsy and mrs. philby? Was I wrong? If I was, I am truly sorry and beg your forgiveness.

    MIKE:

    "1) - "You say the threat from radical Islam is neglegible".....Wrong! I have NEVER said that! .....What I HAVE said is that republicans are overrating it's relative overall threat to America to the point in which our collective reaction is causing more harm to America more than initial action (911)."

    MIKE:

    "I think Keith would say, just like me, that even at it's worst, the threat of terrorism from ragtag terrorists is miniscule compared to the everyday threats we all already accept and face day in and day out."

    Now you say (CAPS mine for emphasis):

    "What was your point Janet, .... except to prove how proficient you are at taking the word "MINISCULE COMPLETELY OUT OF CONTEXT, and then comparing it to the word "NEGLIGIBLE", ..... USED IN A.N (sic) ENTIRELY DIFFERENT CONTEXT."

    What is that about not being in the same context? Since I am using your own words in quite a bit of context could you point out this gulf of difference in what you said and meant because I see a distinction (particular words) without a difference.

    "I HAVE said is that republicans are overrating it's relative overall threat to America to the point in which our collective reaction is causing more harm to America more than initial actionRepubs overrating the threat of terrorism is causing more harm then the original 911 terrorist attack is so completely different from If America ceases to be America because of something as relatively insignificant as Islamic Terrorists, then they will have succeeded in making us defeat ourselves."

    Compared to this:

    "It pains me personally to see so many Americans seemingly cringe in apparent fear because several planes hit some buildings 6 years ago, and something similar COULD happen again...........If America ceases to be America because of something as relatively insignificant as Islamic Terrorists, then they will have succeeded in making us defeat ourselves."

    If you were a candidate I would say that you have a very consistent position on the threat of terrorism and where the real threat comes from.

    BTW, I am quite content to count RK as a friend here as I assume that you are quite content to count the mooing pornographic bestiality perverts as your friends.

    As they say, different strokes for different folks.

    Grammie

    Many more than five reasons to hate
    The orange one with delusions innate
    Liar? Hypocrite?
    Scumbag? Piece of shit?
    Or the ratings he likes to inflate?

    Janet is always fond of people who have no debating skills, is blindly partisan and is as dumb as they come, ---along as they are republican.

    Posted by: at January 5, 2008 9:35 PM


    Olbyloon 'debating' right there. Thanks, patsy/why!

    Chicken Blogger, I am open to any instruction on the finer points of debating skill engendered by all the pornographic references to bestiality.

    No doubt it is my intellectual deficiency that blinds me to the overwhelming points made that include such brillaint points as his date, the goat, ate all the cranberry sauce plus the can at Thanksgiving dinner.

    I am chagrined that I could not rise to the challenge posed by my spiritual and intellectual superiors to meet that elevated challenge.

    Grammie

    Just a mild correction here, "along as they are republican." should be "as long as they are Republican".

    I do understand though. When one moos, clucks and baas its way through life it can be a bit daunting to master English.


    Maybe she can explain why this is,other than his credentials as a card carrying member of the far right wing goon squad.

    Posted by: at January 5, 2008 9:55 PM

    I am a registered card carrying (I). You, on the other hand, are w/out a doubt a FAR leftist gore lover.

    Janet: "What is that about not being in the same context."

    Simple Janet....simple....it's all in those other simple little words you ignored in your comparison known as "COMPARED" and "RELATIVE".

    With THAT in mind Janet, are you prepared to argue:

    1) - That you are personally more at risk from a terrorist attack than you are from an automobile collision?

    2) - That you face more personal risk from terrorism to your life and well being than you do from cancer or a heart attack?

    3) - That you personally face more personal risk from a terrorist than from a home invasion from a common criminal?

    4) - That you are personally more at risk from a terrorist than you are from a house fire?

    5) - That you are personally more at risk from a terrorist than you are from a natural disaster?

    I could go on, but I think you get the idea.

    So you see once again, the context was all in those OTHER little words I used called "compared" and "relative".

    Now why did I have to explain that to you & why is it that I usually know where you are going before you even go there?

    Now have some advise for you. If you'd quit trying to play little 'gotcha' games with words and actually debate a point, .... then you would be far more credible.

    Mr Cox, Please introduce your reporter friend to Katy Turic and her limericks. I believe she deserves some recognition for her fine work.

    My eternal thanks, Bear

    1.) retractions/corrections:

    whenever he doesn't "have to", he doesn't. doesn't present both sides of an argument or extremely rarely, only when it happens by mistake. underreports what he want's, focuses on stories that support his "progressive" agenda. all in all he is either the worst journalist ever, or an opinion commentator who doesn't bother to explain both sides of a story. you hear the "pros" but not the "cons". instead of defending his opinion against a good counter-argument, he just avoids the argument. i just realized i've never heard the man go maddog on anyone other than straight into the camera, yelling at bush... far, far away. to summarize, he's a poor journalist. it insults my intelligence, and i hate that.


    2.) derangement syndrome:
    if you don't agree with his worldview, your stupid and he hates you. if you're perceived as a threat to him, maddog olbermann really puts on a display. real or not, who knows, the man's largely an act. and surely he has the talent to "act". i hate it when he looks at 3 different cameras in the span of 60 seconds, so he can dramtically look over his own shoulder with those "oh so smart" glasses, with that important looking expression. i love to hate it. its so bad.


    3.) insensitivity:
    olbermann is insensitive. he hurls slings and arrows all over the place and doesn't even care if he's telling the truth. even if it is true, is it appropriate? what good is it to call paris hilton a whore? why focus on that? it reveals more about keith than it tells us anything about paris hilton. he just gets his kicks like that. thats not even a good example. theres so many examples of smear attacks with no merits at all. meanwhile, olby is so sensitive of his own image that he never corrects himself, he is just trying to project an illusion. if he werent so sensitive, he'd try to correct himself instead of hiding. (like in a tub.) hate it.


    4.) willfull dishonesty:
    others can do a better job of documenting this area. sometimes he uses blatant misquoting to defend rosie while attacking "fox noise." he figures it's a two for one special lie.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxPkq8TCOJ8 johnny dollar has documented a few examples, but there are many more that i just can't remember. but i do remember one thing: i hated it because he was lying.


    5.) legacy:
    keith has trashed his legacy. instead of the funny guy who entertained us, he became the guy who pissed us off. the guy who seemed to blame america first. the man who belittled so many accomplishments made in the wars. the man who seized on any story that made a conservative look bad, and who ignored any story that did the same for a liberal. the man who humiliated us because we disagreed. not that i ever gave a rats ass about olbermann's legacy,you just gotta hate the fact that one more act you listened to decided to soil itself. as good as he might be at recappin' the highlights, you can't get past who he is anymore. in my mind he is a dishonest liberal activist news pundit with much credibility within nbc and none with me. now when i watch the nfl, feelings of hate wash over me. i hate that.


    i don't hate him (till i run into him, im sure) just the character he portays on tv,

    olbyhater

    Mike,

    Comparing the odds of a natural disaster, house fire, or getting cancer to the odds of a terrorist attack is absurd.

    "Comparing the odds of a natural disaster, house fire, or gettin cancer to the odds of a terrorist attack is absurd."

    1) - Not if you are going to keep the relative risks and our reactions in proper perspective it isn't.

    2) - Not if you are going to imply that the American people should be living in fear of Islamic extremism or Sharia Law it isn't.

    3) - Not if your government is at risk of reacting to perceived threats of terrorism SO irrationally that they would do something as dumb as attacking countries that haven't attacked us it isn't.

    Comparing the odds of a natural disaster, house fire, or getting cancer to the odds of a terrorist attack is absurd.

    Posted by: Rico at January 5, 2008 10:52 PM


    Hence, the term olbyloon 'logic.'

    Oh no!!!

    The Virgin Dweeb PATSY has attacked me!

    constipation insurance.

    Just in case we blow up full of shit upon the innocent.

    Sorry Mike,

    But I think your perspective is askew. You seem to think we are on the path to becoming a police state. I find that point of view to be silly.

    How many muslims did you have over for Christmas, patsy? None? Same as last year, none?

    "But I think Your perspective is askew."

    But I kind of like you anyway!

    ok, you guys think your helping matters arguing with the olberloons? they can't be reasoned with. the thread gets full of spam. then your half to blame. wise up.

    "ok, you guys think your helping matters arguing with the olberloons. the can't be reasoned with."

    Darn us! ...... We just won't listen to that irrefutable RW "reason", will we?

    Royal King,

    Ask PATSY if he's ever had a woman over to his place.

    How many Muslims did you have over for pulled prok sandwiches, Patsy?

    Posted by: A N O N Y M O U S at January 5, 2008 11:43 PM


    This is America, I could give a rats ass what muslims eat, celebrate or anything else. Invite some to your house and see if they show you their really nice knives.

    Ask PATSY if he's ever had a woman over to his place.

    Posted by: Rico at January 5, 2008 11:41 PM


    The question is, how much did he pay it and how fast did it run afterwards......

    Rico shot your balloon down in one sentence "Comparing the odds of a natural disaster, house fire, or getting cancer to the odds of a terrorist attack is absurd."

    You never so much as hinted that you were comparing the "slings and arrows of fate" in a statistical way to the realities of any potential danger in a nuclear age from outside forces. Perhaps it is because you believe your own press releases that conservatives are bladder incontinent cowards trembling under the bed in puddles.

    The only concession my husband, kids and I made post 911 was to no longer let the older grandchildren fly by themselves to visit us after XMas through New Years and at the beginning and end of summer. They were outraged at the decision but just the thought that a trillion to one chance existed that they could be by themselves on a hijacked flight made me queasy.

    Give me a break. I am so tired of being characterized as an urine puddling coward whenever I hear a noise or a boo according to you and your friends.

    There was nothing in your original comment that mentioned heart attack, fire, auto accident etc to back this up: "So you see once again, the context was all in those OTHER little words I used called "compared" and "relative".

    You spoke in broad terms that I have pointed out are very consistent. Broad terms are the appropriate way to address this. Thank God that the country did not and does not face my statistical chances of dropping dead in any particular time frame. If we did we would all be living in a bomb shelter. Take my word for it death is not the worst thing that can happen to you.

    To compare an external political threat to the normal vagaries faced by all of us is nonsensical. Quick question. Did more US soldiers die in Vietnam than those who died each year on our nation's highways during the Vietnam War?


    "Now why did I have to explain that to you & why is it that I usually know where you are going before you even go there?

    Now have some advise for you. If you'd quit trying to play little 'gotcha' games with words and actually debate a point, .... then you would be far more credible."

    Gee, MIKE, could it be that you never stand by your words but always look for a way to crayfish out?

    Grammie

    PS I didn't see your answer to this:

    "BTW, I am quite content to count RK as a friend here as I assume that you are quite content to count the mooing pornographic bestiality perverts as your friends.

    As they say, different strokes for different folks. "

    Thank$ Pat$y !

    Grammie

    But PATSY,

    Have you ever had a woman over to your house. Mommy doesn't count.

    A N O N,

    I assume your Godchild is no longer in critical condition and all is well now. It's almost as if it was over before it started.

    Thank$ Pat$y !

    Grammie

    PATSY,

    I am complimenting your Mommy. She raised a big boy who is purer than the average Catholic priest.

    It's almost as if it was over before it started.

    Posted by: Rico at January 6, 2008 12:16 AM

    Good observation, Rico.

    A N O N,

    I mentioned it because you are back to snarking away as if it never happened. It sounded like this incident was an epiphany or something for you but apparently it was not.

    You are truly a unique poster at OW, with lots of pretense and name dropping and the like. If all that you have told us about yourself it true, then you are slumming big time. Of course, you may snark away to your heart's content. Lots of us do that, too, but without any pretense.

    PATSY,

    How many women have you ever fucked?

    Let me take a wild guess: ZERO!!!

    Rico, you are the man tonight with your 12:44 AM comment.

    Monsieur Capon Blank-Flucker is as genuine as a three dollar counterfeit bill.

    C'est la vie!

    Grammie

    Gee, MIKE, could it be that you never stand by your words but always look for a way to crayfish out?

    Grammie

    Practice makes almost perfect.
    "you're wrong!"
    "out of context!"
    "not what I meant!"
    "quit trying to play little 'gotcha' games!"
    "attacking countries that haven't attacked us!"
    "What was your point?" (after being debunked)
    "simplistic/simpleton"
    "oversimplification"

    Just to name a few of his 'crawfish.'

    Thank$ Pat$y !

    Grammie

    "Not really, Jeff. Benson and I "conversed" about it at least once since the accident."


    That makes it real?

    Grammie, seriously losing brains cells by the minute, and RK obviously never had any.

    What a pair !

    Posted by: at January 6, 2008 1:01 AM


    That doesn't make you look very good, does it? Being bitch slapped all around this blog by people w/no brain cells? TDF!!!(*)---

    Chicken Blogger, you seem to be overwrought. I guess being one Chicken out of innumerable Chickens all crapping and clucking in tandem might well cause a Chicken Blogger to become overwrought.

    Ta Ta, dear!

    Grammie

    Oh, yes. Health care will do you alot with a nuke up your ass. Thanks for commenting, though.

    Dear Chicken Blogger, I see your broad stokes (a la MIKE) but can not relate to any specifics of it.

    "You get more like RK each and every day.
    You just plain make things up and materialize situations out of think air.

    It must be lonely where you park your butt.
    But you really need to start coming up with better material.
    It's really embarrassing."

    Just one or two concrete examples of "You just plain make things up and materialize situations out of think air" to back up your accusation would be helpful. Also, exactly where is it that I "park my butt"?

    Grammie

    Janet: "There was nothing in your original comment that mentioned heart attack, fire, auto accident, etc."

    Oh, I see...I have to specifically spell out with you exactly what I mean when I spoke of the "RELATIVELY MINISCULE" risks of a terrorist attack compared to all of the miriad of risks we all face and accept each and every day of our lives....that make the "RELATIVE" risk of falling victim to a terrorist attack seem "NEGLIGABLE"?

    My statement that YOU dredged up was: "I think Keith would say, just like me, that the threat of terrorism is miniscule compared to the everday threats we all already face and accept every day."

    Now just WHAT in the HELL do you think that meant Janet?...... Did you think I was comparing the risk of Terrorism to the risk a meteor falling out of the sky? I had to actually SAY "auto accident", etc., etc., for you to get it?

    WHERE is your common sense? I guess your stated first three national priorities of DEFENSE, DEFENSE, DEFENSE should have clued me in to your lack it?

    I have been saying EXACTLY the same thing now for over a year now, .... and have used only slightly different wordings to clarify ..... but then YOU take out your little magnifying glass and take it upon yourself to decide that those slightly different wordings
    constitute contradiction instead?

    What you are REALLY telling me every time you do that is that you don't think I really believe what I have said because you THINK I am saying something different the next time, ..... and by merely attacking my wording, you can expose me as a hypocrite.

    You are WRONG!

    It's really a shame that you have deliberately chosen to adopt such low end tactics of engaging in semantics with individual words, ..... instead of actually engaging in debate about issues and pundits.

    And to think, I used to think you were SO much better than that!



    1:15 AM is spot on!

    Edwards/Obama in 08'.

    Yeah !

    Posted by: at January 6, 2008 1:50 AM

    Edwards/Obama in 08'.

    Edwards will not be able to stand up to scrutiny as far as his leadership ability goes, and he does not have the charisma of a Bill Clinton. I doubt Obama can either at this point in his career.


    Yeah !

    Posted by: at January 6, 2008 1:50 AM

    Posted by: Trent the Marxist at January 6, 2008 3:43 AM


    Why not Olbama/Edwards in '08?

    Obama is the stronger candidate comparatively-- with independent voters.

    Frankly, Democrats best be hoping that Mrs. Clinton is also a "come back kid" or that Gore decides to jump into the fray.

    Clinton or Gore with either Edwards or Obama as a running mate could be elected President.

    Clinton is the best hope for the Dems to retake the WH and it's ironic, indeed, to see her being dumped.


    You are WRONG!

    It's really a shame that you have deliberately chosen to adopt such low end tactics of engaging in semantics with individual words, ..... instead of actually engaging in debate about issues and pundits.

    And to think, I used to think you were SO much better than that!

    Posted by: Mike at January 6, 2008 1:36 AM


    Well, the entire argument of whether "miniscle" and
    "negligible" could be taken off the table and it would still be clear that you had made a damn stupid statement. A statement no Democrat running for office would ever consider making.

    If you were arguing that we should more worried about getting everyone insured for medical costs than about an attack by Islamic terrorists on us (not to mention upon an ally) then you've shown yourself very shortsighted. No surprise there.

    No matter how devastating you think the Bush policy has been towards accomplishing the goal of making the Middle East a more stable region or of securing our interests and no matter how you feel that task would best be accomplished, to fail to consider that Islamic extremism is a threat to worldwide stability, makes you what you what you're so busy calling your political opponents -- but on a much larger scale-- a partisan hack.

    You're willing to minimize this threat to the point that you compare it unfavorably to individuals not having health insurance or to the national rate of heart disease and all because you hope it doing that you negate some sort of dishonest Republican strategy!

    Again, Democratic candidates do not attempt the tactic of putting on blinkers in an effort to counterbalance some perspective that the Republicans have put them on when it comes to domestic issues and that they are trying to arouse 'unfounded' fears in the populace.

    Only lefty idiots like yourself do that. In a faltering economy and during an unpopular war, you guys just may undermine a more than good possibility of new Democratic president in '09.

    Well Cecelia, I'll at least give you some credit for reading and partially understanding a post. But then you go and replace the steadily sinking Janet's obsession with "miniscule" wording differences with out and out ad hominems. However, I don't know if that really places you on any higher ground ethically?

    The REASON no democratic candidate would not say the things I have said the WAY I have said them is because they are running for president, and I am obviously not .... And somewhere along the line, a focus group would caution them that people such as yourself would misrepresent and misunderstand what I was REALLY saying and believe .... as you STILL obviously do.

    While us "lefty idiots" keep wondering and articulating WHY "partisan hack" rightists like yourself keep defending some of absolute dumbest foreign and domestic policy decisions in the history of this nation. Decisions that have themselves contributed mightily to what you are yourself labeling "a faltering economy during an unpopular war".

    Finally, neither you NOR Janet can take any solace in your wrongly perceived notion that people such as myself don't understand the dangers of Islamic extremism. I was personally worried about Islamic radicalism LONG before 911, and watched with dismay while our collective national response to it swung ALL the way from outright apathy, to the OTHER extreme of irrational knee jerk reactionism.....All based on a single and possibly preventable attack that wise individuals had been warning us was coming for years, ..... while most of those crowing the loudest about the threat NOW .... never uttered a peep about it THEN.

    You can pontificate all you want against those of us who recognize that some of us are STILL guilty of not putting this very REAL threat in it's proper perspective perspective, ..... but that won't make your ad hominems bite backs true.

    We've already found out that sometimes the wrong 'cure' is worse than the disease, but some of us still don't seem to get it that it possible to miss the forest but for the trees.

    Cecelis: "Clinton is the best hope for the Dems to retake the White House and it is ironic, indeed, to see her being dumped."

    BULLS**T!

    I have no doubt your mouth was watering at the thought of another wishy washy politician's baggage being placed directly in the line of fire of the Swift Boaters.

    Gone for the day.

    Mr. Dollar and Mr. Cox-please, I beg of you, remove these off-topic diatribes from this thread for just once.

    If he did, there would be cobwebs growing on this site and it would be dissolved.

    Posted by: at January 6, 2008 11:03 AM


    especially after removing your crap

    Going back tot he topic of Top Five Things OW Readers "hate" About Keith

    Keith's unwillingness to have anybody on his show with a different opinion of his own.

    Devoting a bizarre amount of time, about 40%, of his show doing personal attacks, cheap jokes and giving false information on Fox News, the Bush administration and anybody he doesn't agree with. He spends way to much time attacking other TV and radio personalities.


    How he seems to think he is the voice of the American people. No news anchor, TV personality, writer and or movie star is the voice of the American people.


    On about 80% of his show he tries to be funny and looks right into the camera as to say "you get my joke, I know you do." We get it, but it's not funny. When he was at ESPN his one liners about the sports news was occasionally funny but it doesn't work in this medium.

    His worse person of the world segment is a distortion of the truth, has the same people on it almost every night and is just another tool of his to get in cheap shoots at people he hates.
    It's also not more juvenile than funny.


    I'm surprised MSNBC went with Keith on the 8pm slot.
    I know they needed somebody to be the opposite of Bill on Fox, but Keith is so over the top he can't be considered news.

    Since I work for Time Warner in NYC, I have heard some news anchors, like Chris Matthews, are not happy with Keith's so called brand of juvenile journalism.

    Hey cowy, thanks for posting the nation hit piece. I really liked this part. One can only hope the 'author' is correct.

    "With conservatives staring straight into the abyss, their activities in this election cycle could very well make the Swift Boat smears look tame by comparison."

    Facts don't equal smear. Do we have to go over that, again? Where were you when hillary was 'smearing' obama? Silent.

    The only people on the site I find to be annoyances are:

    Jeff, who is truly an ignorant racist and contributes nothing.

    Cee, who is a pontificating blowhard, which is a shame because absent that annoying shtick, he can offer some good insight.

    St. Sharon the Sullen, simply because whiners get to me so easily.

    posted by philby

    In other words, anyone that isn't a secular progressive or disagrees w/you.

    Most of the posters on this site and conservative, and I respect almost all of them.


    posted by philby

    Hittin' the sauce, already?

    And finally, the gold goes to the richly deserved Roger Ailes for his revolutionary FOX Business Channel, who has only averaged 6,300 viewers during the day and 15,000 during prime time.

    Posted by: Why Don't You Think at January 6, 2008 3:34 PM


    Thanks for proving what a joke the wpitw segment really is.

    McCool: you seem obsessed with KO's ass. Are you a butt bandit? Fudge packer? Shirt lifter? Or Larry Craig, Mark Foley, etc?

    McCool: you seem obsessed with KO's ass. Are you a butt bandit? Fudge packer? Shirt lifter? Or Larry Craig, Mark Foley, etc?

    Thank goodness I read Cecelia's post before I headed out of the house. I'll peel the Obama sticker off my bumper and put a Clinton one on right away! If the last 7 years has taught us anything it is that we ought to noiminate candidates because they are electable. Pinciple and policy be damned! Thanks for covering my back, Cecelia.

    Posted by: A N O N Y M O U S at January 6, 2008 10:40 AM


    Well, why would she be "electable" in the first place?

    And you're going to have to answer THAT question by comparing her a rich white guy named John Edwards rather than your usual schtick attributing any criticism of Obama to racism.

    If you want to make a grand gesture vote, BY ALL MEANS...be my guest. I'm not arguing, I'm just marveling at the irony of the left, especially when I consider that Clinton BFF Keith Olbermann is the designated oracle of a group of people he's done more to push further to the left and away from Hillary than anyone else.

    However, are you really making your grand gesture for a candidate who is THAT different from Edwards or Obama politically, rather than being different from them in intellect and temperament and the ability to play politics?

    You can pontificate all you want against those of us who recognize that some of us are STILL guilty of not putting this very REAL threat in it's proper perspective perspective, ..... but that won't make your ad hominems bite backs true.

    We've already found out that sometimes the wrong 'cure' is worse than the disease, but some of us still don't seem to get it that it possible to miss the forest but for the trees.
    Posted by: Mike at January 6, 2008 10:50 AM

    For a guy who has spent five paragraphs writing that no matter how what he's said about terrorism being less important than heart attack stats.... he's always been savvy enough to have been concerned about Islamic terrorism and prescient enough to know that an attack was imminent.... you sure have a lot of nerve talking about pontificating.

    There was the first WTC bombing, the Cole, the base in Africa....we've all been concerned about a terrorist attack, Mike. And we've all read the 9/11 Commission report where there's enough blame in one eight year administration and one eight month administration to go around...

    I'm pretty sure too what particular past policy questions/cliches you're going for here, Mike, but then I have long thought the U.S. did something right when Pres Carter and Reagan helped the Muslims kick out the Soviets. Grateful too, for preventing Saddam from annexing Kuwait... I would have thought they'd have been grateful to Clinton for intervening in their mistreatment in Kosovo, too.

    I think we should have put a mountain of political pressure on the Saudis... (a risky dance to be fair, iwhen they sit on the stuff that drives the universe) to stop fomenting fundamentalism, but then you aren't for that sort of thing. You want "the people" to decide what sort of govt they wish to have (in a way that the post war American colonists were not given), or to at least stay in a "stable" if undemocratic situation... and pressure might actually help the Islamists oust the Saudi royal family... Ah, tricky, stuff here, but not to you, I'm sure...

    But bottom line, beyond all your pontificating detractions from what you said, is the fact that candidates don't compare concerns over Islamic terrorism unfavorably to getting nationalized health care because they aren't that stupid. They know we can walk and chew gum at the same time and that domestic AND foreign policy are both critically important.

    Beyond any dispute about whether you meant that Islamic terrorism concerns are so tiny as to be miniscule as compared with this or that that they are negligible-- (which is defined as being so tiny as to be ignored) is the fact that you're in the minimizing business when it comes to terrorist attacks, not because it's smart (as you have admitted) and not because you really believe it.

    Unfortunately you don't have any of the political handlers you think it takes to keep a Democratic candidate from making your asinine comment.

    You just have you and your willingness to shill any sort of nonsense if you think it takes the wind out of the sails of those terrible ole blogboard RWers...

    You over estimate your importance, Jeff. You are wholly unimportant. Most of the posters on this site and conservative, and I respect almost all of them. I even agree with them some of the time.

    I seldom agree with you, but you have yet to ever say anything of substance.

    Posted by: A N O N Y M O U S at January 6, 2008 3:21 PM

    Actually, though I like RK, I think YOU and YOURS over estimate the importance of RK.

    Even though he seems to enjoy the hell out of it, I'm fairly sure RK agrees.

    BULLS**T!

    I have no doubt your mouth was watering at the thought of another wishy washy politician's baggage being placed directly in the line of fire of the Swift Boaters.

    Gone for the day.
    Posted by: Mike at January 6, 2008 10:56 AM


    "Gone for the day" should be tattooed to your forehead.

    When it comes to politics, do you ever have a waking thought that isn't straight out of a Blueblog comment board?

    How many choruses of "I'm just voting on the lesser of two evils" are we going to hear from you when you cast your ballot for Hillary in the fall, Mike?... :D

    How many choruses of "I'm just voting on the lesser of two evils" are we going to hear from you when you cast your ballot for Hillary in the fall, Mike?... :D

    Posted by: Cecelia at January 6, 2008 6:39 PM


    Cecelia, not sure if you caught it, but, 'mike' has bounced over to the obama camp. Although, I am quite sure he is somewhere w/his finger in the air as we speak.

    Cecelia, not sure if you caught it, but, 'mike' has bounced over to the obama camp. Although, I am quite sure he is somewhere w/his finger in the air as we speak.

    Posted by: royal king at January 6, 2008 6:49 PM

    I know, but I'm thinking that Hillary will bounce back in the end.

    She's as big a hypocrite and as phony as a $3 bill.

    Posted by: Why Don't You Think at January 6, 2008 7:40 PM

    That would certainly bring out the worst in the racist republicans and they would be tripping over themselves over who to slam/smear first.

    Posted by: Why Don't You Think at January 6, 2008 3:12 PM


    >


    Mark Penn, senior political strategist for the HILLARY CLINTON campaign, today urged Barack Obama to "come clean" and admit that he has fathered two African American girls.


    Philby, when I refer to Clinton as billy boy, does that make me a racist, too. Find a new shtick, ok? Putz.

    Well, Cecelia dear, it is rather difficult to ignore the racist angle when your little buddy refers to Senator Obama as "boy" and compares him to Marion Barry. Ignore it all you want, but don't expect others to do so. Like him or not, Cecelia, you know we have a stinking racist in Jeff.

    Posted by: A N O N Y M O U S at January 6, 2008 7:40 PM


    Well, since you also see stinking racists and launch into screeds against them whenever someone tries to pin you down over some run-it-up-the-flagpole-and-salute-it cliched gasbag piece you've written, no matter the topic, your word is hardly gospel.

    I don't know... A N O N Y M O U S, if Condi Rice were running and had admitted to past cocaine use and some wag on your side compared her to Marion Barry, I'd assume that they were comparing her to another black pol who used coke.

    That's just my generous nature, I suppose.

    As to the "boy" thing, I tend to use it myself towards members of the male persuasion-- including my husband (THAT boy, takes the cake, etc...).

    I've not noticed whether RK uses the term exclusively for black males or not, but you know... RK isn't representative of the rest of the pop. and that was who I meant when I said you'd be hard pressed to attribute Hillary's electability in the general population to racism. Especially when comparing her to a rich white boy...

    All the while Cecelia will never (officially) come out for any candidate, only denounce others on this topic.
    She's as big a hypocrite and as phony as a $3 bill.

    Posted by: Why Don't You Think at January 6, 2008 7:40 PM

    This from a guy who'd need a brain transplant in order to formulate and write his own argument. :D

    Now Cecelia, Senator Clinton's end may bounce a bit, but compared to Laura Bush's or Elizabeth Dole's cabose, Senator Clinton is a super model. You are partisan when it comes to female backsides.

    Posted by: A N O N Y M O U S at January 6, 2008 7:50 PM

    And you are a stranger to them... :D

    Mark Penn, senior political strategist for the HILLARY CLINTON campaign, today urged Barack Obama to "come clean" and admit that he has fathered two African American girls.


    Posted by: royal king at January 6, 2008 7:56 pm

    Awwww...now.... we all know that only Republicans do this...

    If Paul Tsongas were alive you could just ask him...

    Cecelia, I understand the psychology of your rushing to Jeff. In high school, some very popular girls took pity on the guys in the AV club. However, I know enough not to charge Jeff's utter idiocy and racism to you.

    Posted by: A N O N Y M O U S at January 6, 2008 8:16 PM

    A N O N Y M O U S, I understand how you'd want to use your god-given gifts and all, and deflection certainly is the one...you have... but are you able to address any statement directly?

    I know enough not to charge Jeff's utter idiocy and racism to you.

    Posted by: A N O N Y M O U S at January 6, 2008 8:16 PM

    Fooled me.........I figured that would be next, if you haven't already done it.

    Cecelia has never given me any reason to believe she is a racist, while you have conclusively established that you are, Jeff.

    Posted by: A N O N Y M O U S at January 6, 2008 8:54 PM


    Actually, I do believe you accused me of using racist "code" speech early in your Clucker incarnation here.

    Hey there Cecelia,

    Stop making so much sense. Just a drive by here before I go back to my sullen state.

    Hey there Cecelia,

    Stop making so much sense. Just a drive by here before I go back to my sullen state.

    Posted by: Sharon at January 6, 2008 9:07 PM

    We should all be so "sullen", Sharon! :D

    Cecelia @ 6:39: "when it comes to politics do you have a waking thought that doesn't come from a blueblog comment board?"

    That must mean I have ESP since I don't read blueblog comment boards....OR....mayby they're getting their ideas from me? :D

    Mrs. Philby, racists or not?

    Democrat Senators organized the record Senate filibuster of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Included among the organizers were several prominent and well known liberal Democrat standard bearers including:
    - Robert Byrd, current senator from West Virginia
    - J. William Fulbright, Arkansas senator and political mentor of Bill Clinton
    - Albert Gore Sr., Tennessee senator, father and political mentor of Al Gore. Gore Jr. has been known to lie about his father's opposition to the Civil Rights Act.
    - Sam Ervin, North Carolina senator of Watergate hearings fame
    - Richard Russell, famed Georgia senator and later President Pro Tempore


    By the way... you can find RoKi's post here too

    http://nashville.craigslist.org/pol/518864526.html

    Its ok we all forget to source our info when we steal it from others. Eh RoKi?

    Was that a yes or no?

    http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=15893


    That's why if you're a black American who thinks the GOP better represents your views than the Democratic Party, then it's time to join the Republican Party. Don't let the Democrats lie to you and tell you that the GOP is full of racists, especially when there are so many distinguished black Americans out there who can tell you otherwise. Look to Condi Rice, Colin Powell, Rod Paige, Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Larry Elder, J.C. Watts, Michael Steele, Ken Blackwell, Lynn Swann -- and you'll see that the GOP judges people not "by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."

    Was that a yes or no?

    Strong family values man.

    Posted by: A N O N Y M O U S at January 6, 2008 11:43 PM


    Who said anything about bj clinton? This was the original question:

    Mrs. Philby, racists or not?

    Democrat Senators organized the record Senate filibuster of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Included among the organizers were several prominent and well known liberal Democrat standard bearers including:
    - Robert Byrd, current senator from West Virginia
    - J. William Fulbright, Arkansas senator and political mentor of Bill Clinton
    - Albert Gore Sr., Tennessee senator, father and political mentor of Al Gore. Gore Jr. has been known to lie about his father's opposition to the Civil Rights Act.
    - Sam Ervin, North Carolina senator of Watergate hearings fame
    - Richard Russell, famed Georgia senator and later President Pro Tempore

    It's a yes or no answer, can you handle that?

    Democrats "reversing positions" according to Mrs. Philby.


    http://liberalscum.com/democratsracist.html

    crickeys......

    You never answered the very simple question, philby.

    "You ignorant racist twit. The parties completely reversed their positions on civil rights in the 1960's."

    Is that an answer? I don't see "yes" or "no" anywhere. Too difficult for ya?

    Sadly, Democrats and revisionist historians have all but forgotten (and
    intentionally so) that it was Republican Dirksen, not the divided
    Democrats, who made the Civil Rights Act a reality. Dirksen also broke
    the Democrat filibuster of the 1957 Civil Rights Act that was signed by
    Republican President Eisenhower. Outside of Congress, the three most
    notorious opponents of school integration were all Democrats:

    - Orval Faubus, Democrat Governor of Arkansas and one of Bill Clinton's
    political heroes

    - George Wallace, Democrat Governor of Alabama

    - Lester Maddox, Democrat Governor of Georgia The most famous of the
    school desegregation standoffs involved Governor Faubus. Democrat Faubus
    used police and state forces to block the integration of a high school
    in Little Rock, Arkansas.

    Ah, yes....the pontificating Daddy FLUCKER (cue Mr. Magoo theme), once again claims partisanship territory on morality.....I can assure him that the partisipation of "bigots" in our political system KNOWS NO PARTY and I would argue with the dear senile old man that the intolerance of people based on all sorts of criteria....

    race
    creed
    gender
    education level
    sexual preference
    nation of origin
    sound of last name
    etc.
    etc.
    etc.

    knows no party....And the progression of the protection of individual liberty also knows no party...whether it be during the early part of the country's history or in the 20th century....

    But his pride and senility will make his learning something new unlikely....

    So...the elitist Daddy FLUCKER (cue Mr. Magoo theme) can continue to selectively examine history to make himself feel good about the party that deemed fighting a war to free the slaves unnecessary and still has a basic core that feels that freedom is not based on any thing more than words and fighting to protect it is still not necessary....

    He can also be selective in the bigotry that he becomes incensed at.....While he continues to dehumanize people based on his evaluation of intellect or relgious belief....those are criteria ok to be bigoted about.....

    Ah the elite.....so easy to show their hypocrisy.......

    Glad to see Wasted join Daddy in his elitism as well....I guess the argument is that Abraham Lincoln should be considered a modern day democrat and George Wallace be considered a modern day republican...

    Nevermind it defies logic because these people were in their party and their party had millions of other people with different points of views regarding these issues of justice and freedom.....

    Oh well....revisionism is a dicey discipline.

    That must mean I have ESP since I don't read blueblog comment boards....OR....mayby they're getting their ideas from me? :D

    Posted by: Mike at January 6, 2008 10:45 PM


    Or maybe you just exhibit the same sort of ridiculous paranoiac mindset that would ascribe my saying that Hillary is the most viable Dem national candidate, to my saying it because she is the most assailable.

    ou ignorant racist twit. The parties completely reversed their positions on civil rights in the 1960's. When schools in Texas were integrated, well after Brown and some years after the Civil Rights Act, the racist Democrats left the schools (to either hastily organized, shoddy fundamentalist schools which are now thankfully largely closed down or home schools) and left the party. And for many of us, it was good riddance. To be sure, that meant the rise of Republicanism in Texas and the South. Why in the hell do you think the South is the heart of 21st Century Republicanism, and most of the rest of the country has deserted the party? Good governance? Do you know a damn thing about American history, or is it as foreign to you as English grammar? Ignorant racist twit!

    Posted by: A N O N Y M O U S at January 6, 2008 11:15 PM


    That has got to be one of the most simplistic analysis of why the South went Republican that's out there.

    Besides Goldwater did just what JFK acted similarly to Goldwater when he was running, and later said his party asked too much of him. That's conveniently forgotten by you folks.

    Here's clue. When you have to make excuses for losing a large segment of the population (whether it be people of color, union members, rural whites or southerners) by impugning the character of said folks, you're fooling yourself.

    And before you appeal to the authority of your birthright, your age, your experience, your sophistication...whatevah... Let me say that I'm a born and bred southerner too and my father supported and got to march (one time) with King.

    Oh well....revisionism is a dicey discipline.

    Posted by: cee at January 7, 2008 10:01 AM


    Someone ought to tell Howard Dean, he talked about "God, guns, and gays" and he right on all three.

    I'd wager if you took a poll on all three among blacks, latinos, and urban union members from the north, you'd find they largely share a mindset with southerners about all three issues. You can add school vouchers to that mix as well.

    What seems to make the difference is the Dem message that Republicans will screw over all these folks economically, and with people of color it's the notion that they cannot succeed without programs that counteract "inherent" national racism.

    The Republican Party has earned disdain in these communities there's no doubt,via playing upon white fears of exceptionalism for certain groups (no different than Dems playing upon the fears of people of color) and by corporate welfare. However, these communities have fallen victim to these messages as well.

    The mindset you and Daddy FLUCKER demonstrated this monring is of elitist leftist academics...a constiuency of the modern day democratic party....It is the same group that can think HRC is a good candidate, there is no culture west of 8th Avenue or South of The Battery and that regional differences in our great nation, whether they be economic, religious or social, have some kind of party identification.

    There were republicans for different motivations, that did not embrace the issue you choose to bring up....as there were democrats.....The problem is that the elite academic left, who has been and remains a constant in the democratic party, has an intolerant vein as well....one that poisons much of today's political reality and promotes division and bigotry on a much broader scale as race ever did.

    The worldview of the same leftist elite also impacts the future economic security and even the national (physical) security of the world's democracies...again in a negative way, IMHO.

    That being said, those moderates in the democratic party who can rise above antagonism to the different religious beliefs, different social customs, and different individual and family goals of others, keep the party relevent and is the reason we see a candidate like Obama able to buck the elite establishment and win support in states like Iowa....as opposed to New York....

    How do we explain this very real phenomenon?

    Posted by: A N O N Y M O U S at January 7, 2008 11:14 AM


    We explain it partially by an appeal to "free stuff".

    Although, I've only experienced the sort of sexism that insults my womanhood by liberal men on blogs (excluding the overt sexism of leers, passes, etc, that all women experience), I have been told all my life that this is how men feel and to expect that they will in some manner attempt to restrict my progress. I am told that govt must intervene in order to protect me and in a basic way I know this is true to an extent.

    Extrapolate that out to the point that I must believe that laws against discrimination aren't enough, that I must also be protected by forcing businesses to hire a certain number of women (or lose govt contracts), housing developement to offer discounts and incentives to women and people of color, etc.

    Then let's get to the point where I believe that govt financed health care is an inherent right by I am imbued with by birth. I already believe that Social Security must be limited to one system to forestall any possibility of failure of that system or the personal failure of my own choices.

    In contrast I hear from another group of people that "free stuff" is not free. That the power we turn over to govt to take care of us can be the same power that limits our rights... such as Canada has done with speech laws, etc. The "free stuff" I covet now can be used as a political football, a sort of duress, that plays on my fears and forces my hand in the future.

    That's not a message I've been taught to respect. I'd rather have "free stuff".

    And if you combine that tendency with a message that has been tainted by corporate welfare, elitism, and just the pure reality that racism, sexism, and all sorts of isms exist in this imperfect world, you have a particular hard sell...

    But I'm sold. Now do I act as everyone else, and guage who among imperfect people and parties most reflects my views. Yep.

    This is why it amuses me when I read bitter partisans suggesting hopefully that the china worlds of people who don't hold their views will be broken to pieces by the advent of a Democratic president. Hate to disappoint you folks, but I haven't put all my eggs in that basket called govt in the first place. I still live in a great free country, even with the powerful appeal of free stuff.

    But I'll eke out a crocodile tear if it makes you feel better. And I'll watch you guys go too far and then I'll see the pendulum swing back towards my views.

    If may do that by Nov. One never knows.

    "You're the only one who thinks its a big deal in any way that HRC is going down."


    ###
    I am? This was the candidate with winning numbers nationally against all comers and double digit leads in all Super Tuesday states one month ago....Why the change?

    A bunch of white democrats in Iowa vote against her 70% and now the world is upside down?....No...sorry.....she is a Clinton....a member of a "popular" administration and wife to someone all the leftists claim would win if he ran today....

    Well...what went wrong?....Why is the Clinton legacy ending so abrubtly against a one term Senator from Illinois who has NO leftist elite backing?

    It is because the Clintons have always run narrow and shallow....they contributed little in their 8 years as the administration prior to 9/11/01 and people know it deep down....hense the exodus of support.

    Al Gore, their heir, lost in 2000 and now the heir, HRC is losing even before the general election.....This is the power of the Clinton legacy.

    Sorry you don't get it Cecelia:

    For all of the elequence of your 11:48 diatribe. it's not about "free stuff" at all!

    It IS about government's other imperative that they insure a modicum of fundamental fairness within an inherently unfair society.

    I'm sorry you feel that a desire to insure that some Americans who have worked hard all their lives are just asking for "free stuff" when they or their families cannot afford a life saving treatment that can run in the many multiples of their yearly salary these days. I'm equaly sorry that you endorse a system that makes good and honest people such as this equaly incapable of affarding even basic insurance protection from such unavoidable disasters.

    I'm sorry that you see no personal evquilavence to the universal truth that "for the grace of God, there go I".....when you look at someone less fortunate than yourself.

    I'm sorry you do not possess within yourself the ability to feel even a minimum responsibility to do your share to insure that America does not fall back into a Dickonsonian England mentality that led to such realities as debtor's prison and the classic "A Cristmas Carol" story.

    I'm sorry that you fail to see how an increasingly economically divided society that endorses the denial of the most basic of essentials from the many at the whims of the few will always eventually fail from within.

    I'm sorry you fail to see how your party's wholesale sucking up to corporations at the expense of ordinary Americans has created a system based on Corporate welfare at the expense of the welfare of the individual.

    I'm sorry you have found it outside of your ability to reject ANYTHING that is done in the name of "National Defense", no matter how ill advised, self serving, expensive, or counterproductive it may be.

    I'm sorry you also fail to see that "national defense" must be ALSO paid for, like every other commodity we choose to undertake.

    Those are but a sampling of the 'lessons' your party has 'taught' us as of late. People who possess even a modicum of compassion will always reject the extremes....and much of what you party stands for these days IS an extreme.

    So you see, it's not about "free stuff" at all.

    It's about the inevidable swinging of the pendulum back in the direction of sanity...it's about humanity.....and it's about the overall betterment of society.

    It's called "DEMOCRACY"!


    I'm glad I got a chance to watch the republican debate Saruday night.

    The STILL possible nominee, and former front runner, Mit Romney said something that borders on disbelief regarding healthcare.

    He gave an example that went something like 'if a man who makes $100,000 a year goes in a hospital to get something "fixed" that needs fixing for, say $1000, he should not be able to demand that the rest of us pay for it.'

    He talks like he thinks we already have universal healthcare and it is just being abused.

    It makes we wonder just WHAT alternate reality some of these people are living in!

    I don't know a sole making $100,000 a year who would expect or qualify for a free '$1000 fix' at the public's expense.....nor can I think of many '$1000 fixes' that can be had at any hospital.

    But the republicans are actually thinking about nominating someone who thinks like THIS!?!?

    "I still live in a great free country, even with the powerful appeal of free stuff."


    ###
    So true Cecelia....The majority of the country still see it as their PRIVLEDGE to provide for themselves and their families in freedom....Food, clothing, shelter, education, healthcare....

    As the size of that group continues to decline in an ever increasing entitlement society and more become wards of the state in everything from education to medical care, individucal freedom must diminish and people will have to be willing to "settle." Mediocrity, like we see in all socialist societies, with lack of innovation, rapid progress and drive...will lead to stagnation and a decline in conditions that has been the cycle of human history....

    Oh well...we can still have faith that won't happen...like you say.....


    Mike,

    I'm sorry that know so little about the arguments of your political opposition that your statements make it clear that my quick post on a blogboard is the sum of your exposure.

    But most of all I'm sorry that you are so inflexible in your sanctimony that you MUST cast every political discussion into a fifties cartoon western with yourself in a white hat, and this without regard or respect for motivations, intentions, or modes of thinking other than your own.

    I see 'mike' still thinks healthcare is the #1 issue.

    Therein lies a good lesson for Democrats. I think we have been far less willing to cede the spokesperson role to others, and only über idiots like Jeff really believe Olbermann is a spokesperson for the party or its policies. Nonetheless, we need to be vigilant to avoid allowing ourselves to be branded. Hence, the value of this site to moderates, progressives and liberals ....

    Posted by: A N O N Y M O U S at January 7, 2008 12:36 PM

    I think WK's point would be better served if 1. It weren't the sort of argument that is predicated upon whose ox is being gored 2. It wasn't being stated by a degenerate fool.

    I don't know a sole making $100,000 a year who would expect or qualify for a free '$1000 fix' at the public's expense.....nor can I think of many '$1000 fixes' that can be had at any hospital.

    But the republicans are actually thinking about nominating someone who thinks like THIS!?!?

    Posted by: Mike at January 7, 2008 12:57 PM


    Well, you might have a problem with the numbers, but the general gist is accurate.

    Why should govt paid health care, even Medicare, ever pay for Bill Gates to have his gallbladder taken out?

    And more to the point, what will happen as those costs increase? They'll be price fixes on costs across the board, there will be increases in taxes, there will be a rationing of the availability of clinics, equipment, and of the amount of health care professionals overall.

    Jeff really believe Olbermann is a spokesperson for the party or its policies.

    spewed by mrs. philby

    I've NEVER said anything remotely resembling that, capone. Lie # what? 100?

    Cecelia: "But most of all I'm sorry that you are so inflexible in your santimony that you MUST cast every political discussion into a fifties cartoon wesern with yourself in a white hat,"

    But you didn't start the discussion down that road yourself by placing a 'black' hat on those of us who want to change the status quo by claiming it's really about "free stuff"?

    Cecelia: "Why should govt healthcare, including Medicare, ever pay for Bill Gates to have his gallbladder taken out."

    What a silly argument!

    Who do you think is advocating THAT?

    And what billionaire do you think would even accept public assistance like that?

    Aside for the obvious 'solution' to such a 'problem' that can easily be taken care of through intelligent legislation, I submit the the percentage of wealthy individuals who would stoop to taking public assistance such as that is so close to zero as to be essentially irrelevant.

    In reality, the goal is to prevent the average working American from losing their home because they had to have a gallbladder taken out.

    And no, Cecelia, I didn't get the numbers wrong.

    I watched the debate, and I think I paraphrased Romney's remarks pretty accurately.

    To his credit, Huckabee ridiculed him on that comment.

    Back to the thread topic!

    I hate that fricking Olberman is a "commentator" on Monday night football!

    Football is a man's game and I can not figure out how that commie bitch got the spot?? Oh yeah NBC ...never mind...

    I've NEVER said anything remotely resembling that ....

    -----

    Proof, please.

    Posted by: A N O N Y M O U S at January 7, 2008 2:26 PM


    You made the accusation, fraud. Just more spew you can't back.

    WK, truer words were never spoken. I quote you:

    "Believe it or not, people are capable of listening to candidates and determining for themselves who they like."

    But then just a little further on you said (caps mine):

    "Just because ROVE HAS A PLAN FOR ALL of you to FOLLOW AND MOST OF YOU DO doesn't mean that everyone needs to follow the leader."

    What does this mean?

    Are conservatives and Repubs not people?

    Or, could it be that conservative Repubs are an inferior branch of humanity?

    Grammie

    Chicken Blogger, it is either a contradiction or it rests on the premise that conservative/Repubs are not in the group of humans.

    How about I put in a very simple high school Logic Class syllogism.

    Permise: People are capable of listening to candidates and determining for themselves who they like.

    Premise: ROVE HAS A PLAN FOR ALL OF YOU (conservative/Repub) to FOLLOW AND MOST OF YOU DO.

    Conclusion: Most of those who follow Rove's plan do not belong in the class of people (or human).

    BTW, I asked WK to explain what he meant.

    Grammie

    I don't see a contradiction there. it says people can choose who they want and you don't have to follow a rovian plan (meaning you can choose who you want) What is the contradiction?

    Posted by: at January 7, 2008 9:51 PM

    hahaha! Post of the week!

    One more thing I can't stand about Keith:

    1. That he'll mischaracterize and stretch the truth of something in the worst possible way in order to smear someone he dislikes.

    I am honored that Monsieur Capon Blank-Flucker would grace me with such an original and elaborate story to, in his mind, explain my fallacy to me.

    Of course you have by far the wider experience with elegant restaurants than I do so I am at a disadvantage here.

    Alas, I have never been to an elegant, or for that matter ANY, restaurant that has on its desert cart a "bruised pear with a piece of crusty Velveeta". Come to think of it I have never been to an elegant or inelegant restaurant that serves Velveeta in any course, much less bruised pears.

    Monsieur, I am an open blossom to your vastly superior knowledge and experience of elegant restaurants around the world that present bruised pears and crusty Velveeta on their desert carts.

    Please share your experiences so that I can live vicariously through you.

    Grammie

    WK, I do get the impression that you are doing what you accuse we Repubs/Conservatives do, which is to paint with too broad a brush dipping in the the paint can of partisan party loyalty.

    Taking in account all of your statements can you honestly say that you do not consider your political allies as diverse people making the same judgments based only on facts and reason as opposed to the brain washed Rovian political allies that march in lockstep to Rove's instructions.

    I developed my political philosophy decades before I even knew GWB, Karl Rove, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity etc even existed. I have never accused, nor do I think, that those who disagree with me politically are robotic zombies marching in lockstep with whoever might be designated as the liberal/Dem gurus. Why do you?

    You can play semantic parsing games all you want to but we both know that the thrust of your comment was that conservatives/Repubs do not reason and come to their own conclusions as liberal/Dems do but rather march to the Rovian (and all that implies) lockstep.

    Grammie

    Well, Monsieur Capon Blank-Flucker, I do hope the salt in your eye was not so painful as to prevent your eating the bruised pear with crusty Velveeta at the Top O'The Town.

    Perhaps it was not as unpleasant an experience as I might imagine. It must be a rare talent that can produce a "crusty" piece of Velveeta. Do share your experience with us, the hoi polloi, of the gastronomical pleasure or pain from a bruised pear with a piece of crusty Velveeta cheese.

    Grammie

    The Clinton's smear machine dragged down political discourse in this country long before Karl Rove had run any national campaigns. Spare us the paranoia.

    hahaha! Post of the week!"

    Looks like you need to read the above as well.. Might make you look less foolish


    Posted by: at January 7, 2008 10:15 PM


    I read the entire exchange....the post I quoted was priceless!...

    The writer saw no contradiction...

    If you vote Republican you're an a Karl Rove mind-slave.

    If you vote for a Democrat you're a free-thinker.

    With a Catch-22 like that, who needs the military!...

    I see 'mike' still thinks healthcare is the #1 issue.

    Posted by: royal king at January 7, 2008 1:12 PM


    It is if you're all about getting "free stuff."

    Monsieur, I am an open blossom to your vastly superior knowledge and experience of elegant restaurants around the world that present bruised pears and crusty Velveeta on their desert carts.

    Please share your experiences so that I can live vicariously through you.

    Grammie

    Posted by: Janet Hawkins at January 7, 2008 10:48 PM


    Just think of the analogy as a poignant story of a poor soul's heartwrenching and desparate attempt to obtain the bruised pear of amnesty...

    The flat fat eclair represents the number of Dem pols who mouth support and then run like hell from the issue... :D

    Perhaps it was not as unpleasant an experience as I might imagine. It must be a rare talent that can produce a "crusty" piece of Velveeta. Do share your experience with us, the hoi polloi, of the gastronomical pleasure or pain from a bruised pear with a piece of crusty Velveeta cheese.

    Grammie

    Posted by: Janet Hawkins at January 8, 2008 12:12 AM


    The crusty velveeta references his gouty big toe...

    It is if you're all about getting "free stuff."

    Posted by: at January 8, 2008 1:42 AM


    And it's not, if you're not....

    1. His eyebrows (hey Groucho Marx wants them back) 2. His attempts at humor (makes him look stupid) 3. His remarks about Bill 'O (way to much jealousy) 4. His political analyst's (same people everyday) 5. His opinions (always negative)

    WK, first can you say in all honesty that you do not believe that most liberal/Dems are guided by facts and reason while most conservative/Repubs are like soldiers marching in lockstep to Karl Rove and/or any other Repub politicos or pundits orders?

    My question was rhetorical using your terms to try to point out the logical conclusion of your using "people" being capable of making decisions when talking about liberals/Dems yet using only pronouns when referring to the other side of the aisle who mostly blindly follow Rove's plans.

    Then your conclusion is "Some people are capable of determining for themselves who they like and wish would win."

    So "'People" (liberals/Dems) can determine for themselves but most (conservative/Repubs) can only follow Rove's plan.

    I have never made a statement, accusation or even implied that liberal/Dems are marching like little soldiers behind Ann Lewis, Carville, Begalia, Lanny Davis, Al Sharpton, KO etc yet I see their ideas presented here every day from your side of the aisle.

    So, let me rephrase your statement that started all of this with a little tweaking.

    "Believe it or not, people are capable of listening to candidates and determining for themselves who they like. Whether or not 'Guilliani' was/is the favorite doesn't matter to most people. It wouldn't matter to me unless it was Nov 08 and 'he' was the 'Repub'. That is the only time I'd have to consider voting for 'him'.

    Just because 'Bill Clinton' has a plan for all of you to follow and most of you do doesn't mean that everyone needs to follow the leader.
    Some people are capable of determining for themselves who they like and wish would win."

    A few bones I have to pick with GWB's administration:

    1. I don't know how GWB can hold simultaneously in his mind both The War on Terror and his amnesty immigration policy and all that entails.

    2. The No Child Left Behind policy is the exact opposite of the role I would like to see. Education should be definitely a local matter closely answerable to those with the biggest stake in the system, parents.

    Grammie

    I am closing this thread, sorting out the actual submissions and publishing the final list.

    Thanks for your submissions.

    Bob

    Big job, Mr. Cox....sorry for the tangents....