I am at LGA on my way down to DC to speak at a conference. Please keep an eye on Olbermann for me while I am away. I will be back late tonight if the weather doesn't turn too nasty.

Olby's career is a mishap
This site gives a daily recap
Jocksniffer "news" anchor
Infected canker
Requires a daily bitchslap

For those that are still here, I want to share something I said at J$P as the trolls showed up and I beat a hasty retreat:
"You know what? I don't care that BOR is failing in the demo. Let the failure continue. He's still winning in total viewers and other demographics. That's good enough for me and good enough for him."
Having said that, I still hate Keith Olbermann. I mean it, I hate him. Yet, that guy (who I'd like to curse about but can't) and his much younger girlfriend (SHE'S THREE YEARS YOUNGER THAN ME!!!) aren't going anywhere. I feel like I'm going to cry. I'm already angry right now.

Mike C, let me ask you once again:............WHY do you care whether Keith Olbermann goes anywhere or not?

Leave me alone, token troll. You're making me feel worse.

"Leave me alone, token troll. You're making me feel worse."

Sorry name caller, but you're on a public blog and I don't give a damn how you "feel".

That said, you don't have a clue what the term "troll" actually means either.

You are the perfect example of what some of your cohorts have denied being in the past - someone who wants to see a show canned simply because YOU don't like it yourself, .... when all you really have to do is change the channel and pretend it doesn't exist.

It is revealing how people like yourself opine to see Olbermann kicked off the air....but would be absolutely outraged if that were to happen to Fox.

You win. Keith is great. Edward R. Murrow. Etc.

My picks for WPITW tonight: John Gibson for the black thing, John McCain for the putin thing, O'Reilly because It's Tuesday

"You win. Keith is great. Edward R. Murrow. Etc."

You don't read or comprehend very well do you? I bever said "Keith is great", not did I ever compare him to Edward R. Murrow.

It doesn't matter whether "Keith is great" or not. What matters is that many VERY patriotic Americans choose to watch him regularly, and it is their absolute right to have this show available to them if the ratings make it possible....REGARDLESS of whether YOU agree with the views it expresses or not.

Goodbye. This is another site I have to quit going to. Thanks a lot, Mike.

"Goodbye. This is another site I have to quit going to. Thanks a lot, Mike."

Oh NO! Did I run you away? Poor baby!

Maybe if you keep looking hard enough, you'll eventually find that perfect web site full of bobblehead synchophants you seem to be looking for.

Goodbye!

mikeh, you're as ass. But, I'm sure you already know that.

You're an ass. I apologise for the typo. I know how easily confused you get.

"mikeh, you're an ass"

Better an "ass" than a self defeating moron like yourself!

KO just gave a Best Person award to O'Reilly, Rupert Murdoch, and the NY Post saying they have brought him 10,000 viewers by badmouthing him and he needed to thank them. I don't know where he gets his numbers. But for me the interesting thing is the contrast. While KO is blathering on, dancing around in glee over his staggering ratings increase (said with sarcasm), O'Reilly is talking about internet dangers and children. Ratings bragging vs info on protecting kids.

And the unfortunate thing is the guy bragging about ratings is getting the young viewers.
Hey, I'm still here. Wow.

Mike C - I have a feeling KO's young viewers will get bored after awhile and head in another direction, whether it's someone else or just turning off the TV.

Either one will do.

"Mike C - I have a feeling KO's young vieers will get bored after awhile and head in another direction,"

This is the same kind of talk I've been seeing on this blog for two years now....only now the talk is about how his ratings can't possibly last, and not so much about how bad they are anymore.

This is the same kind of talk I've been seeing on this blog for two years now....only now the talk is about how his ratings can't possibly last, and not so much about how bad they are anymore.

by mikeh

Better than banging "needless deaths, the war is lost, there's nothing to win, and I love obama" over and over.......

Better than banging "needless deaths, the war is lost, there's nothing to win,"

Here'a a news flash for you, oh dimwitted one, there is a huge and fundamental difference beteen the statements "the war is lost", and "there's nothing to win"....They are NOT one and the same.

I am on record for posting the second.....but I never once posted the first one.

That said, I never posted "I love Obama" either.

However, it's not at all surprising that you still haven't risen above the ethically bankrupt principal of attributing quoted statements to those who never posted them ..... which could help explain some of your equally ethically bankrupt political beliefs.

.....but I never once posted the first one.

That said, I never posted "I love Obama" either.

by mikeh

No, you just whole heartedly agreed with it. The second has been ALL but said. Go ahead, let it go, mikey. Give us an "I love obama" just for the fun of it, ok? You know you wanna say it..........

"You don't read or comprehend very well do you? I bever said "Keith is great", not did I ever compare him to Edward R. Murrow."MikeH

You don't have to..KO dose it himself.,,new Murrow indeed.

But you really have to love how KO claims a rating win..by just saying to hell with the other viewers out of his beloved Demo..bottom line O'Reilly beats KO's butt everynight..and MikeH will shake his head but when Bush is gone KO and his ilk will have to really plan there next move to keep the viewers because 4/8 yrs of Obama butt kissing is not going to do it.

If anything FOX's rating should really hit the roof if Lord Obama is place in the White House by the MSM...because they'll be the only network that will be "speaking truth to power"...KO sure won't be having any "Special Comments" against Lord Obama and the Dem. controlled congress.

"If anything FOX's ratings should really hit the roof if Lord Obama is plae in the White House by the MSM...because they'll be the only network that will be "speaking truth to power"....KO sure won't be having any "Special Comments" against Lord Obama and the Dem. controlled congress."

That remains to be seen, but how do you explain Fox's eight years of Bush Administration butt kissing that also coincided with high ratings?

But theoretically, that wan't be necessary because we will no longer have a war-mongering government shrouded in secrecy while stuck in "permanent campaign mode"

but how do you explain Fox's eight years of Bush Administration butt kissing that also coincided with high ratings?

by mikeh

Fair and Balanced.

Mike,

Let us take a poll of those americans who say "the war is lost". I think we will find that they are the exact same people who say "there is nothing to win". This is not a coincidence.

What better way to try to cause us to lose than to say "there is nothing to win?" It's left wing "strategery".

Why don't Olby and Obama take a trip to Iraq together? Let them tell the troops that "the war is lost" and "there's nothing to win".

Please don't forget that "permanent campaign mode" was invented by Bubba and all presidents will be in it from now on.

The war is a political issue for MikeH and the entire democrat party. It is a shame that as great success is being seen in Iraq, they simply dismiss it as, "nothing." A horrible dictator and then people ready to turn Iraq into a war torn nation were defeated and the American left shrug their shoulders.

Oh well, the truth is that although not on the top of what polls say is important, that does not matter....right is right and winning the battle in Iraq will be the continuing responsibility of the next POTUS....I venture a prediction...if SNOBamessiah does become President, Iraq will be mismanaged by him and history will hold the neophyte responsible....and there will be many more foreign policy failures because SNOBamessiah is Jimmy Carter II and incapable of protecting the nation and the interests of freedom and honor throughout the world.

Sorry Rico:

But there is a HUGE difference between the meaning of the two phrases. Therefore they are emphatically NOT the same people who would use them interchangably.

There is nothing to 'win' in Iraq because once our so-called objective is achieved to everyone's satisfaction, America will be no safer than it was if the invasion had never happened.....Al Qeada will be just as strong or stronger than it ever was......Oil will be far higher than it ever was......Israel will be no safer......the Middle East will remain every bit as volatile as it ever was.....and Iran will be stronger and more influential than ever. The infuriating aspect about all of this was that all of this was 100% predictable to everyone who REALLY understood the Middle East BEFORE the invasion.

No, I don't want to tell the mostly 18 - 24 year old troops, who mostly tend to believe in what they are doing was it is all for naught - for obvious moral reasons, but that doesn't mean stiffling the truth is ever a good idea either. The truth IS the truth and the truth ALWAYS sets you free. The troops were missused by the politicians and that wasn't their fault. I am as proud of their professionalism and accomplishments as anyone. I just wish our politicians had shown the same professionalism and competence as the troops have shown in deciding how they should be used. So using the troops as a shield to hide the truth about their bosses is not an option.

As for Olby and Obama 'taking a trip together', what a ridiculous comment! One is a very opinionated cable TV commentator and the other is one of the most promising presidential candidates this nation has ever had.

The saying "permanent campaign mode" is far, far more than an invented phrase. It is an apt description of what can happen when a politician continues to 'sell' it's ideologies rather than govern once the campaign is over...and no, it is NOT something that will or has to happen with every president....just the ones that place party and ideology over the welfare of the country.

Now Rico...It's your turn. How about YOU coming off the talking points and tell us in realistic terms what there is to actually 'win' in Iraq. No - not what we can salvage out of a terrible decision...but what can we actually WIN? ..... I'm waiting with bated breath.

Hint....no one has made the case yet!

Rico,

Do you know how many times Obama has visited Iraq? I did a quick google and found one instance.

Uh, Mike....go here to read all there is that is being "won" in Iraq and what more needs to be "won."

http://www.mudvillegazette.com/

The strategic value of a democratic, non-radical islamic terrorist aligned Iraq is obvious to most objective people....you are not one....you see Iraq through the Democrat party prism of defeat=domestic political advantage and it is a real shame.

The left's predictions about the surge have been proven wrong (unending civil war and blood letting, the Iraqis would not take the initiative and secure their own country...etc)...so why should anyone believe your predictions now?

The continuing education of Cee:

"The strategic value of a democratic non-radical islamic terrorist aligned Iraq is obvious to most people"

............We don't have a democratic non-radical Islamic terrorist Iraq" and it is unlikely that we will. We have a Shia dominated society more loyal to their tribal affiliations and sect ideology than they ever will be to any form of central government. As for the power of democracy to defeat radicalism, all one has to do is look to the West Bank and the success of the freely elected and terrorist aligned Hamas in order to discredit that notion as a solution to our own security.

What you have expressed again is the easily discreditied Neocon notion that forcefully 'spreading freedom and democracy throughout the world will advance the cause of security for the world'. This has been disproven on every level.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"you are not one.....you see Iraq through the Democrat party prism of defeat=domestic polical advantage and it is a real shame"

............As long as you advance the SICK notion that you can somehow diminish and visualize your ideological opposition's motivation's as something sinister and simplistic, you and your arguments continue to prove themselves unworthy of ratioinal consideration. The mere suggestion that I am personally willing to conpromise ethics and morals for phamtom political gain is an immoral suggestion in itself. I am not a politician and I never will be. In fact, I used to consider myself a conservative Republican in the Pat Buchanon mold and actually voted for Bush II in 2000 before the accepted definitions of conservatism inexplicably changed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"so why should anyone believe your predictions now?"

I've made no predictions whatsoever except to point out the utter fallacy and failure of Neoconservatism and it's potential to eventually destory America from within if it is not curbed.

MikeH, your conclusion on the motivations of the Shia dominant Iraqi governmnt are wrong. They have NO current and likely no future intent to support radical terrorist organizations or the current countries (Syria or Iran) who have policies as such. As long as our country continues to support the moderates in Iraq, like we did in postwar Europe, Japan and South Korea, this is very unlikely.

Your grand conclusion "disproven on every level," is not true, especially given the timeframe since the fall of Saddam Hussein and THE FACT that the radical Shia are being defeated and Al Queda in Iraq is also on the run. Military provision of security to allow democracy to take root worked in post fascist Japan and Germany...why do you so easily give in to the forces of evil that want to deprive the good people of Iraq their freedom, the majority, who do not subscribe to radical islamic terrorism?

You have not prevailed in transferring your defeatism and cynicism (what you call "education'). You basically believe muslims are incapable of participating in democracy! Why? Other than cultural elitism, I see no other reason for you to come to that conclusion.

The Iraqis are beginning to come to terms with the reality of a post Saddam Iraq, and you simply want to abandon them to those intent of imposing a radical form of islam on them. Too bad, Mike....I am glad such was not the thinking in the last days of WWII.

And like I have said before, any deviation from the military goal of leaving Iraq in a state of security based on the information on the ground will result in failure (SNOBamessiah's artificial timetable). Hedging bets by claiming democracy would never have prevailed in Iraq because of ancient hatreds, flaws in their society, etc is a sad argument, just like those who failed to assist those yearning for freedom in past conflicts. Freedom of thought and religion is a human right that the US used to be united in protecting but it seems that the left has abandoned such ideals.

...but what can we actually WIN?

by mikeh

Ever hear of FREEDOM, mikeh?

Just like Pat Buchanan (someone MikeH holds in high regard) touts in his latest book regarding Europe pre-WWII, OS, some people are more deserving of freedom....Idealism was passe then and is now and its every man for himself.....

A worldview I will never endorse.

The continuing education of Cee:

MikeH, your conclusion on the motivations of the Shia dominant governmnt are wrong."

..............Cee, you are as INCAPABLE of judging the motivations of Muslims as you are mine. And your continuing to compare a region like secular Europe to a region largely dominated by the principles of Sharia Law is ludicrous....as are any continuing attempt to analagize this situation to the aftermath of the last World War.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"You basically believe muslims are incapable of participating in democracy."

........Wrong - I give them far MORE credit than YOU do. I believe them fully capable of choosing their OWN destiny without our interference, whether or not that choice includes democracy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"any deviation from the military goal of leaving Iraq in a state of security based on the information on the ground will result in failure."

...............In other words, in your opinion, the only way to SALVAGE anything good out of a bad situation we cynically created ourselves is to "stay the course".
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Freedom of thought and religion is a human right that the US used to be united in protecting but it seems the left has abandoned such ideals."

No, neither the left NOR the right have NEVER embraced the Neoconic idea of invading and occupying countries that posed no real threat to us except in disastrous wrong turns such as Vietnam and Iraq. Aside from the FACT that we did NOT invade Iraq over the issue of 'human rights, NEITHER the left nor the right has ever embraced the use of the US Military to forcefully enforcing human rights on it's own. It has simply never been in our interest to do so, and never will be. Finally, the law of unintended consequeces will always render such ideologies inadvisable.

Ironically Cee, the president you seem to disdain the most, Jimmy Carter, was the president whose very cornerstone was the advancement of human rights.

MUCH later.......................!

"ever hear of FREEDOM, MikeH."

Yes, OS....and I believe in freedom.....but it is NOT the job of the US Military to try to forcefully spread our version of freedom throughout the planet.....NOR is that the reason that we invaded Iraq!

MUCH later...................!

Since you mentioned Jimmy Carter, MikeH, please give me evidence of any improvement of human rights, or expansion thereof, as a result of his actions a President of The United States.....Come now, that should be easy.

And your canard of invoking "neoconic" (whatever that is) is again inaccuate. Saddam Hussein appeared to be preparing to restart his WMD program according to intelligence reports and he was justifiably removed under UN resolution. Now that he is gone, it is MORAL to insure the Iraqi people have the security and so, the ability, to choose their destiny....which has been shown to be a MODERATE government not intending to support radical islamic jihad....Wow, what a great thing!

But no, MikeH chooses to abandon the Iraqis to the minority intent on making Iraq an Iran puppet. Once again, a cynical and wrongheaded conclusion.

By the way, I remember Carter well, and 1) - I see no resemblance between the two(obama), and 2) - Carter was not nearly as 'bad' a president as he is being labeled. Continued and lasting peace between Israel and Egypt is but one example of a positive accomplishment.

Carter was absolutely RIGHT when he attempted to use his presidential bully pulpit to change public attitudes about fuel consumption and energy conservation. If we had listened and had we continually worked towards that end from that point until now, we would not be in the energy fix we are in today.

By MikeH on June 10, 2008 7:18 PM .

Hmm...

MikeH, what are the other versions of freedom?

Well, I suppose MikeH's "go-to" man on Iraq, the global test dude himself and loser in 2004, Senator John Kerry, showed McCain how smart he is about freedom, democracy and Islam today....Oh, wait....the effete "clinging to guns and religion" liberal Kerry was mistaken.....

"Among the accusations he leveled this morning, Senator Kerry said Senator McCain 'confuses the history going back to 682 of what has happened to Sunni and Shia.' Now, we at the McCain Report have been receiving a great number of panicked emails from supporters all morning, deeply troubled by Senator Kerry's suggestion that Senator McCain is anything less than totally familiar with the finer points of 7th century Islamic history. And frankly, we were worried too, at first. After all, we know that -- more than keeping America safe from its enemies abroad, more than getting our economy back on track, more than breaking through the partisan gridlock that is preventing Washington from solving the problems we as a nation face -- Americans want, nay demand, that their next Commander in Chief is intimately familiar with the 'history going back to 682 of what has happened to the Sunni and Shia.'

"There's only one thing that gives us pause. The date Senator Kerry cited this morning -- 682 A.D. -- has no significance in explaining the sectarian schism between Sunnis and Shiites. Shiites trace the split to 632 A.D. -- the year that Muhammed died -- not 682. The battle of Karbala -- one of the most important battles in the history of Islam, commemorated by Shia Muslims the world over during the holiday of Ashura -- took place in 680 A.D. Still two years off. Now, obviously, it would be more than a bit ironic if it turned out that Senator Kerry himself -- in the midst of pompously trying to show off his superior knowledge and erudition -- got confused about the history of the Sunni-Shiite schism. But based on his adroit performance in the 2004 presidential campaign, we're sure that he'd never commit such a gaffe.

"Still, we can't help but wonder -- just what exactly was Senator Kerry talking about?"

http://tinyurl.com/5dt7ux

###
SNOBamessiah, Global test Kerry and the rest of the blame America first, "freedom is not necessary for some" left can attack the honorable wounded and tortured POW for his reasonable position to rely on General Petraeus for the rate of troop withdrawl from Iraq based on success on the ground all they want....they simply show their dishonor and inability to go past blind, selfish partisan politics....Misquoting the good Senator from Arizona once again but (BONUS!) showing their own ignorance...what wonderful effete liberals from the Ivy League!

Sorry MikeH....associate yourself with the radical anti-American left or the isolationist anti-Semite Pat Buchanan all you want...I will remain with those like Senator McCain who fight for honor and freedom for a people soon to vote in free and open elections this fall...not only here in America but also in the newest of world democracies....Iraq.....

You can stick with the defeatists and superficial attackers who imply senility and stupidity for cheap selfish partisan political points, (and making themselves look trite and ignorant in the process)....Senator McCain knows what it is to pay a real price for freedom and I will gladly trust his judgement in keeping a perspective and relying on the real experts...the generals....as he has all along.

By MikeH on June 11, 2008 11:15 AM
"Sorry Rico:

But there is a HUGE difference between the meaning of the two phrases. Therefore they are emphatically NOT the same people who would use them interchangably."

But you agree with both of those statements, thus proving my point. They go together.

"There is nothing to 'win' in Iraq because once our so-called objective is achieved to everyone's satisfaction, America will be no safer than it was if the invasion had never happened.....Al Qeada will be just as strong or stronger than it ever was......Oil will be far higher than it ever was......Israel will be no safer......the Middle East will remain every bit as volatile as it ever was.....and Iran will be stronger and more influential than ever. The infuriating aspect about all of this was that all of this was 100% predictable to everyone who REALLY understood the Middle East BEFORE the invasion."

Sorry, Mike, but AL Qaeda isn't doing too well right now, in Iraq and elsewhere. If you predicted the Sept. 11 attack, and then no major attacks in the US for seven years after then please document that for us.

Do you want Iran to not be "stronger and more influential than ever?" If so, can we use military force to deal with that? That would work, would it not?

Please don't forget that in 1945 we, along with a coalition of the willing, force democracy on a few countries. Please condemn that lest you be called inconsistent.

"Please don't forget that in 1945 we, along with a coalition of the willing, force democracy on a few countries. Please condemn that lest you be called inconsistent."

Again, that liberty was on some Whites in Western Europe and Asians in the Pacific...they deserved "freedom" (what "brand" that is you will need to speak with MikeH....I am not sure what he means by that)....MikeH is sure that freedom is not wanted by all those nasty dark skinned folk in the middle east (again, MikeH is only capable of knowing a bogeyman NEOCON's motivation, not anyone elses') and this is "PROVED" by the activity called terrorism....What logic!....

Why should we let the bad behavior of a very small minority who have such a radical ideology rooted in jihadism dictate what the vast majority is to accept, MikeH?.....Especially after two elections in Iraq and another coming up in the fall?....Is not security needed to allow destiny to be chosen?

That's right....you're a Pat Buchanan conservative....an anti-Semite and isolationist.....or are you a Jimmy Carter leftist....blame America first and America is a hegemonic demon that 100% of the world despises.....

Eitherway, your worldview is flawed and dangerous to liberty.....both America's and her allies'.