First segment dealt with a President Bush interview with ABC. In the interview, Bush said "most members of Congress AGREED with WMD intelligence" and that the current banking crisis started in Clinton's adminstration. KO calls Bush a liar . . . blah, blah, blah (he's so predictable.) Of course, THERE IS NO DOUBT that most people in Congress agreed with Bush that there were WMD in Iraq (shit, they authorized military force to get the WMD.)

As for the banking crisis, KO blames Bush . . .blah, blah, blah. (read this if you want the real story: http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=313027333411197)

Finally, Howard Fineman comes on and says that Bush "hates government."

Come on Fineman, certainly you know that Bush EXPANDED government to the biggest level in history. Have you really ceased to care about any journalistic integrity you might have had?

Was it just me or did I just watch Austin Powers (michael Wolff) on KO's lie machine? I swear I was watching Austin Powers for about 5 minutes there.

Ko is running out of material these days. Al he has anymore is blah blah blah about his mentor Bill O.

Actually, he also has Sarah Palin. I wasn't going to watch even a minute....but swung over there to see the Gov. from Alaska featured. In the Rotund One's opinion, 49 Governors have a reason to attend the meeting ....BUT....Sarah Palin is just there because she can't stay out of the spot-light.

If you look in the dictionary under 'double standard' you'll see KO's picture.

I hope America47000 ends up recapping tonight.

I wasn't thrilled when he had that guy on who wrote that book on Murdoch from Fox News. Although KO was licking his lips into getting more "ammo" from this guy, but luckly the GOOD news from GA came in to spoil any more gloating from KO.

I don't know if anyone else noticed, but as soon as they found out that Chambless won, the immediately went into "well we knew that it would be hard for a democrat to beat an incumbent republican." Yeah yeah, what they SHOULD'VE said was, "Obama's coat tails don't touch the ground and his momentium is slowly fading.

Only reason WHY that is was answered was because look at the low voter turn out, Obama wasn't on the ticket so basically the black vote that propelled the "Messiah" to the White House never turned out and left this poor democrat out in the cold, literally. Hopefully, this will happen up in Minnesota as well.

I just tuned in briefly for WPITW, but caught some of Fineman whining about Bush being negligent about anything. Pure BS. Again no mention of Republican attempts to rein in Fannie and Freddie in 2005 and 2006, and Barney Frank leading efforts to block these reforms. At least Fineman admitted Clinton had a lot to do with it, but then whacks Bush anyway for not doing enough.

Glancing at the DailyKos and other lefty sites, and seeing the cliffnotes version on Olbermann, it seems the theme of the left for the time being boils down to the following main talking points:

1. Bush can be blamed for everything, even that for which he cannot be blamed. I'm surprised they haven't pinned the black plague or the JFK assassination on Bush because his administration didn't discover time travel as a means to go back and stop such tragedies.

2. Conservatives shouldn't govern because they don't believe in government. This seems to be the latest ideological argument Liberals are using to plant a subtle message that Republicans should be considered hypocrites for even running for office, or daring oppose Dems in the first place. The Dem argument is thus that government is necessary, and the Dems believe in government, so let them take care of you.
This argument then cites as proof Bush appointing cronies to key posts, leading to agencies such as FEMA being inefficient when needed. They ignore that, even if true, it says more about Bush than conservatives. Or that conservatives are throwing Bush under the bus for his out-of-control spending.

My answer: it's not that conservatives necessarily don't believe in government, they just don't think the Dems should be in control of anything. To suggest that Conservatives don't belong in government is akin to telling them to just shut up, let the libs have all the power and impose bogus legislation that affects everyone, usually for the worse.

Lincoln once said, and I'm paraphrasing, that sometimes good men must run for office not because they seek the power, but because it's important to block the other guy from getting in. If Conservatives believe that government should get out of the way of honest innovation, they need people in government who can actually do that. Efficient government, not welfare on demand.

Unfortunately, in our time, public education and a liberal media onslaught has so poisoned the political landscape that even Republicans are basically just offering the Democrat-lite agenda. And that's where they've gone wrong.

Government creates a cushion from reality that encourages corruption and thus is not to be trusted. Term limits are a good thing as they encourage a turnaround of new ideas and discourage lifetime politicians, which is not what the founders wanted (though some dispute this).

WPITW:
Worse was (shockingly) Bill O'Reilly, for a recent statement about no proof about Guantanamo torture that Olbermann says contradicts O'Reilly statements from a few years ago in which O'Reilly went to Guantanamo and reported that there were people being mistreated. I haven't had time to research where any of these quotes came from so if anyone else is game they're welcome to it.

Worser was the Republican strategist in Virginia who suggested Obama is like Osama because both have friends who bombed the Pentagon. Olby slams him for the many ways the guy tries to spin the statement: as true, as a joke, as a media misrepresentation, all at the same time.

Worse was a Utah state senator named Butters who wants to pass a bill encouraging store employees to say "Merry Christmas." This is basically just KO taking another anti-O'Reilly stance, in this case the whole "War on Christmas" stint O'Reilly talks about. Olbermann laughs at the idea of encouragement legislation and then makes a first amendment argument about the slippery slope of such a proposal, asking what's stopping anyone from encouraging Jews and Muslims from saying "Merry Christmas" as well.

O'Reilly brought up a good point in his show last night about this topic. Christmas is a federal holiday the Supreme Court has found to have been secularized enough to not quality as a first amendment violation. And if people don't like it, they should get it repealed as a holiday (which I'm sure the unions would love, losing a day off like that).

Olbermann seems to have confused the notion of saying Merry Christmas with actively trying to convert people. Even if you don't believe in the religious aspects of the holiday, the teaching of Jesus, similarly to the 10 commandments, are still good lessons to know and live by. These are the same teachings as Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., who also now gets his own holiday.

Olbermann seems to want to dismiss the role Jesus has played in both Jewish and Islamic history. Certainly Christ is more controversial among Jewish lore, but I believe the Muslims consider him a profit, similar to Moses, if not actually the son of god.

I haven't researched the underlying comments of this man Butters, but it seems to me that asking people to say Merry Christmas instead of the generic Happy Holidays is just an acknowledgment that most of the shopping around this time of year is spurred by people looking to give gifts specifically on Christmas Day (a federal holiday), which is a custom celebrated even by non-Christians as tradition.

To me it's akin to the PC BS about using "Common Era," or "CE" instead of the traditional "AD." I just have to ask what is so common about it? The years still trace back to (supposedly) the birth of Jesus. Even if AD is somehow offensive to other religions (which I doubt ... well, counting the rational non-zealot types), the very number itself honors Jesus. So it, like not saying Merry Christmas, just boils down to a question of who are we trying to kid. It's just another cog in the mass feel-good orgy of a national collective the left wants to foist upon us. In a way, this kind of liberalism is almost a modern religion. In Olbermann, they've found their Pat Robertson. In Obama, their messiah.

And I'm not even a religious person.

Now for a few comments about the Michael Wolff piece about Ruport Murdoch.

What annoyed me most about it was the undertone that Fox is somehow not running a legitimate news organization. I watch it fairly regularly and it seems to cover the bases in a fair way, more so than CNN and certainly MSNBC. The behind the scenes stories to me would seem to be trumped by the final product.

Then Olbermann throws out this laughable statement about whether if Murdoch would see the light, and if an all-liberal news station would be profitable he'd shut down Fox. Of course we already know that answer. MSNBC is such a station, and its ratings suck. Not much profit there. KO just can't bring himself to admit that.

Olbermann later makes a statement about how reading accounts of Murdoch hating O'Reilly behind the scenes brings a joy to his heart, as it means one of his "mortal enemies" hates another of his mortal enemies.

Just who is Olby labeling as his mortal enemies? That would be Rupert Murdoch, Olbermann's former boss who canned KO for being nuts. And Bill O'Reilly, who just happens to be Olbermann's direct time slot competition who kicks his ass every night in the ratings. So Olbermann's animosity on these matters isn't transparent at all, is it?

But let's take a closer look at that O'Reilly rivalry. What does O'Reilly do on his show? He presents lively debate on key issues, and states his opinion when appropriate, clearly as opinion. And in many cases these debates spawn catch phrases or cultural rumblings. In other words, O'Reilly has successfully crafted himself into an identifiable brand. Whether you love or hate O'Reilly, things like the "War on Christmas" or the existence of "The Colbert Report" speak to this idea. His show is about pushing this brand, which allows him to sell pithy merchandise and donate the proceeds to charity. O'Reilly also extends himself with a radio show and with his books.

Does Olbermann push himself in a similar way? No. No radio show. No books. Just his MSNBC hour, assorted goofball appearances on daytime fare such as Martha Stewart, and his stint on Football Night in America. Unfortunately, his foray into political proselytizing on MSNBC has robbed this once entertainment sportscaster of his credibility as a sports reporter, as strange as it may seem. Olbermann's brand? To be the anti-O'Reilly. He's admitted this as much on his show, once remarking "some of us are paid a lot of money to oppose you (O'Reilly)." His constant attacks on O'Reilly in WPITW are now seen as cheap attempts to compete. Even Olbermann admitted he is just trying to bait O'Reilly into sinking to his level, but Bill no longer plays that game, which no doubt further infuriates MSNBC's golden boy. And as such, every WPITW attack on O'Reilly just renders the segment more and more meaningless.

What's especially sad for Olbermann is that he's not even O'Reilly's natural counterpart on MSNBC. It's Chris Matthews on Hardball, a conclusion drawn even by The Daily Show. Olbermann has managed to render himself MSNBC's version of Sean Hannity. Except the Liberal version of Hannity is (or was) Alan Colmes. And Hannity just gets one hour a week to present his singular viewpoint show (Hannity's America), not five crazy nights a week.

So Olbermann can bring on Michael Wolff and continue picking away at Fox News. And MSNBC can continue to sink, offering not an original voice, as Fox News does, but offering itself as an ideological alternative. And that's dangerous, as it fundamentally miscalculates the market.

But maybe that's why Olbermann and his ilk favored Obama so much. Obama's socialist-skewing agenda wouldn't let the market decide, and thus it discourages success and masks failure, an agenda losers such as Olbermann and MSNBC have been quick to embrace.

Olberdouche is way out of touch
That's why no one watches that much
All-liberal "news"
Will always lose
And Kountdown needs a Nielsen crutch

Worse blue blog source: Think Propaganda. http://thinkprogress.org/2008/12/01/oreilly-torture-gitmo/
Worser blue blog source: HuffPo.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/02/va-gop-chair-tying-obama_n_147793.html
This was actually an AP story, but since HuffPo picked it up, it became news to Rip 'n Read.
Worst blue blog sources: Daily Olby, Deseret News.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/12/2/15104/9972
http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,705267557,00.html
The legislator's name is Chris Buttars.

Horrible news: Egomann won the 25-54 demo at 8PM Monday over Mr. Bill 628,000 to 624,000. Worse yet: Maddow won in that demo at 9PM over "H&C" 545,000 to 494,000.
Relieving news: "The Factor" won overwhelmingly in total viewers; 3,327,000 to 1,907,000. Equally relieving: "H&C" also won in total viewers; 2,119,000 to 1,400,000.
Question: why do Fox haters dismiss total viewers as old people?

I caught Maddow's program for a few minutes to see her take on Chambliss' victory. She actually said that Obama didn't campaign in Georgia because he knew that he crushed republicans in November and he didn't want to rub that win in the Republican party's face by trying to gain another victory in Georgia.

Can you believe that crap? How can such an idiotic thought make it on to national tv.

Obama didn't campaign in Georgia because he knew that Chambliss was gonna win and he didn't want to waste political capital on a losing cause.

Fantasyland at MSNBC....results and facts do not matter to Maddow or Olbermann....just regurgitate the ideological line no matter what the facts...ignore, mischaracterize, even lie if necessary.

Palin campaigned for the GOP in Georgia, and if Chambliss had lost, there would have been, rightly, commentary that Palin drove the opposition and independents to come out for the dem....But since Palin's guy one, the opposing truth is simply ignored....The truth that she has positive political capital and attraction to a large portion of the electorate. She is a rising star for the right-center of America and will have a base for which she can appeal in style, achievements and ideology.

The explainations for Obama's decision not to personally campaign for his FELLOW democrat are simply conjecture since he nor his representatives have given an explaination. My theory matches SB_Mich.....Obama knew it was a lost cause in Ga....Chambliss got more votes than OBAMA did on election day, and the possibility of achieving a super-majority in The Senate was not worth the risk for his stature during the transition...It was about OBAMA not looking bad and, oh well, I am not surprised that the pol was more concerned about his own image than helping his party.

The church of SNOBamessiah revival hours continue on MSNBC.....

VERO POSSUMUS!

Thanks for the links MikeC

The ratings news isn't all that bad. Here's the 25-54 numbers for the reruns of the shows for Monday:

Countdown: 259,000
The O’Reilly Factor: 384,000

So adding those with the live shows gives

O'Reilly: 1,008,000
Countdown: 887,000

So there's probably some overlap in viewers between the live show and the rerun, but the net result is probably more net viewers for O'Reilly. This is very often the case when Olby squeeks out an edge in the key demo.

Time will tell if the Monday numbers are representative of anything more than a fluke, since it was coming off a vacation week

One more note about the "conservatives hate government" argument the Liberals are throwing around now.

The obvious conservative answer is that Liberals hate the military, and as commander in chief the president needs to be able to understand the military, which tends to disqualify the Dems. Obama is all but admitting this by keeping Gates and appointing McCain endorsee James Jones as his NSA advisor.

Given the last eight years of liberals accusing the govt of everything from using terrorism alerts for political advantage to out-and-out wiretapping of political enemies via the Patriot Act, an accusation of hating government from them is terribly ironic...

It's the old story of Libs projecting their ideology onto it, so the notion that Conservatives don't think government should get involved in certain areas of American life means they don't like it at all.