The thing that irks me the most about this "outrage" over the CARTOON is that Olby and all liberals (even Rev. Al) are really not offended by this. They simply see it as an opportunity to attack and ruin careers b/c of the stigma associated with being called a racist. The term racist is so over- used now that it's essentially lost all meaning. (especially on olbs show). When will Rev Al and other libs stop using "racist" as a trump card to silence opposition? Better yet, when will people start to see it's use by them for it's real purpose- a tool to destroy opponents.

Ok, now what is the big deal about the cartoon in the NY Post? It's hilarious. I think the PC world has gone way overboard on this crap. Now you have KO and "Big Gay" Al Sharpton talking about how racist it is. Please, it's a damned cartoon people lighten up.

Instead of telling us why you think we are not, or should not be offended by a cartoon that is at the very least intentionally offensive, if not blatantly racist......why don't you try justifying the cartoon by telling us exactly what you think is funny about it?

I wager Olby won't touch this one, thanks to J$'s brilliant preemptive strike.

Once again, I thank you for keeping the radical and dangerous in check.

Now...if I'm wrong, it will only be a further proof of Olby's immaturity and hypocrisy.

The way I see it, either way, OlbyWatch has already won. BRILLIANT!

By the way, Levin says he's got some words for Olby at the bottom of the hour (8-9 Eastern).

MikeH: The left constantly called Bush the "chimp". Was that racist? Or are you saying that black people look like chimps? Which by the way, would be racist.

What's funny about the cartoon: It reduces the ridiculous stimulus package to the notion that an (uneducated) monkey must have written it.

I can see why someone who actually likes the stimulus package would be offended politically. But these people need to lighten up and take a jab.

Now, Mike H, why don't you prove that the artist was being "intentionally" offensive or "racist." And simply saying the use of a chimp doesn't count.

The ones pointing out the alleged racism are the Liberals. They're the ones perpetuating the racism here. The cartoon is not racist.

The typical liberal playbook move here is to reduce any act of free speech they disagree with politically as inflammatory, and thus in their minds it's acceptable to ban. Makes it a lot easier to find fault with everything, too.

But I guess that's just life in the Twilight Zone

"MikeH: The left constantly called Bush the "chimp". Was that racist? Or are you saying that black people look like chimps? Which by the way, would be racist."

1) - I never called Bush the "chimp".
2) - While some bloggers may have called Bush the "chimp", few, if any mainstream best selling publications did it.
3) - Black people have historically been charactured as monkeys, in fact, Obama himself was characterized that way as recent;y as this election.

Finally, even if your flawed logic wasn't as laughable as it is, is your claim that two wrongs make a right?

MikeH:
I don't think it's necessarily funny, but automatically drawing the conclusion that it's racist is absurd. Wild and out of control behavior has long been compared to acting like monkeys at the zoo. I'd bet most teachers have described their classrooms in this way. It's not a racial thing.

The artist probably sees the stimulus bill as a result of wild and out of control behavior in DC. An ape(symbolizing wild out of co tell behavior) was shot by police the other day. The cartoon ties it together. End of story.

Hopefully, there'll be some recaps mixed in with the ideological back-and-forth that is now underway.

"...why don't you try justifying the cartoon by telling us exactly what you think is funny about it?"

###
The satire, for our dearest Olbermann apologist, involves the inference that the true authors of the legislation to have the intellectual ability of a trained chimp.

Any well informed person knows that the legislation was the creation of dweddle-dee and dweedle-dum, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. The legislation has not ONE component that is new or revolutionary.....nearly all of the spending is targeted to benefit classic Democrat Party special interest groups and the meager tax relief the leftist ruling class offerred will not stimulate the economy because nearly none of it is targeted to spur investment in job creation. The tax relief that was going to help our economy was mostly stripped out and most is basically for constiuent groups the Democrats want to reward.

The stimulus package is nothing imaginative or creative....a trained chimp could have come up with it by simply knowing the previous spending priorities, tax gimmicks and pork project wish lists of Washington DC politicians since FDR.

Also, those who supported it did not even know what was in the package and voted on it in ignorance....again, not a very intelligent characteristic.

That is a cogent link to an absurd story that transpired in Stamford Connecticut this week. A very strange and surreal event involving a pet chimp who was treated like a human being by his owner. To those of us in the Tri-State area being bombarded by that story and all of the cruel jokes surrounding it, the connection to the equally absurd and nonreality based spun, over-spending pork barrel fraud that the Democrat political establishment cowed President signed into law yesterday gives me a chuckle.

It is not racist. It may not be tasteful to some, but I think ideology has more to do with that reaction than anything else! I can say that there were many such cartoons depicting Bush specifically through the last 8 years, including the Cheney hunting accident, and even our brave soldiers in Iraq (remember the Abu Garab cartoons?), that I considered tasteless, but I would be glad to allow the left, like our dear Olbermann apologist MikeH, their cruel joke. Invoking snobbish "it's not funny because it's cruel or violent," or "IT'S RACIST!" is also a choice fanatics can pursue....get a life!

Free speech is a great thing, even in the age of the church of SNOBamessiah when no negative dispatch of the leftist ruling class will be tolerated! I say bring it on because that is unpatriotic and radical. I am glad to see such join the ranks of Al Sharpton and Keith Olbermann.

The same applies to the Michelle Malkin issue.....The left is apoplectic over her picture yet I recall Nazi imagery and accusations on those very blogs these last eight years.....And our resident Olbermann apologists participated in such demogouery as well!

VERO POSSUMUS!

A. The cartoon was not funny. What went down with the chimp attack and the mauled woman is tragic, and still unfolding.
2. The slovenly hack Olbermann has referred to Chris Wallace as a 'monkey'. Of course, calling a Jew a monkey didn't get the Reverand Al lathered up.

"What's funny about the cartoon: It reduces the ridiculous stimulous package to the notion that an (uneducated) monkey must have written it."

If there had not been an unfortunate incident involving a chimo who almost killed a woman, and was shot dead by the police only yesterday, your contention that this "cartoonist" wasn't attempting to combine news events with no conceivable relevance to each other would not be so laughable. Meanwhile, a horribly mutilated woman lies in the hospital after being attacked by that (educated) chimp.

Another thing people like you constantly misrepresent is the flawed notion that calling someone out for offensive speech is synonomous with an attack on free speech....It isn't!.....The fact that by law, you are free to say something offensive does not relieve you of taking civil responsibility for having said it.

mikeH:

A employee of olbermanns msnbc called bush a monkey-Erin Burnett.

If Olbermann can tie monkeys to racism and Rupert to his employee cartoonist and b/c only republicans read ruperts nypost thereby all republicans are racist, then using this what could we assume about olbermann and his blog to apply to all democrats?

Olby: "What person couldn't see the racism in this, even the inadvertant racism?"
Sharpton: "They're not being honest."

Once again, the thought police/judges of the left condemn those who don't think as they do.

They ask those with whom they disagree to put themselves in the mind of the offended, without offering the same courtesy of themselves. They can't fathom why the artist would be offended at being called a racist and fight back a bit?

Welcome to the Twilight Zone.

Speaking of imagery, sorry for this one that you may find distasteful...

But, if Mrs. Olberwoman were to have relations with Mr. Maddow, and they were to have twin boys, they would undoubtedly be named Chris Hayes and Nate Silver.

ewwwwwww.

Good point ObserverDan.....Olbermann apologists like MikeH seem to never have gotton up in arms about Olbermann's blatent anti-Semitism.

I wonder why?

"A employee of olbermanns msnbc called bush a monkey-Erin Burnett"

Thats nice......Did they do it on MSNBC? And if they did, did MSNBC turn around and defend the comment?


Thanks for your admission of the obvious.....that this "cartoon" WAS in fact an obvious characterization of the president......Because nothing else makes any sense.

Good point America47000....The radical conclusion that the satirical cartoon MUST be have racist intentions and that to come to a different conclusion means dishonesty is the rub here....ah, but MikeH would want us to believe something else.

I called Olbermann would mimick the radical left's talking points this afternoon....how typical....and to have the good Reverand Al on to stir the pot....all the better!

This occurs the same day that our new AG calls American cowards for not dealing with race issues as he and his fellow leftist intellectuals decree we all should! Yep....this is the pos-racial America candidate Obama promised us all....another broken promise.

Let me see now....all that is left is the clining onto God and guns.

Look out my fellow Americans....the thought police are comfortable to make their utopia.

Hubris kills.

VERO POSSUMUS!

...a cartoon that is the very least intentionally offensive, if not blatantly racist......why don't you try justifying the cartoon by telling us exactly what you think is funny about it? By MikeH on February 18, 2009 8:40 PM

You really should try looking at things with your eyes open.

A perceived absence of humor does not an "intentionally offensive, if not blatantly racist" cartoon make.

Think it through.

WPitW- Worst, Sen. Kit Bond- voted NO on the stimulus package but is now on a tour of Missouri taking credit for spending on a housing project that was part of the stimulus.

This is mostly true, but Olbermann ignores that Republicans were pretty much always in favor of real contruction and building projects part of the stimulus. They voted no b/c the great majority of the $ in the bill did not go to "shovel ready" projects. The 1-2 billion involved in this part of the bill can justify a yes vote on the entire 798 billion.

WPitW- Worst, Sen. Kit Bond- voted NO on the stimulus package but is now on a tour of Missouri taking credit for spending on a housing project that was part of the stimulus.

This is mostly true, but Olbermann ignores that Republicans were pretty much always in favor of real contruction and building projects part of the stimulus. They voted no b/c the great majority of the $ in the bill did not go to "shovel ready" projects. The 1-2 billion involved in this part of the bill canNOT justify a yes vote on the OTHER 798 billion.

"Good point ObserverDan....Olbermann apologists like MikeH seem to never have gotton up in arms about Olbermann's blatant anti-Semitism"

1) - I never defended KO for doing that.
2) - Neither KO or Wallace were POTUS.
3) - I'm not "up in arms" now....just pointing out how people like you would rather defend the indefensible than agree with your ideological opposite about anything.
4) - Yes, ObserverDan DID make a good point, but no asterik involving Olbermann was needed.

Mike H:

You've had scores of logical rationale here about what else might make sense. And I would ask you, why would a cartoonist in a "mainstream" newspaper (yes, we know, it is right-leaning) knowingly and willingly end his career by drawing a cartoon that depicted the assassination of the president using racist imagery?

THAT MAKES NO SENSE.

What does make sense is the rationale that he was comparing the Congressional writers of the bill -- and by the way, the criticism en masse from the Right has been that Obama, if anything, abdicated responsibility for writing the bill to Pelosi and Reid -- to chimp, drawing (as many talented cartoonists/satirists do) from the most current of events.

Finally, even if your flawed logic wasn't as laughable as it is, is your claim that two wrongs make a right?------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I see we have selective outrage from the left.......AGAIN

Edit: The 1-2 billion involved in this portion of the spending bill canNOT justify a yes vote on the OTHER 798 billion.

"Look out my fellow Americans....the thought police are comfortable to make their utopia."

THAT comment was just made by someone famous on this very blog for branding any thought that did not adhere to his radical and rigid dogma as "anti-American", "politically motivated", among many others.

You are very good at one thing Cee.....Blatant hypocrisy!

"I never defended KO for doing that."

Never a word CONDEMNING Olbermann for doing it is just as bad.

Jews have historically been depicted as monkeys. The connection was much more logical that this cartoon where, again let me repeat, the AUTHORS of the legislation WERE THE LEGISLATORS, not President Obama, and they basically crafted 90% of the bill's spending and taxing policies behind closed doors without Republican input. This is fact, not opinion. The chimp is not President Obama.

For those wanting an ideological bludgeon....go for it.....join the DOCUMENTED anti-Semites Keith Olbermann and Al Sharpton....go for it, MikeH.

It's a free country!

OK- I vote to end the beatdown on MikeH and get back to the real monkeyman- Olby

Cee; "Never a word CONDEMNING Olbermann for doing it is just as bad."

And how many of your own posts can you point to condemning bad actions from your own ideological crowd?

MORE hypocrisy from Cee!

Regarding the ill advised cartoon.
irushbaby commented:
The artist probably sees the stimulus bill as a result of wild and out of control behavior in DC. An ape(symbolizing wild out of co tell behavior) was shot by police the other day. The cartoon ties it together. End of story.
irush describes exactly how I saw the cartoon at first blush. That it was done in dreadfully poor taste was obvious.
I'll admit I was quick to see the cartoon through the lenz of the 'post-racist' world I've heard so much about lately.
Thank you to Reverand Al and Mike H. for setting me straight that it was blatant racism at work in NY city's largest newspaper.

Unlike the left, I do not want to impose my ideology on others, dear MikeH....freedom of thought and religious belief under our Constitution is of the utmost importance....

And I have defended that ideal here and where-ever those yearn for it...including in Iraq.

Again....free speech MikeH.....I am glad your ideology matches that of Keith Olbermann and Al Sharpton.....good luck with that. Our Constitution allows you to make such a bad choice.

And the Obama America of right thought, action and outcome including that wonderful church of SNOBamessiah religious fervor we saw this week in Florida is antithetical to freedom.....

And I will choose not to support or participate in such dangerous silliness.

VERO POSSUMUS!

Were there any O'Reilly Attacks tonight? I'm taking the night off from recapping. There were people over the house tonight and I've been mingling.

OK - I vote to end the beatdown on MikeH and get back to the monkeyman. Olby."

Sorry, no "beatdown" here.....You have to have rational arguemnts to qualify, and the only ones even approaching rationalionality on the subject that I've read on the subject were from Nwwbie and ObserverDan.

I have a theory that an open-minded, well-reasoned individual could write a lengthy essay about any five-minute Olbermann segment.

Tonight's proof, my analysis of about five minutes of Countdown I watched today:

Olby made a good point at the tail end of that cartoon discussion (the #4 item). He advocated civility in political discourse. To quote him: "Is there a bigger lesson in all this about the need for civility in politics? I mean, criticize all you want the other guy's position, but keep it to the ideas and not to the insulting images. I guess I'm sort of back-discussing the last 8 years, when all those references to George Bush as a chimp were made, and I'm happy to say I don't think I made any of them, but the problem with them being apart [from] just being insulting, this gives kind of a rationalization for anybody who says, 'well, ya know, all right maybe they did call Barack Obama a chimp, but they called George Bush a chimp for 8 years. This is why we shouldn't do this, isn't it?"

You're right, Keith. Making cheap insults like that does hurt the civility of discourse, and the credibility of your arguments. Therefore, I expect you'll follow your own advice and lay off the cheap jokes about Fox News, such as calling them Faux News or Fixed News or Fox Noise? Or all the Billo the Clown jokes?

Fat chance of that. A few minutes after the cartoon segment came WPITW (#2):

"The runners up, Trace Gallamgher and Charles Krauthamer, the latest Fixed News (*DING*) meat puppets (*DING*) to declare something was in the stim bill that just wasn't." Keith recounts comments they made, doing bad impressions of each, about a high-speed train from Disneyland in California to Las Vegas. Krauthammer says the train should be called the Fantasy Land express. During all this, Keith says the Vegas train isn't in the bill three times. "And you, Mr. Krauthammer. You should be called the Fantasy Land Express (*DING*)."

So much for civility, eh, you hypocrite?

Keith's Blue Blog source on this? Of course it's Media Matters: http://mediamatters.org/items/200902180010

But Keith in his repetitions that the train isn't in the bill doesn't bother to say that even Media Matters admits the train is in the bill, except according to MM it's just not allocated as such yet, and needs the secretary of transportation to sign off on it.

Olbermann is like Grandpa Simpson in that episode in which Mr. Burns asks Grandpa if he can't go more than 10 seconds without embarrassing himself, and on cue Grandpa's pants fall down. "How long was that?"

I'd post the clip but I don't have time to find it online right now.

Cee: "Unlike the left, I do not want to impose my ideology on others, dear MikeH."

AH, so THAT explains your NUMEROUS posts attributing opposing ideological thought to impure, devious, and traitorous motives!

Thank you for setting me straight Cee.

Did KO or Sharpton get worked up about those blatant real racist cartoons of Condi Rice or the Oreo's thrown at Mike Steele(and that pic of him being in blackface)? New Murrow indeed.

Cee: "Unlike the left, I do not want to impose my ideology on others, dear MikeH."

AH, so THAT explains your NUMEROUS posts attributing opposing ideological thought to impure, devious, and traitorous motives!

Thank you for setting me straight Cee.

Sorry, but one more thing on this monkey business (another commonly used term, is it too racist?) The more I think about this, trying to make this cartoon about racism b/c it depicts an ape is as absurd as the guy who said the term "black hole" is racist.

OK, back to the show, did Olby skip "Still Bushed" tonight?

A rare swing and a miss for our illustrious caretaker and role model, Johnny Dollar. I think the Malkin issue slipped through the cracks and will most likely make it into some future performance, probably as "Breaking News".

MikeH- let me see if I understand where you're coming from...

Do you see this cartoon as infering Obama is Pelosi and Reids little monkey who was just following the commands of his handlers (pelosi & reid) when he signed the stimulus? I'd understand you a little better under this senario but I still don't think the monkey comparison automatically equals racism.

Hi everyone:

Recap summary for tonight's show:

#5-Mortgaging housing plans--Guests Richard "the Wolf Man" Wolfe and HUD Secretary Shawn Donovan

#4-"NY Post resorts to racism"--Interview with Rev. Al Sharpton about the NY Post's chipanzee cartoon that is being discussed here.

#3-Interview w/ the Nation Magazine's Chris Hayes about Rep. Michelle Bachmann's (R-Minn) opposition to the "stimulus" package.

#2-WPitW:

#3-Newt Gingrich for saying that he has a "new idea" eliminating
all Capital Gains Taxes should be eliminated--Oralmann's
response (paraphrasing): Newt had this idea back in 1997. Blue
blog source: not yet known

#2-Trace Gallagher and Charles Krauthhammer: (for details,
including blue blog source, and response, see America 47000's
10:15 post)

#1-Kit Bond (R-MO) for flip flopping on the "stimulus" bill. Blue
Blog Source: Think Propaganda
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/02/18/bond-touts-stimulus/

#1-Predictions on who will win this weekend's Oscar Awards with Nate Silver of Five Thirty-Eight.com

Irushbaby, I feel to see why you need a further breakdown of exactly where I am coming from when this "cartoonist" (in cahoots with his iirresponsible editor) left his motives and meanings so open to interpretation?

My apologies to Katy Turic for the following:

The chances are none to slim
That Keith spends time in the gym
He prefers gain to pain
lifting that belly's a strain
So his girlfriend can putz
with his stim

Now that I have time, I'll recap a little, all based on the preview images on the "Countdown" website.
There were no O'Reilly Attacks tonight, at least not in WPitW.

#5A: Those eeevil irrational Republicans. The Wolffe Man simpered.
#5B: A blue dress interview with HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan. Time to update The List.

#4: Oh, God, no! The Reverend Al Sharpton of the National Action Network! Sharpton has always been treated fairly on FNC, but now I guess he hates all things News Corp. and will never be on again. Also, this is a slap in the face to the eeevil O'Reilly, and to me as a regular "Factor" viewer. I didn't watch, but I'm sure it was all about hating Fox, hating the New York Post, hating O'Reilly, and hating News Corp. I am so irritated right now. I consider this turning against Bill. I really do. Please do not take this as a racist comment because it is not my intent whatsoever, but I will no longer respect Rev. Sharpton until he appears on FNC. (sigh.) Anyway...

#3: Michele Bachmann bashing with Chris Hayes of the radical left Nation.

#2: The Media Matters Minute. No O'Reilly Attack, no Malkin Attack, not worth recapping.

#1: Oscar predictions with....Nate Silver?! Yes, Nate Silver, Oralmann's Kos Kompadre.

And that's my recap. Wow, I ended up writing a lot.

Cartoon? Racism? Chimp? Monkey? Maybe we all got sucked into KO's do anything, say anything, make a mountain-anything out of a mole-anything, twist anything, misdirect anything, stretch the truth (or surely stretch a LIE) to try for even the smallest, weakest, lamest jab at Murdoch and/or Fox....He's STILL licking his wounds (or whatever it is he licks) in the aftermath of "THE RETRACTION."

WOW Newbie!!! That horrific imagery of Olberwoman and Mr. Maddow having "relations" will probably cost me at least one night's sleep. I DO, however, understand the impossiblity of the senario, given the drool of longing I detect whenever Mr. Maddow sees a clip of Sarah Palin, Norah or Kelly O'Donnell, Michele Bachmann, Ann Coulter, or Michelle Obama to name only a few.

Topic: Bachmann

Olbermann & Hayes decide that this congresswoman represents the radical right and gets all her ideas from right-wing blogs... If you change "right-wing" to "left-wing" in that conversation then you have Olbermann in a nutshell. I wonder if he realizes that he and his blog are the lefts version of a Bachmann. And what's Olbermanns problem/obsession w/ moderately attractive middle aged women republican politicians?

Why is Olbermann getting millions of dollars a year for 1/2 of O'Reilly's viewers? O'Reilly even beats the fool in the 25-54 (see graph at link)
http://tvbythenumbers.com/category/ratings/top-news/cable-news

-- #3: Michele Bachmann bashing with Chris Hayes of the radical left Nation. --

I saw that too MikeC. Hillarious to see 2 super liberals talk about anybody elses perceptions of reality.

As this out of control spending creates inflation and doesn't create millions of jobs, will Olby be reduced to thumb sucking for 1 hour?

Sorry PC-People but I thought the cartoon was funny.

btw....does anybody but Olbermann use the word "stim"?

"Why is Olbermann gettin millions of dollars a year for 1/2 of O'Reilly's viewers?"

Have you seen O'Reilly's salary? If so, WHY would you ask such an inane question?

I agree, the thoughts of Olbs & Rach sitting in a tree and then having a little Hayes & Nate in the babygate. Sickening.

O'reilly needs these PETA chicks on more.

I didn't watch the segment, liontooth, but I knew it was bashing. As Johnny said at the top, "Krazy Keith is as predictable as Pavlov's dog in a bell-testing factory." And so is the Hour of Spin.
As for "stim," Scrappy, I think Grandpa Keith is trying to be culturally relevant...again.

"As the out of control spending creates inflation and doesn't create millions of jobs, will Olby be reduced to thumb sucking for 1 hour?"

Oh, I dunno....did all the unfunded "out of control spending" of the last 8 years reduce the O'Reilly's of the world to sucking THEIR thumb for 1 hour?

Mike H:

How can it be ".....that this "cartoon" WAS in fact an obvious characterization of the president......Because nothing else makes any sense."(you @9:41) AND AT THE SAME TIME "this "cartoonist" (in cahoots with his iirresponsible editor) left his motives and meanings so open to interpretation? " (you @10:46)?

Also, to go along with that:
By MikeH on February 18, 2009 9:49 PM
"Good point ObserverDan....Olbermann apologists like MikeH seem to never have gotton up in arms about Olbermann's blatant anti-Semitism"

1) - I never defended KO for doing that.---> So what, this is a site about Olbermann and this topic has come up a lot, and you have been asked about it, your continued slence stands as agreement
2) - Neither KO or Wallace were POTUS.---> So what? It is only bad if the President is involved? I call macaca
3) - I'm not "up in arms" now....just pointing out how people like you would rather defend the indefensible than agree with your ideological opposite about anything.---> The indefensible? See your own10:46 post about how the cartoon is open to interpretation
4) - Yes, ObserverDan DID make a good point, but no asterik involving Olbermann was needed. ---> Really? Pointing out that the accuser in this little set piece is guilty of the same thing he is accusing someone else of is not needed? Especially when that trangression is far more obvious that this one?

Mike H:

How can it be ".....that this "cartoon" WAS in fact an obvious characterization of the president......Because nothing else makes any sense."(you @9:41) AND AT THE SAME TIME "this "cartoonist" (in cahoots with his iirresponsible editor) left his motives and meanings so open to interpretation? " (you @10:46)?

Also, to go along with that:
By MikeH on February 18, 2009 9:49 PM
"Good point ObserverDan....Olbermann apologists like MikeH seem to never have gotton up in arms about Olbermann's blatant anti-Semitism"

1) - I never defended KO for doing that.---> So what, this is a site about Olbermann and this topic has come up a lot, and you have been asked about it, your continued slence stands as agreement
2) - Neither KO or Wallace were POTUS.---> So what? It is only bad if the President is involved? I call macaca
3) - I'm not "up in arms" now....just pointing out how people like you would rather defend the indefensible than agree with your ideological opposite about anything.---> The indefensible? See your own10:46 post about how the cartoon is open to interpretation
4) - Yes, ObserverDan DID make a good point, but no asterik involving Olbermann was needed. ---> Really? Pointing out that the accuser in this little set piece is guilty of the same thing he is accusing someone else of is not needed? Especially when that trangression is far more obvious that this one?

Um. The spending over the last 8 years wasn't really that out of control from a historical statistical perspective. The ratio of debt to GDP was actually quite reasonable.

But in the last sixth months the spending has practically doubled (Bush's ill-advised first bailout included).

And Obama's been in office less than a month. Who knows what he can spend money on next. Just today he announced a $75 billion program for deadbeat homeowners.

If they were Porch Monkey's then it would be racist. I'm educated in my racial slurs.

Scary Uncle: Since you choose to continue with an argument you;ve already lost:

"How can it be "....That this "cartoon" was an obvious characterization of the president....Becaause nothing else4 made sense."

Just because there were multiple interpretations possible doesn't mean that the most obvious one to the majority of observers wasn't the one that was intended. Sorry, but there were no contadictions in my statements. The cartoonist could have easily chosen to clarify it's meaning.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"So what? this is a site about Olbermann and this topic has come up a lot, and you have been asked about it, your continued silence stands as agreement."

WHEN exactly have I personally been asked about it? Are you asking me now?....and what exactly do you mean by "agreement"?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The indefensible? See your own 10:46 post about how the cartoon is open to interpretation."

Duh....THAT was anything BUT a 'defense'!....That's called being a weasel so you can turn around and give a knowing little wink to all the other Coulterites out there while claiming you mean't something else.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Really? Pointing out that the accuser is guilty of the same thing he is accusing someone else is not needed?"

Olbermann isn't "the accuser" here.....He was simply one of MANY making doing this story....or haven't you been paying attention?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, YOU may think one commentator making racist or insulting comments about a peer is the same as aiming them at the president, but I think you'll find yourself in the minority regarding THAT point as well.

The Bachmann bash again shows Olbermann's hypocrisy. Keith is proud of the fact that he doesn't vote so as to show neutrality on the “news hour”. Keith is equally proud to donate to Bachmann’s campaign any day of the week so as to keep her in office so he can remain employed as the propagandist in chief. Keith has also said on more than one occasion that he would donate to Sarah Palin’s campaign so he can have a steady stream of material on which to draw. So much for neutrality at the expense of self-preservation.

I'm done with this thread. See you in the Thursday one.

America4700: "The spending over the last eight years wasn't really that out of control from a historical statistical perspective. The ratio of debt to the GDP was actually quite reasonable."

You really are quite athletic when it comes to mental gymnastics! Reminds me of all those silly arguments I used to hear about how lowering taxes increased tax revenues.

Since the GDP is derived by the total performance of the predominently PRIVATE economy, comparing government debt to private business performance seems to be an especially silly exercise for a conservative.

The fact is that the ONLY time we should be running a deficit is during bad economic times when the government is forced to step up. There is NO excuse for having done it the last eight years (not until the last six months anyway)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
America4700: "But in the last six months the spending has practically doubled (Bush's first ill-advised bail out included)"

First off, how do YOU know it was "ill-advised"? How do YOU know that the entire banking institution would not have already collapsed if they had not done that? The truth is that you can't possibly know!

I'm convinced a bail out WAS indeed needed, and I don't think a free-market advocate like Bush would have suggested it if it had not been necessary...albeit it should have had more competent oversight and accountability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
America4700: "And Obama's been in office for less than a month. Who knows what he can spend money on next. Just today he announced a $75 billion program for deadbeat homeowners."

It's nice that people like you feel so damned smug and comfortable calling other Americans whose circumstances YOU cannot possibly know "deadbeats". Have you ever heard the saying "there but for the grace of God go I"? Being humble certainly isn't one of YOUR virtues.

Why don't you try using that "deadbeat" label on some of the greedy and incompetent Wall Street bankers who were just as guilty of speculation, but caused one hell of a lot more damage than individual "deadbeat" homeowners did?

You can deride Obama's attempt to stop the downward spiral of the economy caused primarily by the OTHER party all you choose (and I know that you will), but just try telling me that the economy wasn't already in the toilet when he arrived.

The truth is that if we have another great depression and we are $2 trillion more in debt because we tried to stop it won't matter one wit.....but if we avoid it by doing something, it will have been well worth it.

Those are the facts jack...live with them!

great comments everyone. I sure hope the Post doesn't send a retraction tomorrow, that will give idiots like Sharpton and KO ammo to think they bring about "change."

Is it me? or does Nate Silver just look...creepy?

-- "Have you seen O'Reilly's salary? If so, WHY would you ask such an inane question?" --

Have you seen O'Reilly's ratings? O'Reilly HAS VIEWERS, which Olbermann doesn't. OF COURSE O'Reilly should be highly paid. That is somehow a mystery?

MH,

I've politely pointed out a couple of instances of flawed logic in your stance on the cartoon. I've suggested a process that might help you take another look at your presumption to see if there is a possibility your made up mind might have been made up prematurely.

Here's the deal; selective attention, selective perception, selective retention.

When someone speaks or writes or draws, in their mind they know what they are trying to convey.

When someone else hears or reads or sees that which has been produced by another, they perceive, selectively, what it conveys to them. They have every right to their perception. It is their perception and no one can tell them that it's not.

Likewise, no one can tell the originator what they meant to convey.

Messages are misinterpreted. Meanings are misunderstood.

If you want see racism, you probably will. If you want to be offended, you probably will. If you want to project evil intent on another,......hey, you get the idea.

Sometimes a cigar is just a smoke.

Liontooth: "Have you seen O'Relly's ratings? O'Reilly HAS VIEWERS, which Olbermann doesn't. OF COURSE O'Reilly should be highly paid. That is somehow a mystery?"

Lets see what transpired here: First you post a ridiculous question about why Olbermann would be getting millions of dollars with half of O'Reilly's viewers?.....And then I point out that O'Reilly makes twice what Olbermann makes, and then you come along and act like I was mystified about why O'Reilly makes twice as much for twice the viewers.....when what I was really doing was asking you why you would find it a mystery that someone with HALF the viewers could make HALF the salary of someone with twice the viewers, which works out to precisely the same RATIO.

And then you come back and act like I was the one who was confused!

Another O'Reilly dunce!

Ramjet:

If you want to continue to assert that it was perfectly OK for that "cartoonist" to intentionally tweak the sensibilities of everyone who has ever winced at historic characterizations of negros as "chimps", and try to combine that with a sick attempt to capitalize on yesterdays tragic chimpanzee attack that has left an innocent woman in critical condition, then that is your privilage......But your attempt to make it into something it clearly isn't just doesn't pass the smell test.

Yes sirree, it was just as easy for him to claim that the dead chimp represented something or someone other than the classic historical stereotype when the crap hit the fan as it was for Roland Burris to claim he really didn't do what he clearly did.....but all of us who have a brain know better in BOTH cases.

That said, your rather absurd attempt to over-analyze and justify blending sick images from unrelated news events into a nonsensical "cartoon" that was clearly intended to offend is hardly a testament to your own ability to determine whether someone's logic is "flawed" or not. .

-- First you post a ridiculous question about why Olbermann would be getting millions of dollars with half of O'Reilly's viewers?... --

NewsCorp (parent company of Fox ) is NOT getting a federal bailout like GE (the parent company of MSNBC.) Obama said top executives of companies should only get 500K while receiving bailout money. But somehow Olbermann is entitled to getting a mult-million dollar salary because O'Reilly gets one? WTF!

Why again is the American taxpayer subsiding a droning ranting douchebag in a failing business, while Americans are losing their homes? Please enlighten us why Olbermann is entitled to his huge salary?

"Just because there were multiple interpretations possible doesn't mean that the most obvious one to the majority of observers wasn't the one that was intended"

Seriously? most obvious to the majority? How do you know that? Maybe to morons, and it seems to me that morons make up the majority. But still.

"You really are quite athletic when it comes to mental gymnastics! Reminds me of all those silly arguments I used to hear about how lowering taxes increased tax revenues."

Sorry bud, but revenue did go up. Lower taxes means more money for businesses to hire workers, who then pay taxes. That's how you really spread the wealth. Counterintuitive to a liberal, but then liberals aren't exactly known for thinking outside the box.??"Since the GDP is derived by the total performance of the predominently PRIVATE economy, comparing government debt to private business performance seems to be an especially silly exercise for a conservative."

To cover its budget deficit, the government issues bonds which are bought up by investors in the private sector. Hence, the bigger the economy, the more potential investors. Thus, government debt is directly tied to the private sector. A bigger economy can absorb more of the government's debt. Like if I had a $100,000 income and a $20,000 credit card debt, I'm in better shape than if I had a $50,000 income and a $15,000 credit card bill. Simple math and simple economics.??

"The fact is that the ONLY time we should be running a deficit is during bad economic times when the government is forced to step up. There is NO excuse for having done it the last eight years (not until the last six months anyway)."

What are you, a Keynesian? Sorry pal but the government isn't forced to step up during bad economic times. You run up deficits to survive, and to me that means war time. This knee-jerk stimulus stuff is BS.

I wasn't saying it was a good thing to run up a deficit, I was just saying that historically what George W. Bush was doing with the deficits wasn't as bad as you want to make it out to be.
A constantly balanced budget or a surplus is always a good thing if it's sustainable. But the Clinton surplus was an illusion spurred by unjust tax hikes fueled by the Internet bubble. There was no way that was going to last, but Bush takes the blame for wiping it out anyway.
The real shame about the stimulus is that the free market is naturally self-correcting. Most people just don't have the stomach for the potential result, and thanks to FDR and LBJ they think the government will hold their hand through it. Obama is in that same mold.

For example, people are told to join a union to protect their job. But their job may be obsolete. So to get their votes the politicians make it easier for the union to keep their industry alive, and give them an inflated salary to boot, when the truth is they and society would be better served by them moving on.

Oh, the market will correct itself, but thanks to the quirks of historical coincidence the Democrats will probably say it's proof that the stimulus package worked, when the truth of the matter is the market corrected itself and may have done so faster without the burden of the extra government-driven spending to prop up as well.

At this point, only time will tell

"It's nice that people like you feel so damned smug and comfortable calling other Americans whose circumstances YOU cannot possibly know "deadbeats".

People who have no business accepting money they know they can't pay back from government-founded institutions threatened with over-regulation if they don't give money to the impoverished. You're right. They aren't deadbeats. They're freeloaders.
"You can deride Obama's attempt to stop the downward spiral of the economy caused primarily by the OTHER party all you choose (and I know that you will), but just try telling me that the economy wasn't already in the toilet when he arrived. "

You sound as if any old band-aid will patch this up. Just because Obama is making an attempt doesn't mean it's the right attempt.

The market will take care of the greedy wall street types too. If a company is stupid enough to let their CEO run them into the ground and steal millions, they go out of business, and other companies can see how this business model doesn't work. The prospect of a government bailout dilutes this essential tenet of the market.

"The truth is that if we have another great depression and we are $2 trillion more in debt because we tried to stop it won't matter one wit.....but if we avoid it by doing something, it will have been well worth it."

And what if the market would have corrected itself anyway and we spent $2 trillion for no good reason, except to pay back liberal extremist groups. This will cause inflation which could stagnate the natural recovery of the market.

And if it takes $2 trillion of government intrusion into private enterprise to really save us, then the America is dead anyway.

"If you want to continue to assert that it was perfectly OK for that "cartoonist" to intentionally tweak the sensibilities of everyone who has ever winced at historic characterizations of negros as "chimps""

That's the thing. The cartoonist wasn't equating the chimp with blacks. He was equating the chimp with a chimp. The only ones calling saying that blacks are chimps are liberals like you. You're the one pushing the racism here. Not the cartoon.

"Yes sirree, it was just as easy for him to claim that the dead chimp represented something or someone other than the classic historical stereotype when the crap hit the fan as it was for Roland Burris to claim he really didn't do what he clearly did.....but all of us who have a brain know better in BOTH cases."

You know, Thomas Nast, the preeminent political cartoonist of the 19th century, would depict the Irish as apes. White people. Liberals depicted George W. Bush as a chimp. Were they saying he was black?

There's nothing clear about your interpretation of the cartoon, except that it's clear you and your ilk are taking a knee-jerk reaction to it because you disagree with its political message. There's no racism there and you know it. But you know the masses who don't think for themselves will respond to the hot button words, and if you can paint the cartoon as inflammatory about race you can distort it's real meaning, that the stimulus bill is crap (like poo flung by monkeys), and thus the people who you need to keep voting for Democrats won't think about the merits of the case, just the hatred you are putting in their heads for ideas contrary to your own.

It is amazing that MikeH can be tolerant of blatant anti-Semitism yet when it suits his ideological agenda, cry against imagined racism. As a defender and lover of Keith Olbermann, MikeH has to put up with much.

Victimhood is the tool here and the same goes with his crazed anger about people questioning other's patriotism.

MikeH can be the judge about racism, but he denies people judging others' patriotism. Nice.

The typical zealot from the left. Now that the leadership is leftist, the tools of fear and marginalization (decrying racism, decrying classism, decrying partisanship as obstructionist) or using fear of economic collapse to motivate support (remember how the left, including Olbermann, screamed "HE'S POLITICIZING THE WAR ON TERROR!") is acceptable. Hypocrisy.

The same goes with the lack of control in regards to spending.....MikeH was apoplectic about the spending on the war....guess what....this stimulus bill, in one signature, makes that spending look like pennies!.....and at least the war in Iraq was in defense of people's freedom and life....what is the stimulus money going to do?....oh yeah.....it is for the pork frenzy Washington DC has always been known for.....wonderful!

MikeH once again shows us all his dishonesty and razor thin skin.

VERO POSSUMUS!

Krazy Keith "Chicken and Waffle"
His hypocrisy is awful
A PC flunky
Called Wallace a monkey
His "news show" should be unlawful

I was watching some old YouTubes and came across Keith Boston Market commercial from 1997. We shouldve known then that KO wound gain 80 lbs in just over 1 year b/c he does state "eating is good".

Keiths weight gain is just one more sign he's melting down. Maybe he thinks that since he hit the jackpot (7mil per year) by being a jackoff he no longer needs to take care of himself. The man with a tan from a can has ditched tan and the hair dye. I wonder how long it will be before he starts to grow his hair out like Fineman (who has also ditched the hair dye). I'm sure he thinks the grey makes him look distinguished-the same reason he rocks spectacles.

Roland Burris

Charles Rangel

John Murtha

Gov. Blagojevich

Tom Daschle

Nancy Killefer

Bill Richardson

now Nancy Pelosi and Bill Clinton hugging a scammer at the DNC....lots of money from R. Allen Stanford....most to the Dems.

Oh, and lots of pork for the Democrat's special interests in the dishonestly labeled stimulus package....

Democrats behaving badly....the usual culture of corruption in Obama's DC.

VERO POSSUMUS!

I noticed that during oralmann interview the secratery of HUD he was holding a sheet with some writing on it looks like keith let him know what the questions were so he would be able to give the correct talking pionts or maybe he gave keith the questions to ask. after all we know keith really not a newsman and needs to be told what to say.
also if you google about the high speed train from Calif to vegas there seems to be a lot of papers and news agency reporting it. so yes keith there is 8 billion for a train.

this nigh have been lost in the mess last night. Did Olbermann base part of his fake outrageon the possibility that it would incite violence towards Obama? If I recall, the most recent real act of violence towards a US President-the shoe thrower, was made into a joke on the show for at least a week.

Olberbaby had that race pimp Weird Al Sharpton on his show last evo...what a joke to give that goof and credibility. Both are Clowns!

Oh, this article needs to be read. Should be on Drudge. Please pass it around...

http://durantdemocrat.com/pages/full_story?_session_id=45fd0f155ea95d3ee874efad09b070a2&hash=cb_post_comment_1972043&page_label=full_story&id=1972043&content_instance=1972043&need_to_add=true&secure_comments=true&widget=push&open=&_session_id=45fd0f155ea95d3ee874efad09b070a2

Olberbaby had that race pimp Weird Al Sharpton on his show last evo...what a joke to give that goof any credibility. Both are Clowns!

Oh, this article needs to be read. Should be on Drudge. Please pass it around...

http://durantdemocrat.com/pages/full_story?_session_id=45fd0f155ea95d3ee874efad09b070a2&hash=cb_post_comment_1972043&page_label=full_story&id=1972043&content_instance=1972043&need_to_add=true&secure_comments=true&widget=push&open=&_session_id=45fd0f155ea95d3ee874efad09b070a2

Olberbaby had that race pimp Weird Al Sharpton on his show last evo...what a joke to give that goof any credibility. Both are Clowns!

Oh, this article needs to be read. Should be on Drudge. Please pass it around...

http://durantdemocrat.com/pages/full_story?_session_id=45fd0f155ea95d3ee874efad09b070a2&hash=cb_post_comment_1972043&page_label=full_story&id=1972043&content_instance=1972043&need_to_add=true&secure_comments=true&widget=push&open=&_session_id=45fd0f155ea95d3ee874efad09b070a2

"MikeH once again shows us all his dishonesty and razor thin skin."

Shocker!

By MikeH on February 19, 2009 3:29 AM
Ramjet:
///snipped///

That said, your rather absurd attempt to over-analyze and justify blending sick images from unrelated news events into a nonsensical "cartoon" that was clearly intended to offend is hardly a testament to your own ability to determine whether someone's logic is "flawed" or not.
=-=

I did not analyze, over OR under, nor did I justify the cartoon, which you say, "was clearly intended to offend" and project your selective perception of the intent onto cartoonist.

Re: flawed logic

From yesterdays thread-

By MikeH on February 18, 2009 8:56 PM
"The cartoon is so clearly a jab at the ananity of the stimulus package, that it is so ridiculous that eveb a monkey could have written it."

While you're (American 47000) in the process of doing mental gymnastics in an inane attempt to defend the indefensable, why don't you pass along the punch line to us so that we can all laugh.

By ramjet on February 18, 2009 9:26 PM
Jokes and comedy skits have punch lines, not cartoons.
=-=

From this thread-

By ramjet on February 18, 2009 9:48 PM
...a cartoon that is the very least intentionally offensive, if not blatantly racist......why don't you try justifying the cartoon by telling us exactly what you think is funny about it? By MikeH on February 18, 2009 8:40 PM

You really should try looking at things with your eyes open.

A perceived absence of humor does not an "intentionally offensive, if not blatantly racist" cartoon make.

Think it through.

This will go on forever. :(

test 123

nah, it's over Mike. Unless Olbermann covers it again tonight!

I was talking about the back-and-forth in this thread. Meanwhile, I'm glad we at OlbyWatch shamed Keithy into not attacking Michelle Malkin, a woman who I'll defend against attacks by people on the left (except Geraldo) even though I get irritated by her at times.

MikeC,

KO did an entire segment, with Sharpton as his guest, on the "clearly racist" cartoon and even asked, "What person couldn't see the racism in this, even the inadvertant racism?"

Sharpton responded, "They're not being honest."

I haven't discussed the budget, the stimulus plan, the Bush bashing, Stamford or any number of other topics that may or may not relate to Countdown-with Keith Olbermann.

Discussion usually contains "back-and-forth." Otherwise, it's just a report.

All my best.

I was talking about people taking MikeH's bait. And just by bringing up his name, *I* have taken the bait and set myself up for an attack.

Here's what Keith will be discussing tonight:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29274669/

The only question is whether he will get creative enough to work it into every segment

The story is about the ruling that Sarah Palin owes taxes on her per diem expenses.

For those who would rather drive up the Fox News web traffic than MSNBC, here's their link:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/02/19/palin-pay-taxes-diem-income/

MikeH is the only defender Olbermann has on this site, so his bait is tempting. I must give him credit in trying to defend such a indefensable person and his views.

I did mean that the back and forth was over.....The issue of how the cartoon is used to smear people politically is at the heart of Olbermann's (and MikeH's) hypocritical outrage. It seems to have been settled here, with many excellent points in rebuttal to MikeH left unanswered and so assumed correct.

Calling people racists when these same people decried anyone questioning others' partiotism no more than 6 months ago is rich.

But again, I said it was over.

So, here's a good one for a laugh.

Olby may name Karl Rove WPITW tonight for what he said on O'Reilly yesterday about Barney Frank trying to block Republican reforms over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That's because it's the top Media Matters rebuttal:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200902190010?f=h_top

One of Media Matter's sources that Barney Frank supported more oversight?
Well, that would be Barney Frank, of course? From an interview in which he bashed the Bush administration.

Yeah, that's credible reporting.

Here is the Rove segment on FOXNews.com: http://tinyurl.com/dhszr5

Finally! I am in again!

Not in time to respond in real time to this site's lone libtard, left wing nut, olbyloon, MikeHee.

Yeah cee, his hypocrisy in support of his hero Olbermann in his "truth to power" is revealing. Somehow, he never shows up for those segments wherein Olbermann is nailed for lying, which is almost every night. I guess with MikeHee, the, uh, let's see, how did that putz put it? Oh, yeah, "the ends justify the means". Yep, with his hero Olbermann, lying is justified to produce the means to smear those with whom he disagrees with. Nice hero you left wing nuts have there MikeHee. What else is one to expect of arrogant, intellectually dishonest, partisan putzes like MikeHee.

You know America4700, what astounds me is the fact that so many libtards buy the propaganda that it was the Republicans, through market derregulation, who caused this economic downturn. Sure, they had a hand in it, in my opinion, through their complicity with the actual offenders. The Democrats. They are the ones who derregulated the housing financial markets, all in the name of social engineering, via the Community Reinvestment Act. Heck, even one of their most admired politicians, Bill Clinton, admitted as much. Can anyone imagine if a Republican, like say, Bush, admitted something like that? It would be plastered all over the news, and brought up time and time again as the root cause. And rightly so. But not Clinton's admission. It's as if it dissappeared. And not one mention of it on Countdown, as expected. More of that honest "reporting", the type that libtards like MikeHee suck down like Koolaid. Like you said. Twilight Zone.

With Obama's new program to bail out the "freeloaders" as you called them, I see a long, long recovery ahead. Ayi, yi, yiii.

Please don't use the word "libtard." I never like when anyone says an insult with the word "-tard" in it. I'm not saying I'm on the left, but it's uncomfortable to see.