The demise of Keith Olbermann's "Countdown" silences one of the few liberal voices in television land.
Keith Olbermann's abrupt and unexpected departure from MSNBC and his Countdown show surprised many, and it has brought out a great deal of response with some stunned and regretful, but most gleefully rejoicing his leaving.…
Article comments
126 - roger nowosielski
Thanks, Pablo. I realize we may not see eye-to-eye on everything, especially as regards how we interpret conspiracies, but I never entertained any doubt as to your sincerely in anything you've ever posted. By the same token, I don't believe I've given you a reason yet to question mine.
As to Assange, I'll provide in my next post a link to his "Manifesto" in case you don't already have it.
127 - pablo
Roger another interesting tidbit about Assange is the place where he has been holding fort in London is owned by a group called
The Frontline Club. The Frontline Club got its funding from George Soros. A fascinating tidbit Soros that many people don't know, and I did not get this information from Glen Beck who I cant stand, is that Soros got his start in business helping the nazis confiscate and sell property from jews in Hungary, there is an 60 Minute interview out there with Steve Kroft and Soros where Soros actually discusses his shame.
128 - roger nowosielski
Here are a few links, Pablo:
(1) "Stateand Terrorist Conspiracies", a pdf file;
(2)"Julian Assange and the Computer Conspiracy";
(3)"The WikiLeaks Manifesto";
129 - roger nowosielski
So you're objecting that he's being defended with tainted money? OK, I get your point.
130 - Jordan Richardson
Frontline Club is a media club that is largely a hub for war and conflict reporters the world over. It's really more of a building (complete with a restaurant) than an organization, too, and remains a "haven and a forum" for war reporters in London.
Members pay annual fees and it doesn't break even. Vaughan Smith has received funding from Soros' Open Society Institute, but drawing any sort of practical link from the funding of the Frontline Club to Assange is just weird. It's not really a tidbit about Assange at all, Pablo.
He's not "being defended with tainted money" any more than Benazir Bhutto was supported by George Soros because she spoked at a media club that received some funding from one of his countless organizations.
131 - Wholesale Guy
Quote...
"Regardless of Olbermann's apparently huge ego, for those of us who share his ideology, he always managed to impart both intelligence and, as Benedict Declercq noted, in his comment on Barbara Barnett's article on Olbermann, here at BC, he (Olbermann) maintains "erudition, eloquence, [and a] warm humanitarian approach."
End Quote..
Well, I'll give you the huge ego. I'll even say, that "KO" is reasonablly intelligent in that he is a very articulate teleprompter reader.
But, I cannot say for certain how far the "rabbit hole" of his intelligence goes (sorry for the Matrix reference).
KO, as far as I know, did not like to travel outside the security of his studio and leave the warm embrace of his reflection in the camera.
Never did I see him on Meet The Press, The Capital Gang (before it was canceled) or any news show that hosts vigorous debate or political opinions that were polar opposite to his rantings.
Mostly, his show featured those who sang from the same hymnal. And yes, I know that a certain proponent of the right (Rush Limbaugh) does not engage in debate outside the "golden EIB" microphone. However, I would not mind seeing some of his views challenged as well.
But you would think that someone who rants about the right wing being the evil empire and akin to the Third Reich would want to mix it up once and a while with his sworn enemy.
Me thinks that Keith did not have confidence in his convictions and probably could not argue his case effectively.
In addition, like them, hate them, loath them, both O'Reilly and Hannity will have people on their show who offer a different view point.
And again, yes, O'Reilly has a huge ego and will get mad, shout, cut people off. He is not without sin.
But I have seen him stumped a few times when presented by a different point of view and a well reasoned challenge to his mindset on a particular subject.
While he almost never concedes defeat, he will at least put himself out there with those who differ from him and I can tell when his arguments have run out of steam and he is in search of a "clue"..
There was a time when I tried to give Keith O's show a chance. I tuned in for a few months to see if there might be something that I was missing.
Maybe I was just not being "open-minded" enough to absorb his musings and understand his message.
After watching in stunned disbelief as Olbermann refered to FOX News as worse than Al Qaeda, Bill O'Reilly being featured time and again as one of the worst people in the world, in addition to the constant "Bush" bashing, and his overall "rage-aholic" special comments, I was to tune in no more.
His obsession with O'Reilly and George W. Bush was particularly troubling and a bit obsessive. It seemed that he was more about the rage, less about the substance.
I get it Keith, you hate Bush. You told him to "shut the hell up" on your show. He's a criminal and an enemy of Democracy. Fox News, is the evil empire. Except when you worked for Fox Sports News - lol.
In terms of Barbara Barnett's comment about KO's erudition...
I really don't know the "breath and depth" of KO's understanding of literary works, be them fiction, non-fiction, industry related, or how that understanding applied to enhancing the dialog on his cable show.
All one has to do is look at a small portion of his published works via Amazon.com to know that he is, well, a shrill idealog.
For instance, titles like:
"Truth and Consequences: Special Comments on the Bush Administration's War on American Values" By Keith Olbermann".
"Pitchforks and Torches: The Worst of the Worst, from Beck, Bill, and Bush to Palin and Other Posturing Republicans by Keith Olbermann".
"The Worst Person In the World: And 202 Strong Contenders by Keith Olbermann".
Most of his "prose" while straight forward is not much more then rehashed rantings from his TV show.
There is no "in-depth" or well researched knowledge of say, foreign policy, history, or even politics.
The only "depth of field" seems to come exclusively from this own bias and void of any subjectivity whatsoever.
Oh, and did you know that he hates Bush, O'Reilly and Glenn Beck? In case you didn't he wrote a book about it..
I tend to find most of the public purveyors of various ideologies to be somewhat amusing actually.
Sort of like high school for adults. My team is better then your team - lol.
Your philosophy stinks, mine is better. Your not cool, hip, or smart if your not liberal, or conservative.
I wish that they could utilize all of their talents and be a little more policy wonkee and a little less Globe magazine.
Among the chattering classes that make up cable news, no one really takes time to explore the issues and problems that we are currently facing with any clarity or concrete solutions.
Each side, liberal or conservative exist for sound bites, ratings, and advertising money. Those that can shout the loudest wins.
I do think KO did scream the loudest, and at times, the most outrageous at MSNBC.
I would assume that his "crepitate" did make the network a pretty penny over the years.
And, as a finishing note, I really like this part of your post...
"Limbaugh is a blustering gas bag, offense oozing from every pore and is effectively, the de facto leader of the Republican party. They won't crepitate without getting the nod from Rush."
Well, that may be - but he is an employed gas bag - lol. Seems KO gets fired or overstays his welcome everywhere he goes. It is absurd to think that Rush Limbaugh is the "titular head of the Republican Party".
No more then Micheal Moore, Hollywood, or Bill Mahr are in contention for head of the DNC...
I don't want anyone in the media or those with any particular idealogical "bend" to influence the body politic.
Ideally, problems and issues that effect public policy should be in search of solution not an ideology.
Besides, influence is is what "special interests" with lots of money are for - lol.
Personally, I think that everyone - "gas bags", radio, and cable hosts alike are in it for the money, power, and priviledge.
Idealogs live off our division and differences. Those who pontificate for a living do not want to solve problems - nor do they have solutions.
Keeping us in their camps are paramount to their existence and where they derive their money.
Politicians are no better. As long as I have been alive, over 30 years, we have had the same problems with education, infrastructure, and energy independence.
Each President from Nixon to the current resident of the white house pontificates about how there will be a "new day" in America with improvement and advances in all three of these areas.
The first and only job of any politician is to get reelected and not to solve the problems they were elected to fix.
Why would you need them if they did? They look at us as perpetual victims that will always need their political solutions.
Bottom line, no matter who is behind the mike or the TV camera, these prognosticating pundits do not have total control or even a heavy influence over a politician or their deliberative body.
Their influence could be temporarily appeased but they are never followed to the letter. Cash is the mothers milk of politics and is there one and only main constituent.
Obama has gone back on a lot of his promises despite the protests of what Robert Gibbs called "the professional left". He also has close to a billion dollars in his reelection war chest.
It is the voters within their districts that know what their "pols" are doing, and if they deserve another term.
If Rush Limbaugh swayed the masses with impunity, then no liberal President, congressmen, or senator would ever be elected.
Same is true for liberals. There would not have been a 66 seat blowout in the house if the gang at MSNBC, the NY Times or any liberal outlet could get majority opinion on their side.
People might form an idea or two from opinion makers but they will ultimately make up their own minds despite the ramblings of the idealogical driven.
A good portion of the country were mad at the Dems for a reason, whether you agree with those reasons or not.
And if the Repubs don't provide satisfaction the pendulum will swing back again. No one has a lock on political virture.
And no single ideologically driven cable or radio host can put us in an idealogical "vice" for very long.
Not even the great "humanitarian" KO - lol....
Robert C - The Wholesale Guy
132 - Jordan Richardson
At least Olbermann can form paragraphs.
133 - Baritone
Well, Wholesale makes some cogent points about our system of government and our system of journalism. However, little, if any of it, is either new or illuminating.
Yeah. The system sucks, but for now and the foreseeable future it's all we've got, unless and until the likes of Mr. Wholesale gets out there into the fray and effects change.
Change to what? All of what we have now by way of politicians and pundits is an apt reflection of human nature. We are tribal by nature and will likely remain so.
If a huge vacuum came along and sucked up all of our pols and pundits, the void would be filled by pretty much the same. There would be turmoil and some things would get tweaked here and there for better or for worse, but when everything settled into a semblance of normalcy, we would far more than likely be right back where we were before the big suck off.
It seems to me that Mr. Wholesale kinda gets off on pontification himself - the master of the one liner, if you will.
Yes, Olbermann is an idealogue as are many on the air waves, and the newspapers, and magazines, and which proliferate the interwebs. In that regard he is no different than dozens of others shouting from both sides of the aisle. Yes, he has written books espousing his opinions and attitudes. So too, have any # on the right which are just as opinionated, just as biased and, in some instances filled with far more venom than anything Olbermann has penned. Yin and yang.
It just so happens that each of them have their adherents, and yes, it's about money. It's ALWAYS about money, Bubba. Surprise, surprise! It's Capitalism at its finest! I can't help but wonder why it is that anyone from the right would begrudge ANYONE who makes a buck, by whatever means. That's the name of your game. Caveat emptor.
Just another note here. What's the big deal about teleprompters? Do you imagine that only those on the left use them? Do you imagine that the delusional Mr. Beck just spews all his crap impromptu? Do you imagine that Bush, our "nucular" president, "winged" it when he gave speeches? Yes, he did "fly free" on more occasions than does Obama, but he also repeatedly embarrassed himself and the country along with him with his malaprops and mangled metaphors. In a political and media world which takes every sentence, every word, every inflection, every pause for breath that a politician - especially a president - utters and rips them inside out, scouring every surface, every nook and cranny in an attempt to impart some meaning or significance to them, I think it best that they take care NOT to fly by their seat when addressing the public.
At the end, Mr. Wholesale, much of your tale is no more lofty nor high minded, nor impartial than that which you apparently abhor.
134 - Mr. Wholesale
Baritone Sez… Well, Wholesale makes some cogent points about our system of government and our system of journalism. However, little, if any of it, is either new or illuminating." End Quote..
What can I say. No doubt that the sublime verbal eloquence that exudes from your vaulted voice and vibrates the air around you, contains wisdom only a true prophet can possess. And, from what I can tell from your grasp of semantics, replete with objectivity, can only be compared to the regal writings of Plato's Republic. I can only offer my apologies if I offended your sizeable intelligence with my "obtuse" observations.
Baritone Sez... "Change to what? All of what we have now by way of politicians and pundits is an apt reflection of human nature. We are tribal by nature and will likely remain so." End Quote…
Really? You think that politicians and pundits are a reflection of human nature; similar to the people you come in contact with in your daily life, or those who make up society as a whole? If you are married, I surely hope that your wife or significant other doesn't filibuster your efforts to make breakfast. Let's also hope that your friends and relatives don't force you do donate to their PAC's, in order for you to stay within their social circle. If you are not self-employed, or work for a company, I wonder if you could share your "special comments" with your boss and inform he, or she, that they are the "worst person in the world" and expect to keep you job. I think that "P&P's" are just a slice of humanity that are, in most cases, a dysfunctional part of the tribe.
While some of us can fall prey to the temptations of greed and the quest for power, the majority of us function as worker bee's in the societal hive, choosing to raise families, work a job, start a business, serve our community, etc., without an overwhelming desire to mollify narcissistic or megalomania tendencies. In other words, most of us don't need fame, constant edification, or great wealth to live a contented life. And that is part of the problem with those who serve in our modern day political arena. While I cannot judge the hearts and minds of all members of the house and senate, I will say that those "pol's" who seek reelection time after time, get appointed to, or comfortable with, being a committee head start develop hubris, indulge their own personal or political agenda and ultimately lose focus of what they are there for ?" public service.
There are no George Washington's among the political class who are willing to concede power at any point in their career. If they (congressman ?" senators) are lucky enough to run unopposed, or in a district with voters of the same political strip, they stay in that seat till they pass away. Term limits on both house and senate members could be one way to put keep them from getting comfortable. Since the senate is already a six year term, you could expand the congressional time frame to a "straight six" stint as well. Once your term is up you cannot run again for that seat again.
If we are tribal, as you say, then it will help to prevent one "tribe" from becoming an intractable part of the political landscape. With the constant rotation of citizen representatives, you at least lessen the impact of lobbyists and special interests so that they do not own any one politician or party. Limited access to power and knowing that you can only run for one term might actually attract people who will not become "comfortably numb" to the public interest and may discourage mega-millionaires who are trying to by themselves a new career. Will it eliminate corruption and prevent people who are already corrupt from entering the system? No, I would not be that naive. Do I think that the congress would act against their own self interest by engaging in a constitutional battle for imposing said limits? Again, that would be a "negative". But it would be a step in the right direction that I can only hope that it would become a reality in my lifetime.
Another proposed change that I would like to witness before I leave this plant is comprehensive finance reform, not just the watered down, loop hole ridden, type of legislation that was McCain/Feingold. How does an average person run for office against individuals like John Corzine from New Jersey or Meg Whitman in California who spend millions of dollars on a political seat that only pays thousands? With that being said, I would like to see mandatory public funding for both President and house member alike. Contributions would have to come from individuals only ?" 25 to 100 dollars at a time. Even though I did not vote for him, I thought that the way President Obama raised 87% of his funds through social networking to be very innovative and should be a core model for future fund raisers. Too bad he went back on his promise to accept public funding.
Also, you can save the tax payer 200 million dollars by not having an inaugural party. Have the supreme court judge swear you in at the oval office, take a few pictures and be done with it. Further improvements could include changing the ubiquitous nature of penning legislation. Don't write bills that are more than 100 pages long. Stop passing it around to each member in the house so that they can inject their own earmark or pet project which leads to a 2000 page legal monstrosity such as the health care bill that is written in legalize so that no one really fully understands it's "cause and effect". Legislation of such enormous complexity like the HC bill, that has the potential to substantially change lives and affect a particular industry, are bound to have their individual mandates subject to a legal challenge. Hence, the current battle over the commerce clause. Some states have challenged the rule and it seems like it is shaping up to be a legal issue that will ultimately wind up in the hands of the Supreme Court. The bottom line with the recently passed health care bill was (as the Clinton health care bill was) that it was too much of change, all at once. Take a more "bite sized" approach to solving the problem in health care.
A more reasonable approach to crafting a HC Bill might have been to take some of the most pressing problems facing the issue (medical and drug costs, affordable coverage, covering the uninsured) and provide, real, concrete, common sense solutions and put them in "beta" with a sunset provision to make sure that you are producing tangible results. Right now, as far as I can tell from the current law, most of the health care decisions are going to be in the hands of the same industry that was broken in the first place, the insurance companies. I often thought that instead of creating a whole new government insurance option, why not extend Medicare for everyone?
You could combine it with private supplemental insurance like senior citizens currently enjoy. Yes, you would probably have to raise taxes but if you could employ the Al Gore "lock box" and guarantee that it will not be "dipped into" like the general fund is now, then you have, barring any unforeseen circumstances, at least solved the funding problem. Again, I realize that these may seem like simplistic solutions and the devil is always in the details when it comes to the humongous challenge of health care reform. But, I think with the extension of Medicare for all, you can still keep the insurance companies in the game, (with supplemental policies) and possibly eliminate the enormous cost of privately purchased insurance, especially those with pre-existing conditions.
Other considerations for "change" would be to follow some, if not all, of the recommendations by the deficit commission co-chairs, Erskine Bowles and former-Sen. Alan Simpson. Increase the retirement age for Social Security to age 69 by 2075. Eliminate all earmarks. Eliminate the Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools. Freeze federal workers wages. Reduce farm subsidies by 3 billion per year. Reduce military forces in Europe and Asia by one-third. Eliminate the V-22 Osprey program. Reduce government procurement by 20 billion. Discontinue funding to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Incorporate tort reform as a way to reduce Medicare and Medicaid expenditure. There is much, much more, and those are just the highlights. No program is sparred, no matter what side of the political fence you sit on.
However, as Alan Simpson has said: "That while every interest group that testified before his committee agreed that the mounting federal debt is a national tragedy, they would then talk about why government funding to their area of interest shouldn’t be touched." Full Article: Outside The Beltway.com ?" Alan Simpson Fights Back Against Deficit Commission Critics. And that goes back to my point about power and privilege. The dollar could go the way of Zimbabwe, or an invasion on our soil could be imminent, and the congress and the senate, instead of trying to fix the problem, or getting ready to repel and invasion, will be arguing about whose fault it would be. I just don't know what it will take to stem the tide of a 14 trillion dollar debt and growing. Again, (if you have made it this far) I want to extend my apologies to you Baritone if my ramblings might have lowered your IQ in anyway.
Baritone sez... "Just another note here. What's the big deal about teleprompters? Do you imagine that only those on the left use them? Do you imagine that the delusional Mr. Beck just spews all his crap impromptu? Do you imagine that Bush, our "nucular" president, "winged" it when he gave speeches?" End Quote…
I don't imagine, nor do I think that those on the left use teleprompters exclusively. I don’t' share Mr. Beck's paranoid theories of Obama, Muslim Caliphates, or any fascist creepy crawlies that he says might be hiding under my bed. Then again, I don't think that Mr. Bush was responsible for 9/11 either. I was not making it a left or right issue. I know that just about anyone who is a prominent public figure or entertainment personality employs them in their daily broadcasts. My point here was that Olbermann is a very articulate talking head that seemed to be transfixed by it, and the camera. He never deviated from that norm, nor did he have guests on his show who might offer even a modicum of opposing viewpoints. I just thought that someone like KO, who had such a rabid dislike of all things that slant to the right, should be mixing it up with journalists and politicians on shows like Meet The Press so I could see how well he defended his points of view. The only person on MSNBC, besides Chris Matthews or Dylan Ratigan who would venture outside their comfort zone was Rachael Maddow. While she was an infrequent guest on MTP she put herself out there. Just could not understand why KO did not want to spread his brand of liberalism beyond the cable universe.
Baritone sez... "It seems to me that Mr. Wholesale kinda gets off on pontification himself - the master of the one liner, if you will. At the end, Mr. Wholesale, much of your tale is no more lofty nor high minded, nor impartial than that which you apparently abhor" End Quote.
Well, that is the Frog calling the Lizard ugly. Me thinks thou doth protest too much. From what I can tell from your posts on this blog and your Indy Boomers blogspot (if - in fact that you are the owner) you seem to get "high on your own supply" as well. Sorry, but I don't see anything "illuminating" about your
musings either. Especially your post entitled: "More Senseless Violence". Just more predictable left wing insipid intellectual sustenance. King of the one liners? Thank you for that. It is good to be the King..
Mr. Wholesale - My Name Ain't Bubba ?" King of The One Liners… Oh and Jordan of "At least Olbermann can form paragraphs" fame. I put the paragraphs together now, just for you. It was my first post, and I forgot to use the "preview comments" tool. I am sorry if you had to read just sentences. Must have been hard for you. My bad...