Today on Blogcritics
Home » Culture and Society » When The Tide Turns: The Left’s Forming a Circular Firing Squad

When The Tide Turns: The Left’s Forming a Circular Firing Squad

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

No matter how inane his ramblings, angry his tone, or absurd his arguments, Keith Olbermann — the host of MSNBC's abysmally rated Countdown program — has always found one place to turn to. For Keith, that place was nothing short of heaven on earth. It was a magnificent fantasy land where legions of fanatically devoted fans would send him a never ending stream of supportive messages and damn anyone who dared question the Magnificent Mr. Olbermann's status as Walter Cronkite's intellectual heir.

That place had a name. It was called the Daily Kos, known to most sane Americans as a fringe leftist political blog and action network. Now, for Keith anyway, it is gone with the wind — so to speak. Just how exactly did this happen?

Well, after President Obama's epic failure of a speech regarding British Petroleum's oil spill on Tuesday night, Keith did something extraordinarily rare. He gave a scathing review of Obama's performance, calling the situation as he and virtually anyone with a semblance of intelligence saw it.

While he may have been expecting condemnation from a few of the Democratic shills working at his channel, the appalling outcry from his brethren on the Daily Kos took him by total and complete surprise. The next day, he decided to address his keyboard warrior critics in person — or in as personal a manner as one can over the Internet.

"Whenever I stuck my neck out, I usually visited here as the cliched guy in the desert stopping by the oasis," Keith gushed. "I used to read a lot about how people here would 'always have my back'….To accuse me of staging something for its effect is deeply offensive to me….If you want this site the way it was even a year ago, let me know and I'll be back."

Talk about intense! That sounded more like the letter of a scorned lover to me than the words of a "seasoned anchor" or "leader of the progressive media", but never mind. The dime store romance novel quality of Keith's message really is not a matter on which I wish to speculate.

What the Kos Kommies have shown is that they have no qualms about turning on one of their own when the going gets tough — usually meaning that a fellow Komrade has grown something vaguely resembling a brain. Seeing as the Daily Kos is a fairly accurate representation of the heart and soul of the American Left, one should take their brutally throwing Mr. Olbermann under the bus with great warning.

Why? Because if the leftists did that to their arch hero because he had the audacity to think independently, just imagine what they will do to you for actually disagreeing with their political philosophy. 

(Please read Keith Olbermann's farewell post on the Daily Kos.)

Powered by

About Joseph F. Cotto

  • Doug Hunter

    That seems to be the natural course of things. Politics is not a dichotomy, it’s a multidimensional continuous spectrum. No matter where you reside along that spectrum there is always someone more radical and extreme in any direction who hates your guts because you stand in the way of their utopia. When out of power you grit your teeth and join up to fight the greater of two evils, once in power you turn on each other. If Republicans make gains they’ll rediscover their love for and solidarity with one another.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/christine-lakatos/ Christine

    Poor Keith.

  • http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/author/danmiller/ Dan(Miller)

    Yes, Christine, it is so very, very sad.

    Why am I reminded of the Walrus and the Carpenter?

    The Walrus and the Carpenter
    Were walking close at hand;
    They wept like anything to see
    Such quantities of sand:
    “If this were only cleared away,”
    They said, “it would be grand!”

    “If seven maids with seven mops
    Swept it for half a year.
    Do you suppose,” the Walrus said,
    “That they could get it clear?”
    “I doubt it,” said the Carpenter,
    And shed a bitter tear.

    “O Oysters, come and walk with us!”
    The Walrus did beseech.
    “A pleasant walk, a pleasant talk,
    Along the briny beach:
    We cannot do with more than four,
    To give a hand to each.”

    The eldest Oyster looked at him,
    But never a word he said:
    The eldest Oyster winked his eye,
    And shook his heavy head–
    Meaning to say he did not choose
    To leave the oyster-bed.

    But four young Oysters hurried up,
    All eager for the treat:
    Their coats were brushed, their faces washed,
    Their shoes were clean and neat–
    And this was odd, because, you know,
    They hadn’t any feet.

    Four other Oysters followed them,
    And yet another four;
    And thick and fast they came at last,
    And more, and more, and more–
    All hopping through the frothy waves,
    And scrambling to the shore.

    *********

    “A loaf of bread,” the Walrus said,
    “Is what we chiefly need:
    Pepper and vinegar besides
    Are very good indeed–
    Now if you’re ready, Oysters dear,
    We can begin to feed.”

    “But not on us!” the Oysters cried,
    Turning a little blue.
    “After such kindness, that would be
    A dismal thing to do!”
    “The night is fine,” the Walrus said.
    “Do you admire the view?

    “It was so kind of you to come!
    And you are very nice!”
    The Carpenter said nothing but
    “Cut us another slice:
    I wish you were not quite so deaf–
    I’ve had to ask you twice!”

    “It seems a shame,” the Walrus said,
    “To play them such a trick,
    After we’ve brought them out so far,
    And made them trot so quick!”
    The Carpenter said nothing but
    “The butter’s spread too thick!”

    Dan(Miller)

  • Glenn Contrarian

    If Mr. Cotto had half the objectivity that he thinks he does, he would have found that quite a few liberal pundits took issue with Obama’s speech, and have been taking issue with Obama’s presidency since at least November of last year – particularly with health care reform since Obama caved first on the single-payer issue, and then on the public option. The more progressive any particular pundit is, the more they’ve spoken out against President Obama. Progressives are NOT extremely fond of him.

    You didn’t know that, did you, Mr. Cotto? No, you didn’t. You’re too busy assuming that we all think he walks on water.

    But progressives like myself will still vote for him because despite the fact that he’s been RIGHT of center on many issues, he’s still infinitely better than any of the Republicans currently pretending to be real conservatives when instead they’re acting like charter members of the John Birch Society.

    But concerning Obama’s speech, here’s a quick roll call of some of the more popular liberal pundits:

    The Stephanie Miller Show – Stephanie supported the speech, and both of her assistants spoke out strongly against it.

    The Thom Hartmann Show – Thom (one of my favorite pundits) came out strongly against the speech.

    The Ed Schultz Show – Ed supported the speech, pointing out that Obama is the first president to ever – EVER – get such concessions from a major corporation.

    The Norman Goldman Show – Norman (who I’m not real fond of) came out against the speech…and he’s been the single most outspoken progressive against Obama since late last year.

    I can’t speak for Rachel Maddow, Randy Rhodes, or RFK Jr. since I didn’t hear their broadcasts, but the above examples show that more progressives were AGAINST the speech than for it.

    What you do not understand, Mr. Cotto, is that (unlike conservatives) liberals almost NEVER walk in lockstep. We are almost NEVER in complete agreement on any one issue. That, sir, is why the task of organizing liberals is likened to ‘herding cats’ – it can be done, but only sloppily, and then only with great difficulty.

    In other words, Mr. Cotto, your assumptions showed that you spoke from a position of rank ignorance…and so long as you continue to willfully ignore the other side of the story, your ignorance will be willful as well.

  • http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/author/danmiller/ Dan(Miller)

    Glen, you say, (unlike conservatives) liberals almost NEVER walk in lockstep. We are almost NEVER in complete agreement on any one issue.

    I think you will find that conservatives are much the same as you claim liberals to be. I tried to point that out here, arguing that there are three basic issues — “respect for the United States Constitution, America’s safety, and freedom to the extent possible from governmental meddling.” I argued that other tangential issues are simply too divisive and that there neither is, nor need be, nor even should be, agreement. I also argued that the tea party is not, and should not become a political party.

    Based on the conservative sites I visit frequently, it seems to me that many are in agreement with this notion. Of course there are one issue people in any organization; that hardly seems to be a phenomenon unique to conservatives. Indeed, it seems to be foreign to most conservatives I communicate with.

    Dan(Miller)

  • Amused

    Now the left can turn their aim on their shiny new savior.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Olberman will remain a boob with or without Daily Kos.

    Dave

  • http://www.maskedmoviesnobs.com El Bicho

    No matter how inane his ramblings, angry his tone, or absurd his arguments, it’s awfully pathetic when a writer can’t even get through his first sentence without distortion.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Dan –

    I enjoyed your article that you referenced. I will say that among the BC conservatives, yours is the voice to which I pay most attention…and this was before I knew that you graduated from Yale.

    I would argue, however, that modern-day conservatives are significantly more likely to stay in dogmatic lockstep than are modern-day liberals. This may not have been true of conservatives from before the 1990’s, but all I need to to present proof of my contention concerning modern-day conservatives is to point out the voting record of the Republicans in Congress since Obama took office. Not only have the Republicans in both the House and the Senate voted in lockstep on most bills to a degree never before seen in Congressional history, but the Senate Republicans have used the filibuster and blocked more presidential appointees than at any time before in Congressional history.

    Whatever the sites may say that you’re visiting, Dan, the actions of the Republicans in Congress speak much louder.

  • Baronius

    I think that Olbermann’s biggest problem is that he isn’t bright enough to do self-parody. When people are laughing at you, if you join in it doesn’t mean that they’re laughing with you. It just provides more evidence that you’re a fool (that is, if you don’t understand why they’re laughing). I don’t find Olbermann funny though; he just makes me sad.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    I’ve found Keith Olbermann to be quite funny – I’ve gotten quite a few belly-laughs watching his show.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    I would argue, however, that modern-day conservatives are significantly more likely to stay in dogmatic lockstep than are modern-day liberals.

    What modern day liberals? There’s the dogmatic left who are certainly not liberal and a few liberals who are mostly independents and then there’s a diverse right.

    Not only have the Republicans in both the House and the Senate voted in lockstep on most bills to a degree never before seen in Congressional history, but the Senate Republicans have used the filibuster and blocked more presidential appointees than at any time before in Congressional history.

    This isn’t actually voting in lockstep, it’s just doing the only thing which they can in the face of a national disaster. These are politicians who are finally starting to wake up and realize that compromise is no longer an option and that they cannot do any good by continuing to sell out the nation.

    What possible alternative would they have to voting “no” on everything? If you have even the smallest concern for our future or any sense of responsibility at this point you realize that we’re way beyond compromising with the people who are actively trying to destroy the nation.

    I’ve found Keith Olbermann to be quite funny – I’ve gotten quite a few belly-laughs watching his show.

    Is that laughing a kind of insane cackling – the kind which comes out when your mind finally breaks?

    Dave

  • http://www.indyboomer46.blogspot.com Baritone

    First: Keith Olbermann is more intelligent than ANY of the Wing Nut pundits who spew their vomitous ramblings over the airwaves. Olbermann’s main fault is he gets a bit pompous from time to time, but otherwise, he is usually spot on with his commentary. And, yes, he IS often quite funny. You righty tighty types just don’t find him funny because he is often spearing your own Wing Nut heros and anal politics.

    And it also should be noted that Olbermann is NOT the left’s standard bearer; certainly nothing like the dishonorable Mr. Limbaugh, or the delusional Mr. Beck far up whose asses most right wingers find their heads. There is no one on the left able to wield the kind of power those 2 have.

    I forgive Olbermann his bombast for the most part as he gets it right far more often than he doesn’t.

    As to his take of Obama’s speech, he pretty much got that right. The speech was at best disappointing. However, come the next day, Obama redeemed himself in grand style in convincing BP to ante up $20B And then the Reps put their collective feet right down their own throats by defending BP. Idiots!

    Currently, there isn’t one Republican having what anyone could reasonably refer to as a brain. Well, maybe one – Dick Lugar. But the rest can’t seem to get out of their own way. They are faced with the possibility of making big gains in Congress come November, and yet, they have, over the past several months, done more to sabotage their own prospects simply by opening their mouths than anything their Dem opponents could hope to accomplish.

    Oh, and of course Nalle continues with his own brand of ludicrous hyperbole that he offers up ad nauseam:

    “If you have even the smallest concern for our future or any sense of responsibility at this point you realize that we’re way beyond compromising with the people who are actively trying to destroy the nation.”

    Self righteous crap!

    B