Anyone catch Keith Olbermann's special message to Bush just now?

[Andrew Mayer]

I guess I just can't wait.

[Andrew Mayer]

Another great one tonight:

The President of the United States owes this country an apology.

[Bob Cherub]

Originally Posted by Andrew Mayer

Another great one tonight:

The President of the United States owes this country an apology.

Yeah that was pretty sweet. Let's see, take a 3 word out-of-context phrase and turn it into some sweeping generalization. Wait, I thought you guys hated when Fox News does that?

Oh yeah, it's funny when a left-winger does it. Got it.

I'm sure Olbermann's four viewers enjoyed it.

[Jason McCullough]

So when Bush said "It’s unacceptable to think that there’s any kind of comparison between the behavior of the United States of America and the action of Islamic extremists who kill innocent women and children to achieve an objective", Bush didn't actually mean that it was unacceptable to think that. He meant something else, I guess.

[Charles]

Originally Posted by Bob Cherub

Yeah that was pretty sweet. Let's see, take a 3 word out-of-context phrase and turn it into some sweeping generalization. Wait, I thought you guys hated when Fox News does that?

While I thought it was a little weak for Olbermann to focus on those words so specifically, the gist of what he says is still accurate. Bush is attempting to tell people that they aren't allowed to have a certain opinion, any way you swing it. I don't think Bush was being all 1984 (in this case), but the implication that you weren't allowed to think a certain way was definitely there, and definitely deserved being called on.

Should Keith have singled out those specific words and highlighted them? Maybe not. But it doesn't change the content of his message nor the reasons for saying what he did.

[bigdruid]

Originally Posted by Bob Cherub

Wait, I thought you guys hated when Fox News does that?

Oh yeah, it's funny when a left-winger does it. Got it.

Actually, there's a vast difference between a clearly marked *opinion* piece, and the actual news broadcast. The problem with Fox is the way they slant their reporting of the news - if they had BBC-style, relatively unbiased news reports, but with hard-right-wing opinion pieces, it wouldn't bother me at all.

It's the insidious blurring of the line between reporting and propaganda that Fox News is reviled for.

But you knew that already, Bob - do you ever do anything but drop your little troll-bombs and wander off the thread? Don't you get enough attention in real life? Should we pity you, or what?

[Jeremy Johnsen]

He doesn't and I'm wondering why people still bother talking to him. He isn't here for conversation, he's here to bother people.

[Sebmolo]

Well, he can easily rebut that by coming back and joining the conversation! Bob?

....

Bob?

[extarbags]

Originally Posted by Bob Cherub

Oh yeah, it's funny when a left-winger does it. Got it.

As an aside, exactly when did opposing Bush become "left-wing?" Seriously, do you even know what "-wing" means as it applies to politics?

[Hawkeye Fierce]

According to Bob, something like 50-60% of America is "left-wing" according to the latest approval polls.

[Flowers]

Originally Posted by Bob Cherub

Yeah that was pretty sweet. Let's see, take a 3 word out-of-context phrase and turn it into some sweeping generalization. Wait, I thought you guys hated when Fox News does that?

Oh yeah, it's funny when a left-winger does it. Got it.

I'm sure Olbermann's four viewers enjoyed it.

So Bob, is it unacceptable to question our methods?

[Glenn]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye Fierce

According to Bob, something like 50-60% of America is "left-wing" according to the latest approval polls.

Statistics have shown that nearly 50% of the population is left of center.

[Unicorn McGriddle]

Originally Posted by Glenn

Statistics have shown that nearly 50% of the population is left of center.

If you normalize the left-right value to the results of the national population, it becomes meaningless.

[Midnight Son]

I heard that 90% of people think they're ABOVE Average!

[Zorlonn]

Is it unacceptable to fart?

[RightWrong]

I wish I had seen that as it was broadcast. Infinitely more stirring than anything I have watched on cable news in memory.

[Backov]

WISE! WISE FROM YOUR GWAVE!

http://www.poetv.com/video.php?vid=7493

I fucking love this guy.

[Charles]

He is the lone voice of reason, drowned by the screams of a million liars.

[Mister Widget]

Originally Posted by Backov

http://www.poetv.com/video.php?vid=7493

Awesome.

[Backov]

The thought strikes me - this guy is doing what I've wanted someone to do for a long, long time - call bullshit. Repeatedly.

But except for editorials it doesn't seem to be something the press wants to do - how come they never seem to press any of these points?

The democrats also never seem to want to do anything about it. Will they be crucified in some mysterious way if they do? How come they're not howling for blood like the Republicans were during BlowjobGate?

[foogla]

Jesus, 11 minutes of relentless beatdown of Bush et al.

[Gary Whitta]

Olbermann for President.

[Charles]

Originally Posted by Gary Whitta

Olbermann for President.

I'll sneak in to the US without ID and vote for him!

[Shermjls]

Originally Posted by Backov

The democrats also never seem to want to do anything about it. Will they be crucified in some mysterious way if they do? How come they're not howling for blood like the Republicans were during BlowjobGate?

Everytime they do, the RNC propaganda machine gives them a big smack-down and they lose more seats. AM radio, Fox news, the legions of Ann Coulters; Tony Blankleys; and Sean Hannitys financed by the Reverend Moons; Rupert Murdochs; and Alfred Kohlbergs of the world are skilled, indeed it is their very purpose, to disseminate RNC talking points.

Keith Olberman is the first mainstream news guy I have seen in years stand up so resolutely against the administration (though admittedly, I long ago rejected CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, et al as fluff, infotainment and/or propanganda, so there may be other Olbermans of whom I am unaware - I hope so).

The reticence, or craven refusal, to take an unambiguous position on the major, history changing controversies of our day further strengthen the right's message that dems are vascillating, self-serving pussies.

But, again, to be "fair and balanced," the dems do not have an extremely ideologically driven media machine financed by wealthy ultra-liberal billionaires working day and night to further their agenda.

And before anyone fires off a response trying to argue that NPR or the New York Times qualify, you first have to compare them to FOX news, The Weekly Standard, the Washington Times, the National Review, the Wall Street Journal's Editorial pages, the Washington Post, The American Spectator, or the Heritage Foundation for ownership and journalistic/intellectual integrity.

Such a poster should also be able to distinguish between journalistic integrity and conservative ideological spin.

Nevertheless, if the GOP were not doing such a fantastically shitty job on everything from fiscal policy to international diplomacy, to the ever-widening gap between the fabulously rich and the desparately poor, the Dems wouldn't stand a chance because they haven't earned a goddamned thing! Just because standing up to the righties is scary, or hard, or risky doesn't mean the Dems get a pass for not doing so: or for doing so only when the coast is clear.

[Huzurdaddi]

Originally Posted by Shermjls

Nevertheless, if the GOP were not doing such a fantastically shitty job on everything from fiscal policy to international diplomacy, to the ever-widening gap between the fabulously rich and the desparately poor, the Dems wouldn't stand a chance

No kidding. Can you imagine if this administration was as competent as that of H.W.? They would own the congress and people would be falling over themselves attempting to get the 22nd amendment overturned. The ownership of the media is simply that powerful, it’s taken a while but it is now as complete as it needs to be. I find it comical given the choices of this administration that they are only in danger of losing a couple of seats. I think that in the next session of congress they should try to see how far they can push it and still be re-elected. How about they start a program of persecution and elimination of the ‘impure’ : gays, etc. That would be fun. I’m sure they will even pick up seats as the no spin zone notes supports them every step.

Originally Posted by Shermjls

because they haven't earned a goddamned thing! Just because standing up to the righties is scary, or hard, or risky doesn't mean the Dems get a pass for not doing so

What do you want them to do? Commit political suicide? They could try standing up to the coverage and then they get labeled as crazy like Clinton when he stood up to Wallace. He could do it since he is not running for re election. All they can do is accelerate their political decline. They are done. Stick a fork in them.

[GrinR]

Originally Posted by Huzurdaddi

No kidding. Can you imagine if this administration was as competent as that of H.W.? They would own the congress and people would be falling over themselves attempting to get the 22nd amendment overturned. The ownership of the media is simply that powerful, it’s taken a while but it is now as complete as it needs to be. I find it comical given the choices of this administration that they are only in danger of losing a couple of seats. I think that in the next session of congress they should try to see how far they can push it and still be re-elected. How about they start a program of persecution and elimination of the ‘impure’ : gays, etc. That would be fun. I’m sure they will even pick up seats as the no spin zone notes supports them every step.

Democracy sucks, message recieved.

[Shermjls]

Originally Posted by Huzurdaddi

What do you want them to do? Commit political suicide? They could try standing up to the coverage and then they get labeled as crazy like Clinton when he stood up to Wallace. He could do it since he is not running for re election. All they can do is accelerate their political decline. They are done. Stick a fork in them.

Ok, so they do nothing, they keep their seats, and Bush et al get everything they want. How is that different than if they stood up and lost their seats? If they stood up we could at least have some respect for them and they would have earned the title "opposition party."

[Huzurdaddi]

Originally Posted by Shermjls

Ok, so they do nothing, they keep their seats, and Bush et al get everything they want. How is that different than if they stood up and lost their seats? If they stood up we could at least have some respect for them and they would have earned the title "opposition party."

I think you have to seperate out what is best for the individual incumbants and what is best for the party. Clearly what is best for the individual incumbands is the here-and-now. They want to win their current races and the best way to do that considering how the media works wrt. the democratic party is to STFU.

OTOH for the party it seems pretty clear that the plan is to try to hold on to whatever little vestige of power that they can while they try to craft a plan to get the political process back on an even keel. Good luck with that, I think that the power has gone too far over to one side ( through a *great* plan which was well financed and well thought through ) for that to have any chance. But it's better than the options. Respect from the minorty of people whos views are not colored through either the lens of the media or that of religion does not gain them power.

[Shermjls]

Originally Posted by Huzurdaddi

I think you have to seperate out what is best for the individual incumbants and what is best for the party.

I understand the calculus (both collective and individual) that has kept them the party of the flacid penis. I just don't care anymore. The GOP gets a lot of mileage out of being the bigger dick party because, right or wrong, they stick to their guns. It has the illusion of being resolute (as opposed to willful and stubborn). The Dems should have been shouting from the rooftops against this torture bill. If there was ever a better time (politically, ethically, morally) to stand up and be counted it was during these debates. They should have been on every talk show, in every paper, on every street corner calling bullshit on this bill. Instead, they decided to try letting the GOP be their own opposition party. Disgusting!

[Brian Rucker]

Flaccid penis references notwithstanding, so Koontzian, I have to say Shermjls has a point. Yes, Republicans are backed by a very calculated and well funded, insanely well funded, political machine whose footsoldiers are religious zealots. Pretty hard nut to crack - but - we're seeing it crack of its own internal inconsistencies. The Democratic ideology, such as it is, is very flexible and capable of tolerating, not by design but by accident of history, many different viewpoints. This muddles the message, this makes any "talking points" approach to media strategy futile and gives the Democrats the appearance of being disorganized (true) and ineffectual (not necessarily true).

But when factions inside Democratic party find themselves at odds you're not looking at King Kong vs. Godzilla where one or the other must win or they'll take their toys and go home, thus crippling the party entirely - which is what you've got with the Religious Right on one side and the "let's call ourselves free market Libertarians because it sounds better than selfish corporate and old money bastards" wing on the other. Those two manage to have a problem and you'll hear the sounds of the hardest heads in the known world colliding. Both have strident and structured ideologies that are only compatible on a superficial level.

The way the Republicans have created a wake for less politically devoted and invested people to follow along was by creating images and themes, then hammering them home, whether anyone believed it or not at the time, whether or not it was even particularly true. Democrats can't beat that by just hoping to hang onto power. They need to fight for something most of them can get behind and be prepared to lose before they win while they put it all together. The Republicans were. They did it the hard way and now, there's going to be a lag, but the Democrats need to do the same thing and lose a few elections along the way if they have to in order to say, "See, I believed this when it lost an election for us. Now it's obviously the right thing to have done at the time. Vote for the party that stood for something and will continue to stand by it."

Much really depends on having a charismatic and articulate leader backed up with smart folks who can really put together an internally consistant message with real philosophical roots and goals for our society. I'm not sure I see the Democrat who fits that bill right now but you won't attract him, or her, unless you start making the party attractive again on its own merits. Time to stand up and throw punches. Hell, Bill Clinton spanked Wallace on Fox. About time the rest of the party took the hint.