I never thought this generation of mainstream newsmen would find their Edward R. Murrow. Thank you, Keith, for articulating what so many of us feel.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6210240/#060911a

He's come a long way from "The Big Show" on ESPN

Very thoughtful and articulate commentator

All the lefty blogs/websites have latched onto him...I hope he doesn't get pegged as a propogandist and that the lefty sites don't build him a statue in the meantime

Well, the right has O'Reilly, Carlson, Cavuto, etc. Are they propagandists? Why is it only acceptable when a righty editorializes in the msm?

And also, I doubt that Olbermann is even particularly 'liberal'. It's merely the facts, sir, that are biased in our favor.

Really? Okay.

I think your biases lead you to that opinion.

Olbermann is as dumb, boring and stupid as a retarded box of rocks.

see, if you're going to engage in a political discussion, it usually isn't a great idea to start with the dumbing down immediately. Wait a couple of posts, then lay that gem on em.

and by gem, I mean silly

Dumb and stupid? Impressive.

Let's see........


"The only positive on 9/11 and the days and weeks that so slowly and painfully followed it was the unanimous humanity, here, and throughout the country. The government, the President in particular, was given every possible measure of support."

Thank you Keith for stating a positive that should have been the norm. Of course, stating this positive means that what you stated is NOT the norm.

Those who did not belong to his party—tabled that.

For about 6 hours. Joe Biden was on every show on Cable TV playing arm chair President on the same day of this event.

Those who doubted the mechanics of his election—ignored that.

Never happened, lefty publications continued that garbage throughout. That was used at the first convenience to score political points directly from the 9/11 attacks. Namely by the likes of Al Gore, and Joe Biden once again.

Those who wondered of his qualifications—forgot that.

That yes...for about a year. Then they lost the stomach for what had to be done and just went back to their ®=Bad) philosophy.

History teaches us that nearly unanimous support of a government cannot be taken away from that government by its critics.

HUH? Keith...are you stupid? Those are exactly who takes away support. They are the ones that gave it in the first place you dumb fuk. Ask WInston CHurchill. Oh wait. He's dead.

It can only be squandered by those who use it not to heal a nation’s wounds, but to take political advantage.

BS. Check the roll call on Bush's domestic agenda after 9/11, Keith. What advantage? Stating the obvious?

Terrorists did not come and steal our newly-regained sense of being American first, and political, fiftieth. Nor did the Democrats. Nor did the media. Nor did the people.

The President—and those around him—did that.

OH yeah...big bad Bush. I lost with AK to A4 last night. That god damn Bush owes me $64.

They promised bi-partisanship, and then showed that to them, “bi-partisanship” meant that their party would rule and the rest would have to follow, or be branded, with ever-escalating hysteria, as morally or intellectually confused; as appeasers; as those who, in the Vice President’s words yesterday, “validate the strategy of the terrorists.”

AH, NO. The Democrats lost the midterms in a bloodbath. You are suggesting that the American public is too stupid to know how they feel. Like I said, check the roll call Keith, you idiot.

They promised protection, and then showed that to them “protection” meant going to war against a despot whose hand they had once shaken, a despot who we now learn from our own Senate Intelligence Committee hated Al-Qaeda as much as we did.

It seems that Bush has been right. So far. Put the scumbag terrorists on the defensive, and they just can't walk and chew gum or blow up american buildings at the same time. I would call this strategy Brilliant. I guess it went over your partisan head.

The polite phrase for how so many of us were duped into supporting a war, on the false premise that it had ‘something to do’ with 9/11, is “lying by implication.”

NOBODY said that Iraq was behind 9/11. In Bush's speech to the United Nations on the eve of resolution 1441 (right number?, I forget) He never laid out as a reason to invade as 9/11. You heard what you wanted to hear to fuel your partisanship Keith.

The impolite phrase is: "impeachable offense."

And the less polite term for you would be "Partisan No talent Hack".

You're funnier and more accurate when talking about porking fat chicks. You should stick to that.

Yes. Dumb as in he is actually not very smart.

Stupid as in his diatribes are unoriginal mind numbing crap.




That's your opinion. I am sorry that I don't agree with you on this. My bad.

A. I do not disagree with your evaluation of those mentioned.

B. I was not implying that Olbermann was a leftist. I was interested in his comments being taken as non-political. Take it easy.

I know. That's why I said it. Jerk.



Actually, I don't have an opinion. I just think that yours seems based completely on a general dislike of anyone not conservative, since you were obviously pressing for reasons to disagree with his points.



Bah.

the politics forum is down the street -------->

First of all..why did you call me a jerk? Because I disagree with you? Why are the stereotypes of liberals so spot on?


I don't "dislike" anyone not conservative. I am hardly a conservative myself. Some would call me a moderate, others would call me a closet liberal.

I didn't press for any reasons.

I do dislike Hacks like Olbermann though.

Wrong lefty I know, but I like him.

Yes. Most of them are.


That's all I really feel like commenting on.

Terrific article.

I tend to dislike most people whose job it is to give out their own opinions of things. It's mostly because most of them don't know how to argue properly (or rather they would rather start fights instead of actual debate). They also focus on generalizations and sweeping statements as well as rhetoric which in the end means almost nothing. I fee like a lot of people are stupid.

Well..I can agree with that.

That could easily be a factual statement.



How bout this...to hell with this ****.

I just couldn't resist. I see O'reilly, Olbermann or my favorite 2 A-Holes (Begala and Hannity) and I go off.




I agree. That Olbermann is a douchebag.

And the citizens of NYC voted against the President 9:1 in 2004. They probably had forgotten the lessons of 9-11, though. Thank you, red states for remembering for them.

Hmm. No one ever said there was a connection between Saddam and 9-11? I wonder why then in September of 2003 70% of Americans believed there was a connection? And I also wonder why 46% of Americans STILL BELIEVE THIS TO BE TRUE??? Perhaps it was this:

"The war on terror, you can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror," said Bush on September 25, 2002.
"We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases," said Bush a few days later on October 7. "He's a threat because he is dealing with Al-Qaeda."


On the eve of the Iraq war, the White House sent a letter to Congress telling lawmakers that force was authorized against those who, "aided the 9/11 attacks."

Cheney, on Meet the Press: (describing Iraq) "[It's] the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault for many years, but most especially on 9/11."

"...there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the '90s, that it involved training, for example."

bwahhhhaaaahahhhahhhhahhahaaaaaaa








hhhaaaaaaabbabbbawwwaahhahaaaaa









ca nn ttt s tttt ooo pppp laauhggggiiing
























bwahhhhahhahhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

The citizens of NYC would vote for Osama Bin Laden in a presidential election as long as he is running against a Republican. They also hate southerners and a "Yankee" was running against one.

Your post is full of errors. Intentional ones? Maybe?

You also seem to be an enemy of context.

Stating polls that have scewed stupid results don't prove anything.

You don't get the war on terror. I don't feel like explaining it to you.

When do we attack Saudi Arabia?

in my own personal opinion, i find his use of Egbert Roscoe Morrow's sign-off extremely presumptuous. He has no claim on the words of such an exemplary journalist.

That's next week. This week it's Iran.

North Korea...uhh..they got nukes..yikes, so we will leave them alone.

also, it is somewhat disturbing to me how extremely and unknowingly biased nearly every responder (minus gobears, speedz and maybe others) are in this thread, despite most of them being intelligent and politically involved.
i know its quite an accusation, but its pretty scary to see people so unaware in a discussion among people who take the issue seriously and are otherwise intelligent.

i suppose if your political spectrum labels anyone to the left of rand as "communist", then yes, he's pretty liberal.




It's funny that they have a REPUBLICAN MAYOR, isn't it? Seriously, just stop.

Errors? Please point them out.

They have a Geiger Counter strapped to a trebuchet, I ain't skered.

HUH?






Re-read what I said. I said nothing of Mayoral elections. I said PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS. Seriously, just stop.

BTW..that guy is a republican like Hillary Clinton is a Right Wing wacko.

heh.

Re-read what I said. I said nothing of Mayoral elections. I said PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS. Seriously, just stop.

BTW..that guy is a republican like Hillary Clinton is a Right Wing wacko.

As for pointing out your errors..there are too many and the 2009 WSOP ME is starting in 3 years and I might want to play in it.

I just don't want to waste my time with your bullshit.

do you have some causality as to why they'll elect a republican mayor, but would NEVER elect a repub presidential candidate, or is it more interesting to just spout baseless accusations when things disagree with you?



you are so smug i want to father your children

So I think the aims of the Bush administration are right and correct but the way they were carried out was not the best and mistaken-laden at least.


Do i have a home?

oh sweet, gg.

BINGO.

Good observation.

Wait...you thought that "I know. That's why I said it. Jerk." was meant to be a serious response? Obviously, you are not a golfer. Maybe the steriotype that moderates have no sense of humor is spot on.

Come on...you know me better than that. And you were pressing...but that's ok. I love you anyways.

For the same reason other states do the same.

For the same reason I have voted for Democratic Governors, Mayors, Commissioners, Senators, etc...





This is where I must challenge you to a One Million dollar Heads Up Holdem freezeout with .25/.50 blinds.




NH.

I accept.

I would agree - the goals/aims were good but the planning and execution have been atrocious starting with Iraq.

We had global support after 9/11 to rid the world of al-Qaeda and Bin Laden but instead we focused on Saddam who had nothing to do with either.

As long as you aren't an advocate of the comically Orwellian supression of dissent and the crushing of civil liberties, then the dems would love to have you.

But also, for those of you who still believe the administration invaded Iraq for the reasons they claimed, did you not read this 4 years ago?

Here we go. That article proves that even Rummy knew what he needed to do, and then didn't. We needed to drop the hammer. We needed 300K troops on the ground, cleaning up every city on the way to Baghdad, writing the damn consititution for the Iraqis, telling them "this is how you're going to do it", and then leaving in 5 years completely. A la Japan.

Also, I'm strongly considering registering as a democrat. I feel that I could affect good change more with that party than the Repubs. Still, I don't know if some of my views would fly:

I believe abortion, reasonably, should not be outlawed. However, i do not believe the Constitution covers the matter and states should have the say on whether it goes on in their states and how it happens.

I believe in a strong, updated military that can expand and contract easily per the needs of the country.

I believe affirmative action is no longer an effective means of bringing poor minorities out of poverty.

I believe the 2nd amendment absolutely guarantees the right to own and bear arms.

I believe that English should be declared the official language and that Spanish should be recognized as a "secondary."

I believe there should be an Ellis-island type depot on the Mexico/El Paso border to allow immigrants to come in. But they must come in to work AND live, there will be no mooching off our economy. Plus, you can't prove you're a citizen, you're not legal...deportation for you and hefty fines for the company that hired you. Laws is Laws.

So?

I think oberman was way better on the big show, telling us where "Dik Trickle" placed in NASCAR than he is as a political comentator. I pretty much hate all talking heads, other than the unintentional comedy of somone like micheal savage. Air america is putridly bad, as is fox news. I liked oberman so much more when he was funny, instead of self righteous.

QFT and he seems to try way to hard to look intelligent because of his less than political start to his career in the public eye

as opposed to sday, bill o'reily's start on current affair ( or what ever sleazy magazine show it was)

Show me Potato Salad!!!!!!

really? never heard about that im pretty liberal and despise O'Reilly, although he is pretty unintentionally comedic, so never really looked into his backround

I guess it was called "inside edition" I used to watch that show after school, 'cause at the end of every episode there was some taudry sex thing, some hot girls in bikini's or something. I remember years later, seeing him on fox for the first time, thinking" Hey, isn't that the sleaze ball from "inside edition"? I never took his moral high ground in the media seriously since he came from one of the sleaziest infotainment show of all time. The show was Pretty much was "E" with less crediblity

Bill is a pretty awful person. I have no idea why so many people watch his show despite the sexual harassment case he bought his way out of.

As for Keith, I only read the transcript. It seemed a little weak, but I really liked a few of his points. I probably would have felt completely different if I had watched the video, simply because Keith is so good with editorials.