Arizona Challenge--Part 1 "A Calling out"... A Timmy special...


About time someone called him out on his Campaign tactics... I hope this is not to vague to understand....

Update:
OLBERMANN: Now, as promised, a special comment on the remarks of the senior senator from Arizona about Senator Obama at the VFW convention and about NBC News and MSNBC.

Four times in just two days, Senator McCain‘s campaign managers have, simply, hung him out to dry. First, trying to scapegoat the media, in the exact way that has spelled doom for other presidential candidates already watching from the sidelines.
Source:http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/12594.html
Second, doing so with a petulant statement so full of holes that it virtually confirms that which was reported, and which set off this pointless temper tantrum in the first place.

Third, sending the candidate out to speak before the Veterans of Foreign Wars convention, even as the millstones of a series of disastrous, anti-veteran votes, still figuratively dangle from around his neck.

And fourth, encouraging Senator McCain, while there, to address his opponent in the language of unseemly contempt, undignified calumny, and holier-than-thou persiflage unsupported by reality, near-nonsensical bluster that, at best, makes the speaker look like a dyspeptic grouchy neighbor, shouting “Hey you kids, get out of my yard.”

“Though victory in Iraq is finally in sight,” you told the VFW today, Senator McCain, “a great deal still depends on the decisions and good judgment of the next president. The hard-won gains of our troops hang in the balance. The lasting advantage of a peaceful and democratic ally in the heart of the Middle East could still be squandered by hasty withdrawal and arbitrary time lines. And this is one of many problems in the shifting positions of my opponent, Senator Obama.”

The shifting positions of Senator Obama?

Senator McCain, on the 22nd of May, 2003, you said, of Iraq, on the Senate floor, “We won a massive victory in a few weeks, and we did so with very limited loss of American and allied lives. We were able to end aggression with minimum overall loss of life, and we were even able to greatly reduce the civilian casualties of Afghani and Iraqi citizens.”

Senator, you declared victory in Iraq, five years and nearly three months ago.

Today you say, “victory in Iraq is finally in sight?”

The victory you already proclaimed five years ago?

Are we going back in time, sir?

If that had not been enough, in June of 2003, with even Fox News noting “many argue that the conflict (in Iraq) isn‘t over,” you answered, “Well, then why was there a banner that said ‘Mission Accomplished‘ on the aircraft carrier? Look, I have said a long time that reconstruction of Iraq would be a long, long, difficult process, but the conflict, the major conflict is over. The regime change has been accomplished, and it‘s very appropriate.”

In 2003, your war was won, sir, because somebody was putting up a banner.

In 2008, your war might finally be won, because you are putting up a campaign based on the mirage that Iraq is winnable.

And yet it is Obama shifting positions on Iraq?

Even if this country were to forget, Senator, the victory lap you and President Bush took five years ago, just on their face, your remarks today at the VFW, Senator, are nonsensical.

“Senator Obama commits the greater error of insisting that even in hindsight, he would oppose the surge. Even in retrospect, he would choose the path of retreat and failure for America over the path of success and victory.”

This construction, Senator, is extremely simple.

If your surge worked, the troops would be home from Iraq. Or most of them would be. Or all of them who were surged would be. Or at least we‘d have the same number of troops in Iraq now, as we did then. Or maybe one or two guys would be out of harm‘s way by now.

Please, Senator McCain, stop! This is now embarrassing.

Whether on his own impetus or that of an adviser‘s, the Senator also foolishly invoked his opponent in that speech today. Previous political careers have foundered on the rocks of that very same VFW Convention: The Republican majority in Congress and the Senate, the very viability of Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld began to unravel at this convention two years ago. That was the venue for the first of Rumsfeld‘s two references to Bush critics as Nazi Appeasers.

Prudence and judgment demanded that Senator McCain tread lightly today. Instead he told the convention, “I suppose from my opponent‘s vantage point, veterans concerns are just one more issue to be spun or worked to advantage. This would explain why he has also taken liberties with my position on the bill.”

“As a political proposition, it would have much easier for me to have just signed on to what I considered flawed legislation. But the people of Arizona, and of all America, expect more from their representatives than that, and instead I sought a better bill. I‘m proud to say that the result is a law that better serves our military, better serves military families, and better serves the interests of our country.”

Senator McCain spoke out against that very bill last May on the asinine premise that the rewards to our heroes in it were so good that it didn‘t encourage them to stay in the service, or perhaps force them to stay. More over, Senator McCain missed 10 of the 14 Senate votes on Iraq up to the middle of last year. This year, he has missed them all, including one to honor the sacrifice of the fallen.

He has voted to table or oppose: 20 million dollars for veteran‘s health care facilities, 322 million dollars for safety equipment for our troops in Iraq, 430 million dollars for veterans outpatient care, one billion dollars in new equipment for the National Guard.

And, in separate votes: 1,500,000,000 dollars in additional Veterans‘ medical care, to be created by closing tax loopholes, and 1,800,000,000 dollars in additional Veterans‘ medical care, to be created by closing tax loopholes.

And yet, sir, you have the audacity to stand in front of the very Veterans you repeatedly and consistently sell out, and claim it is your opponent who has put politics first, and country second.

“Behind all of these claims and positions by Senator Obama lies the ambition to be president,” you said, with a straight face, today. “What‘s less apparent is the judgment to be commander-in-chief. And in matters of national security, good judgment will be at a premium in the term of the next president, as we were all reminded ten days ago by events in the nation of Georgia.”

Senator, three points: one, is your increasingly extremist and reactionary language towards Senator Obama really the method by which you want to try to achieve the Presidency or perhaps split the country if you succeed?

Two, criticizing a man for having, quote, “the ambition to be president?” Seriously? You do realize you are currently running for president, as well, right? That either you also have “ambition to be president” or, what? Somebody‘s blackmailing you into it?

Three, you might want to ask somebody, somebody other than say, your foreign policy adviser Randy Scheunemann, whether or not you are making a jackass out of yourself every time you bring up the conflict between Georgia and Russia. The Georgians have paid Mr. Scheunemann and his companies 800 thousand dollars over the last several years to lobby for them. It‘s pretty clear the Georgians have bought Mr. Scheunemann. And, Senator McCain, it sure as hell looks like the Georgians thought they had bought you.

When you had the tastelessness to paraphrase the rallying cry of 9/11 and say that we are now all Georgians, that nation‘s president called you out. He said that your words were very nice, but he needed action, not a verbal receipt from a lobbyist and the lobbyist‘s pet Senator!

Going back to the beginning of this sad 48 hours of paranoia from the McCain Campaign. We have manager Rick Davis‘s unfortunate letter to NBC News about Andrea Mitchell‘s reporting on the possibility that Senator McCain violated the so-called “Cone of Silence” for the Rick Warren Presidential Forum over the weekend.

The coverage of this detail, and that forum in general, is, to start with, overwrought. But Mr. Davis has now elevated them to the ridiculous. As Nate Silver at the website FiveThirtyEight.com noted today, Andrea‘s reporting, reporting of what the Obama camp claimed, included two essential observations: “McCain may not have been in the cone of silence” and that he “may have had some ability to overhear what the questions were to Obama.”

Rick Davis writes to NBC: “The fact is that during Senator Obama‘s segment at Saddleback last night, Senator McCain was in a motorcade to the event and then held in a green room with no broadcast feed.”

As Silver astutely notes, for roughly the first half of Obama‘s participation, his own campaign manager places McCain in a car where he could have been made aware of the questions to Senator Obama. “In a motor vehicle,” Silver writes, “one may use the radio, a cell phone, a Blackberry, Bluetooth Wireless, a Sling box, perhaps a satellite TV feed. Whether McCain actually used any of those devices, we have no idea. But he absolutely had the ability to use them, which is all that Mitchell had reported.”

Silver also tripped over Mr. Davis‘s strange observation that for roughly the second half of Obama‘s participation, his own campaign places McCain “in a green room with no broadcast feed.” Not a green room without cell service or the Internet, nor without a closed-circuit feed, nor, for that matter, without a guy running back from the audience with notes, written in crayon.

Rick Davis‘s argument is, in short, illegitimate. It is an attempt to pick a fight with the media over the journalistic equivalent of chewing gum in class. “This is irresponsible journalism and. sadly, indicative of the level of objectivity we have witnessed at NBC News this election cycle,” he writes.

“We are concerned that your news division is following MSNBC‘s lead in abandoning non-partisan coverage of the Presidential race. We would like to request a meeting with you as soon as possible to discuss our deep concerns about the news standards and level of objectivity at NBC.”

What Mr. Davis is really saying here, of course, is that he wants no level of objectivity, that the only campaign he wants questioned is Obama‘s, and that “partisan coverage” would consist of questioning whether McCain or his campaign support the stage whispers branding Obama as somehow ‘foreign,‘ or whether McCain is to be inoculated from any and all criticisms simply by dint of his military service.

Senator McCain, did you pay any attention to the Democratic primaries?

Did you notice the hair-pulling frenzy of some of Senator Clinton‘s supporters who could not face the possibility that her loss might have been her fault or theirs and thus it must be ours?

Do you remember the apoplexy of a washed up Republican operative named Ed Gillespie, writing a furious letter to NBC on behalf of President Bush?

Mr. Bush‘s support has since dropped. And Senator Clinton‘s supporters have now relocated to such a degree that her “eighteen million voices” first re-counted themselves as “two million” and were then unable to get even 250 people to show up for their meeting.

The public sees through this nonsense about media, Senator. They see through it quickly. NBC and MSNBC do not have the power to seriously impact an election. If we did, Senator Pat Buchanan would already be serving with you.

Besides which, senator, who in your camp thought it was a good idea to take a shot at NBC and MSNBC during the Olympics on NBC and MSNBC? During the Olympics, Senator McCain, on which you have already run millions of dollars‘ worth of McCain Campaign commercials on NBC and MSNBC?

Senator, let me wrap this up. You and your campaign need a serious and immediate attitude adjustment. Despite what you may think, Senator McCain, this is not a coronation. Despite how you have acted, Senator McCain, you have no automatic excuse to politicize anything you want.

Despite how you have whined, Senator McCain, you have no entitlement to only sycophantic, deceptive, air-brushed coverage in the media. And despite how you have strutted, Senator McCain, you have no God-given right to the presidency.

Let‘s have an adult campaign here, sir. In other words, and I am embarrassed to have to say this to a man who turns 72 at the end of this month, Senator, grow up!

Good night and good luck.

It is funny IMHO like him or not you can point to him giving his own two cents.. He does use facts... He has not gotten to the point of telling outright untruths as the Talking Heads on the Right do... I wish I had time to go through this more in-depth but Calling a Campaign out on their tactics and the grilling them for trying to play the refs like what they are doing is fine and that the media has no right to call correct or question them is silly... Sounds like the complaints of Hillary.... Their is no journalistic standard that says we have to present your statements as fact if they are not....

--

Ask courageous questions. Do not be satisfied with superficial answers. Be open to wonder and at the same time subject all claims to knowledge, without exception, to intense skeptical scrutiny. Be aware of human fallibility. Cherish your species and your

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
I'm so very happy that we can now incorporate (#110798)
by Timmy the Wonder Dog

a commentor's name into the diary.

I'm very impressed that you would use anyone from MSNBO, although I didn't take the time to upgrade my flash player.

I suspect that Oberman was whining about McCain pointing Obama's obvious plan for unilatral withdrawal from Iraq by March of 08. That is, putting Obama's political ambitions before everything else. It appears to be Obama's sole constant.

Oberman has a problem with the facts, as does Obama.

When it wasn't very popular and it wasn't politically correct, McCain put the nation's national security ahead of his own political ambition. Things worked out for the country, things worked out for McCain but Obama just ended up looking a little silly, these things happen. The fact of the matter, it is history and Obama can do little about it.

Da, thanks for pointing out the obvious and using the Ober dude to do it, I couldn't have done it any better.

--

"Making sure your tires are properly inflated, simple thing, but we could save all the oil that they're talking about getting off drilling, if everybody was just inflating their tires and getting regular tune-ups. You could actually save just as much." Ob

Tripe for Tripe.... Hey if I offended apologies all around... (#111417)
by Davinci

I'm very impressed that you would use anyone from MSNBO, although I didn't take the time to upgrade my flash player.

I suspect that Oberman was whining about McCain pointing Obama's obvious plan for unilatral withdrawal from Iraq by March of 08. That is, putting Obama's political ambitions before everything else. It appears to be Obama's sole constant.

Oberman has a problem with the facts, as does Obama.
(Cite please...)
When it wasn't very popular and it wasn't politically correct, McCain put the nation's national security ahead of his own political ambition. Things worked out for the country, things worked out for McCain but Obama just ended up looking a little silly, these things happen. The fact of the matter, it is history and Obama can do little about it.
(In your view and not one universally held)
Da, thanks for pointing out the obvious and using the Ober dude to do it, I couldn't have done it any better.
(I am not sure you have pointed anything out in a while but I am waiting for a real post with cites and facts... Spin and untruths... Talking points ... )

--

Ask courageous questions. Do not be satisfied with superficial answers. Be open to wonder and at the same time subject all claims to knowledge, without exception, to intense skeptical scrutiny. Be aware of human fallibility. Cherish your species and your

No offense taken, just sought a little clarity (#111759)
by Timmy the Wonder Dog

Fact: Obama's original exit plan was for March of 08, the simple analysis the plan was self serving.

--

"Making sure your tires are properly inflated, simple thing, but we could save all the oil that they're talking about getting off drilling, if everybody was just inflating their tires and getting regular tune-ups. You could actually save just as much." Ob

Total nonsense! (#111377)
by Bill White

McCain put the nation's national security ahead of his own political ambition

Complete and utter nonsense. Full stop.

--

Fence post turtles -- They don't get up there by themselves, some moron had to put 'em there.

When I hear Full Stop (#111760)
by Timmy the Wonder Dog

I can only conclude that I touched a nerve.

--

"Making sure your tires are properly inflated, simple thing, but we could save all the oil that they're talking about getting off drilling, if everybody was just inflating their tires and getting regular tune-ups. You could actually save just as much." Ob

Ubermann wasn't worth listening to (#111239)
by tomsyl

so I didn't listen to him. Will someone please get that guy something for his hemorrhoids? His enraged lib shtick has gone way past funny.

--

In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.

Please (#111273)
by M Scott Eiland

Preparation H would make Olbertwit react like a vampire would to the noontime sun. It'd be fun to watch, but the shrieking would be unpleasant to deal with.

--

The Judges Weigh In! (#111375)
by Harley

Ubermann is a little Godwin for my tastes, or maybe it's Nietzche. Either way it's poorly shaped. Olbertwit seems like it was fashioned second hand -- just add twit! -- but given the competition, I'm going to have to go with...

Olbertwit.

--

To think is not enough; you must think of something -- Jules Renard

Recount demanded. (#111772)
by tomsyl

And I want proof you're sixteen or older.

Or taking a more conciliatory tack, would an umlaut improve my score?

--

In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.

Only (#111776)
by HankP

if it's a heavy metal ümlaut

--

I blame it all on the Internet

Good one. I try to learn something new and useful each day (#111779)
by tomsyl

and now I can finally go to sleep.

On a related note, have you heard of those bizarre Nazi Goth heavy metal bands that apparently are skulking around the European concert scene? Pretty weird sheet.

--

In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.

I'll Admit. . . (#111382)
by M Scott Eiland

. . .that it isn't one of my better ones, but I'm distracted by the effort of working with the Icarus metaphor right now. Lot of wax and feathers went flying in the men's 200 meter final.

--

You're right that there was a time (#110967)
by dionysus

That McCain would take a politically unpopular position because he thought it was right.

However that time seems to have long since passed.

And I remember Jan 07 when he supported the surge (#111224)
by Timmy the Wonder Dog

so the long since passed, seems a little odd.

--

"Making sure your tires are properly inflated, simple thing, but we could save all the oil that they're talking about getting off drilling, if everybody was just inflating their tires and getting regular tune-ups. You could actually save just as much." Ob

The surge was largely irrelevant (#111378)
by Bill White

Giving "credit" to the surge commits the correlation / causation fallacy.

--

Fence post turtles -- They don't get up there by themselves, some moron had to put 'em there.

I wouldn't expect any other comment (#111757)
by Timmy the Wonder Dog

btw what happened to tha "Civil War" you kept on talking about?

--

"Making sure your tires are properly inflated, simple thing, but we could save all the oil that they're talking about getting off drilling, if everybody was just inflating their tires and getting regular tune-ups. You could actually save just as much." Ob

Are you saying that was (#111232)
by Brooks and B Ra...

Are you saying that was clearly a bad political move for a guy seeking the Republican nomination?

just look at what happened to McCain's campaign (#111235)
by Timmy the Wonder Dog

in the Summer of 07

--

"Making sure your tires are properly inflated, simple thing, but we could save all the oil that they're talking about getting off drilling, if everybody was just inflating their tires and getting regular tune-ups. You could actually save just as much." Ob

That was probably due to his (#111246)
by Brooks and B Ra...

That was probably due to his stand on immigration, not the surge. You should use the former for your argument.

I was thinking of the correlation (#111265)
by Timmy the Wonder Dog

as the Surge prospects improved so did McCain's.

With respect to immigration, he only changed the timing (er, build a wall first and then solve the balance of the problem).

--

"Making sure your tires are properly inflated, simple thing, but we could save all the oil that they're talking about getting off drilling, if everybody was just inflating their tires and getting regular tune-ups. You could actually save just as much." Ob

Oh, I see. Well, even though (#111278)
by Brooks and B Ra...

Oh, I see. Well, even though McCain probably benefited as the surge results/prospects improved (I think in the Fall/Winter 2007, not Summer), that doesn't mean that taking the position was a net loser to start with. It just means it became a substantial net plus. It could have been roughly neutral or a slight net plus earlier in the campaign, and I think that's more likely than it having been a net loser.

I thought you were talking about his prospects sinking during the Summer, which was probably due largely to his initial immigration position (the deal with Kennedy, etc.).

for the most part, yup. (#110972)
by Brooks and B Ra...

for the most part, yup.

the sysyphus of morons (#110831)
by Micky Love

You must admit, Timmy, that Olbermann has talent. It's not only Obama and Olberman who get things wrong from time to time. We all do. I still remember watching a clip where Olbermann railed against another TV personality, calling him 'the sysphus of morons.'

OLBERMANN: The guilty pleasure offered by the existence of Bill O‘Reilly is simple but understandable, 99 times out of 100, when we belly up to the Bill-O bar of bluster, nearly every time we partake of the movable falafel feast he serves us nothing but comedy, farce, slapstick, unconscious self-mutilation, the Sideshow Bob of commentators forever stepping on the same rake, forever muttering the same grunted, inarticulate surrender, forever resuming the circle that will take him back to the same rake. The Sisyphus of morons, if you will. But this is the 100th time out of 100. It is not funny at all. Bill O‘Reilly has, for the second time in under eight months, slandered at least 84 dead American servicemen. He has turned them again from victims of the kind of atrocity our country has always fought against into perpetrators of that kind of atrocity. He has made these Americans into war criminals. They are dead and have been dead for 61 years. They cannot defend themselves against O‘Reilly. We will have to do it for them.

--

Nothing resembles virtue more than a great crime. Saint-Just

Olbermann has talent (#110850)
by Timmy the Wonder Dog

he certainly does, he certainly has a following and he may even have a mission.

--

"Making sure your tires are properly inflated, simple thing, but we could save all the oil that they're talking about getting off drilling, if everybody was just inflating their tires and getting regular tune-ups. You could actually save just as much." Ob

The great irony (#110916)
by heet

is Olberman's contribution to America's poor political discourse and partisan acrimony pales in comparison to the damage done by Fox News and talk radio.

--

Over here on E Street, we're proud to support Obama for President. - Bruce Springsteen

but of course (#111228)
by Timmy the Wonder Dog

no other observation would be expected and there is nothing sadder when a monopoly is lost. I feel your pain.

--

"Making sure your tires are properly inflated, simple thing, but we could save all the oil that they're talking about getting off drilling, if everybody was just inflating their tires and getting regular tune-ups. You could actually save just as much." Ob

The media has never been left...Left wing or anything close.. (#111418)
by Davinci

I challenge you to show anything other than establishment hostile...

Otto Fuerbringer died the other day. The odds are high that you've never heard of him, and that alone is a good reason for invoking him here - even if it means taking a break from the latest Obama-McCain tit-for-tats. Fuerbringer was a crucially important figure at a pivotal moment in our '60s political history, a flesh-and-blood refutation of the falsehood that America is supposedly dominated by a "liberal media." More specifically, Fuerbringer, by his actions, refuted the enduring right-wing canard about how the "liberal media" supposedly "lost" the war in Vietnam.

On the contrary, Fuerbringer - as the most powerful editor at America's most powerful magazine, in an era when that magazine guided the national discourse and helped shape its politics - was actually pivotal in enabling the expansion of that war...despite the warnings from his own Vietnam correspondents that we were headed for disaster.

Fuerbringer, nicknamed "the Iron Chancellor," brooked little dissent while running the day to day operations at Time magazine. It's hard to imagine today, but back then Time magazine, with its millions of heartland readers, was a crucial player. And, as chronicled by a number of authors (most notably, ex-Vietnam correspondent David Halberstam in "The Powers That Be"), Otto Fuerbringer was a political conservative who trusted the word of the Pentagon. Back in the early '60s, the Pentagon told him that Vietnam could be won at a relatively small cost in American blood and treasure. The problem was that Fuerbringer's best reporter on the ground, Charlie Mohr, felt quite the opposite - and repeatedly wrote highly pessimistic dispatches (known in Time lingo as "files"), based on what his non-official sources were telling him and what he was witnessing with his own eyes.

The result was that very little of what Mohr wrote ever got into print - and, generally, the material from his files that did get into print was heavily rewritten by the editors...to reflect the government's official optimism. When Mohr complained one too many times, Fuerbringer retaliated by ordering up a critical story about the American press corps in Saigon. When the Time reporter assigned to the story produced a draft that Fuerbringer deemed too tepid, the editor demanded several rewrites. In the end, Halberstam recounts in his book, the final version "was virtually dictated by Fuerbringer. It took the straight Pentagon line, with a touch of the White House, and was a violent, all-out attack upon the reporters in Vietnam."

Meanwhile, during this same week in 1963, Mohr sent in a long, pessimistic file - his bleakest yet - about the war's potential impact on America. A young writer at the magazine's New York headquarters was assigned the task of shaping the file for publication - an unenviable task, of course, since he wanted to respect what Mohr had written, without somehow ticking off Fuerbringer. The writer was John Gregory Dunne, later to become a prominent journalist and novelist. In an interview three decades later, Dunne recounted what happened next:

"Charlie Mohr was one of the first to say that this war isn't going to fly. He was by no means a liberal; he just saw it on the basis of his reporting. One week we did a wrapup on the war, and Charlie sent in a file, the first sentence of which was, 'The war in Vietnam is being lost.' It was a Friday night, and I said to myself, 'Uh oh, this is never going into the magazine. I had dinner with Joan (his fiancee), and I said, 'I think I'm going to call in sick.' She said, 'No, you've got to go back and do it.' So I went back and did the story based on the file, trying to put in the qualifiers that would get past Otto Fuerbringer, and went home around three in the morning. The next morning, the edited copy was on my desk, and on the top it said, 'Nice. F.'" (That was Fuerbringer's customary way of approving a story.)

But, as Dunne recalled, there was a big problem with the edited copy: "It was the complete opposite of what Charlie's file was and what I had written. Redone from top to bottom."

Mohr quit the magazine, and Dunne told his superiors that he no longer wished to work on Vietnam stories. Fuerbringer then decreed that Dunne should pay the price for speaking out; thereafter, he was assigned to write stories about places like Lichtenstein. So he quit the magazine, too.

None of this had any impact on Fuerbringer, of course. Two years later, he toured Vietnam and the Pentagon briefers showed him one of the new military bases. The editor was impressed. He told his listeners, "I know how to end the war tomorrow, quickly. Bring five Vietcong generals here to see this, and they'll surrender." In fact, Fuerbringer said this to the guy who had replaced Charlie Mohr in Saigon - but that reporter's skeptical files didn't sit well with Fuerbringer either, and, within a year, he was yanked from the Saigon bureau.

So the next time you hear complaints about the "liberal media," remember Otto Fuerbringer and the tale of how, at a crucial juncture in our history, the most powerful magazine editor in America adhered to his beliefs by refusing to let the facts get in the way. Sort of like the people who invoke the term "liberal media."

http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/americandebate/The_liberal_media_fall...

--

Ask courageous questions. Do not be satisfied with superficial answers. Be open to wonder and at the same time subject all claims to knowledge, without exception, to intense skeptical scrutiny. Be aware of human fallibility. Cherish your species and your

the loss of the monopoly has a sting to it don't you think (#111756)
by Timmy the Wonder Dog

nt

--

"Making sure your tires are properly inflated, simple thing, but we could save all the oil that they're talking about getting off drilling, if everybody was just inflating their tires and getting regular tune-ups. You could actually save just as much." Ob

Fifth column ftw. -nt- (#110876)
by Jordan

.

--

Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes. -JH

I know you're asking someone (#110835)
by Brooks and B Ra...

I know you're asking someone else, and I've already acknowledged (unprompted) Olbermann's talent (on this thread), but I'm just curious, would you admit that Limbaugh has talent? I think he does, even though I can't stand the guy any more than I can stand his counterparts on Air America.

Looks like Olbermann had quite a bit to read from... (#110788)
by Bird Dog

...the Soros' ThinkProgress crib sheets. At least Maddow doesn't pretend to be a journalist.

--

"I want America to know that I'm, like, totally ready to lead." -- Paris Hilton

Pretending (#110795)
by Harley

Sean Hannity. Journalist? Britt Hume. Journalist?

Better still. Joe Leiberman. GOP Veep prospect?

(I'm genuinely curious about your opinion regarding Leiberman.)

--

To think is not enough; you must think of something -- Jules Renard

Hannity a journalist? No (#111066)
by Bird Dog

And he doesn't portray himself as one.

Except for his "Special Comment" segments, Olbermann is dishonestly portraying himself as a journalist with his softball interviews of guests who preach his opinions for him.

Hume is a journalist, except on FNS when he's on the panel of FoxNews contributors.

Joe Lieberman for veep? Hell no! Except for matters of national security, Lieberman is a liberal Democrat and his voting record backs that up. McCain would lose whatever base he has in the GOP, and he'd lose me, too.

--

"I want America to know that I'm, like, totally ready to lead." -- Paris Hilton

Fox has the best interviews.. The people they bring on as on the (#111414)
by Davinci

left are weak and unheard of in many parts...
Hume is no more a journalist than Olbermann...

--

Ask courageous questions. Do not be satisfied with superficial answers. Be open to wonder and at the same time subject all claims to knowledge, without exception, to intense skeptical scrutiny. Be aware of human fallibility. Cherish your species and your

actually Britt is whereas Sean isn't (#110799)
by Timmy the Wonder Dog

bta you're probably of the opinion that Father Coughlin was a journalist.

--

"Making sure your tires are properly inflated, simple thing, but we could save all the oil that they're talking about getting off drilling, if everybody was just inflating their tires and getting regular tune-ups. You could actually save just as much." Ob

Alot over the top.... (#111413)
by Davinci

nt...

--

Ask courageous questions. Do not be satisfied with superficial answers. Be open to wonder and at the same time subject all claims to knowledge, without exception, to intense skeptical scrutiny. Be aware of human fallibility. Cherish your species and your

Harley's Right, Timmy (#110839)
by M Scott Eiland

Olbermann's fair game under the rules for that sort of comment--Harley isn't. An retraction/apology is in order.

--

You will have to explain (#111230)
by Timmy the Wonder Dog

where Harley is the target here. Scott, if you can do that, be more than happy to provide whatever you want.

--

"Making sure your tires are properly inflated, simple thing, but we could save all the oil that they're talking about getting off drilling, if everybody was just inflating their tires and getting regular tune-ups. You could actually save just as much." Ob

OK (#111244)
by M Scott Eiland

bta you're probably of the opinion that Father Coughlin was a journalist.

What did you mean by this? Is "bta" a typo for "but"?

--

Could you explain to me (#111034)
by Sulla

how this is any different than Harley accusing Bird Dog of writing race-baiting dashiki diaries or the big head meme he rolls out against Vinteuil? Just curious.

--

"That Sam-I-am! That Sam-I-am! I do not like that Sam-I-am!"- Dr. Seuss

Here's the Deal, Timmy (#110801)
by Harley

No matter how addled, you have must made the point that I believe a vile anti-Semite and racist is a journalist. You've got a couple choices. Apologize, explain, or keep the f**k away from me. Full stop.

--

To think is not enough; you must think of something -- Jules Renard

Yes, but apparently you are of the opinion (#110805)
by Timmy the Wonder Dog

that Ober Dude is.

Hey compare and contrast Ober Dude's comments on Bush and the neocons and compare and contrast them to Father Coughlin's comments on FDR and ...the similarities are readily apparent.

--

"Making sure your tires are properly inflated, simple thing, but we could save all the oil that they're talking about getting off drilling, if everybody was just inflating their tires and getting regular tune-ups. You could actually save just as much." Ob

Wow..I missed it. (#110807)
by athenas owl

That show where Olbermann praised Hitler and Mussolini. Yes, they are so similar it is staggering. Not really.

Or for more modern relevance the ones where he praises any totalitarian dictatorship whilst bagging on Bush and crew.

Do you need to be reminded that it was Coughlin who said:

"When we get through with the Jews in America, they'll think the treatment they received in Germany was nothing."

....while raising a Nazi salute?

Tracked down a Dr. Suess WWII cartoon on Coughlin (#111423)
by catchy

The Dr. Suess v. Father Coughlin series (#111459)
by catchy

pt.III (#111463)
by catchy

Last one. Just thought these were interesting:

a nice series of cartoons (#111755)
by Timmy the Wonder Dog

has that nice pro Anglo-American ring to it, a couple of changes and they fit the Uber Dude to a tee.

--

"Making sure your tires are properly inflated, simple thing, but we could save all the oil that they're talking about getting off drilling, if everybody was just inflating their tires and getting regular tune-ups. You could actually save just as much." Ob

Number Three it Is (#110806)
by Harley

Stay the f**k away from me. You want to call folks anti-Semites? Find another target.

--

To think is not enough; you must think of something -- Jules Renard

ain't going to happen (#110851)
by Timmy the Wonder Dog

btw, I think you need to take a closer look.

--

"Making sure your tires are properly inflated, simple thing, but we could save all the oil that they're talking about getting off drilling, if everybody was just inflating their tires and getting regular tune-ups. You could actually save just as much." Ob

Timmy (#110873)
by M Scott Eiland

It would be in your best interests not to continue along this path.

--

Don't worry Harley (#110843)
by HankP

stuff like that says more about the person saying it than the person they're saying it about. They'll say or do anything to win. Absolutely anything.

--

I blame it all on the Internet

Oh, I think Harley's (#110844)
by Brooks and B Ra...

Oh, I think Harley's familiar with the type. Almost like he spends all his time with such a person.

Ahem (#110874)
by M Scott Eiland

Howabout both you and Hank find another subthread to occupy your attention, OK?

--

double-post deleted (nt) (#110790)
by Brooks and B Ra...

x

Every night when Olbermann (#110789)
by Brooks and B Ra...

Every night when Olbermann self-righteously, egotistically, and obliviously (in terms of self-awareness and perspective) ends his show with "Good night, and good luck", Edward R. Murrow must turn over in his grave.

Well, that's just another (#110796)
by Brooks and B Ra...

Well, that's just another (unfortunate) step in MSNBC's apparent re-positioning of itself from straight news + opinion shows with hosts of a variety of ideologies/partisan leanings to (at least fairly) straight news + partisan infomercials for the left, the counterpart to Fox News on the right. The old MSNBC was better to watch, and better for the nation. With this shift by MSNBC, now more liberals will spend more time in essentially an echo chamber, just as conservatives do with Fox News. Bad for America and the for the world. Creates more people who are not only (obliviously) misinformed but also consumed with partisanship -- causing overwhelming bias (precluding any reasonable degree of objectivity), dishonesty (e.g., deliberately cherry-picking facts to paint a distorted picture), and unwillingness to engage in good-faith, responsive, substantive discussion/debate. But you, Spart, don't strike me as the kind of fellow who minds all that, at least not with regard to your side. You seem to be both a cause and effect of this trend in the media toward partisanship at the expense of substance, fairness and complete honesty.

The Morning show is Three hours of Joe Scarborough... (#111412)
by Davinci

Truely a lefty.... The other shows died of ratings.... A lack of...

--

Ask courageous questions. Do not be satisfied with superficial answers. Be open to wonder and at the same time subject all claims to knowledge, without exception, to intense skeptical scrutiny. Be aware of human fallibility. Cherish your species and your

I disagree (#110934)
by Wagster

I think the public is better-informed when there is a portion of the media that is partisan. What I object to is a bleeding between the partisan and the objective. I don't mind that Olbermann and Dobbs have shows, I just hate it when they appear as anchors, covering news events.

A lot of stories (the politicizing of Justice, for instance) would have fallen through the cracks without partisan outlets to give them life. Yes, these outlets do lead to polarization, but I think it's a reasonable price to pay for a more aggressive pursuit of legitimate stories.

--

More Wagster!

I think the public is (#110940)
by Brooks and B Ra...

I think the public is better-informed when there is a portion of the media that is partisan.

I agree with that general point, at least to a large extent. A couple of distinctions are in order. First, we should distinguish partisanship (on behalf of candidates, parties, even issue positions) from consistently expressing views from a particular ideological viewpoint, even though the two tend to overlap substantially. One big difference is one of commitment to doing one's best to be as fair and objective as possible and to presenting a full and accurate picture to the best of one's ability (including strengths of opposing arguments/positions and weaknesses of one's/ one's sides' own), even while making the case for one's bottom-line conclusion. Second, there's partisanship and then there's, well, PARTISANSHIP. Similar difference as noted above (between expressing ideologically-oriented views vs. partisanship), but a matter of degree (how blatantly facts are "cherry picked" or matters otherwise deliberately distorted, etc.).

Having said all that, I do agree that, like fat, sugar, perhaps red wine, etc., consuming programs from the likes of Limbaugh and his counterparts on the left can be healthy as a small part of a larger (news & opinion) diet.

The problems are that, whereas under the old MSNBC we had a varity of host perspectives (some right, some left), (1) what we now have in terms of the 3 news channels is two of three engaged in PARTISANSHIP, and (2) my sense is that the nation, in its media consumption (and participation) in general, is, as in the case of fat and sugar, is increasingly overconsuming PARTISAN media.

It's all about ratings, not partisanship (#110951)
by Spartacvs

and giving the public what it wants in order to sell advertising.

Fox originated the concept of satisfying a perceived demand for partisan media with an up front conservative agenda and they were successful in marketing themselves as a counterpoint to the supposed 'liberal media'. CNN and MSNBC subsequently attempted to emulate the success of Fox post GOP success in the elections by introducing their own unabashed conservative hosts in a bid to capture some of that ratings demographic. Now while CNN has continued in that vein, MSNBC having started down that road, eventually enjoyed more success in securing additional ratings by introducing an unabashed liberal in Olbermann as an antidote to the increased conservative bent on Fox and CNN.

So we can conclude that the public has apparently soured on straight reporting, why that is the case might be an interesting question. But there can be no doubt that we have ended up with an even worse and more polarized situation than when we had a perceived 'liberal media' doing largely straight news reporting that led to the successful introduction of Fox.

--

GW Bush, leading contender for worst President ever.

It's all about ratings, not (#110953)
by Brooks and B Ra...

It's all about ratings, not partisanship

Agree. Even Rush admits that his goal is, and always has been, to build and hold and audience, charge advertisers "confiscatory rates", and thereby get rich.

Fox originated the concept of satisfying a perceived demand for partisan media with an up front conservative agenda

They certainly didn't characterize themselves "up front" as having "a conservative agenda". On the contrary, they claim to be "fair and balanced", in contrast with the supposedly liberal mainstream media.

CNN and MSNBC subsequently attempted to emulate the success of Fox post GOP success in the elections by introducing their own unabashed conservative hosts in a bid to capture some of that ratings demographic. Now while CNN has continued in that vein

Who are CNN's "unabashed conservative hosts" and what makes them "unabashed conservatives" in your view? What is the evidence of "the increased conservative bent" of CNN?

"fair and balanced" (#110961)
by Spartacvs

Have they lived up to that claim? no. Have they even made the most cursory attempt? again no. Their own marketing is as transparent as the commercial advertising they host, which translates as an up front conservative agenda to everyone but the rubes.

Glenn Beck is a TV version of Limbaugh and Lou Dobbs is a populist conservative in the mold of Pat Buchanan.

--

GW Bush, leading contender for worst President ever.

Re: Dobbs, a "conservative" (#110965)
by Brooks and B Ra...

Re: Dobbs, a "conservative" of that sort is a hybrid: a major part of his economics is "liberal". And I ask again, what makes Dobbs an "unabashed conservative"? How many times do I have to ask? (not that I should be surprised -- my fault for making an exception to my "no reply" rule). Is it just illegal immigration and related matters?

As for "fair and balanced", my point was simply that your statement that they were "upfront" about their "conservative agenda" was inaccurate. They explicitly and with great repitition claim to be "fair and balanced", whether it's true or not (and I'd say "not").

His economics are not "liberal" (#110993)
by Spartacvs

but rather blue collar conservative, people who's economic situation ought to make them liberals but are instead attracted to the kind of populist demagoguery promoted by the likes of Pat Buchanan' and categorized most often as 'Reagan Democrats'.

With Fox, as in the case of the current village idiot in the WH it's the old shell game sleight of hand, watch what they do not what they say.

--

GW Bush, leading contender for worst President ever.

Ranting incessantly against (#110996)
by Brooks and B Ra...

Ranting incessantly against free-trade, outsourcing and greedy corporations is NOT conservative. Fabricate your own definitions if you wish. Have a good day.

It may not be YOUR kind of conservative (#111031)
by Spartacvs

but it's definitely the kind encapsulated by the 'Reagan Democrat' demographic that Reagan, Buchanan and now Dobbs panders to. They are the same group Obama referred to in his 'bitter' comment and are an essential component of any GOP majority whether you like it or not. A few exhortations to the flag and all things apple pie, add a dash of demagoguery on the evils of 'socialism', the 2nd amendment and God and you got yourself an attentive crowd.

--

GW Bush, leading contender for worst President ever.

Glenn Beck. Lou Dobbs. (#110955)
by Harley

It's pretty obvious. As for MSNBC, their decision to be the brand that opposes Fox? Not a bad idea, particularly when that means opposing, if only on your opinion shows, the least popular president in our lifetimes.

The move is reflected in better ratings. We'll see how it plays out. I'd think you'd like Maddow, she's whip smart (Rhodes Scholar!), and manages to offer opinion without seeming angry or borderline deranged.

--

To think is not enough; you must think of something -- Jules Renard

Did you miss the second part (#110960)
by Brooks and B Ra...

Did you miss the second part of my question -- what makes Dobbs "unabashed conservatives"? Just because he opposes illegal immigration? What's conservative about his ongoing campaign against outsourcing (and by the way -- see http://swordscrossed.org/node/1662). I don't often watch Dobbs -- he strikes me as a moron or a pretend moron -- but I find it hard to consider someone who regularly rants against outsourcing as an "unabashed conservative", unless you mean of the populist, Pat Buchanan variety (social conservative, economic "liberal" in some key areas such as trade).

I know very little of Beck, but he's on CNN Headline News, not CNN proper (right?) which is what I was referring to.

Objectivity (#110817)
by Spartacvs
As for Misinformation (#110804)
by Harley

There's data suggesting Fox viewers hold misconceptions about basic and agreed-upon facts and more than likely due to ideological skewing. Is there anything similar re MSNBC? Remember, Olberman is doing an opinion show. I haven't seen any evidence that the MSNBC news folks are engaging in the kind of slanted reporting that Fox is famous for. On the other hand, I don't watch the net that much, so...

--

To think is not enough; you must think of something -- Jules Renard

who exactly are the MSNBO (#110852)
by Timmy the Wonder Dog

news folks?

--

"Making sure your tires are properly inflated, simple thing, but we could save all the oil that they're talking about getting off drilling, if everybody was just inflating their tires and getting regular tune-ups. You could actually save just as much." Ob

I watch Olbermann regularly. (#110749)
by Brooks and B Ra...

I watch Olbermann regularly. It’s the most entertainingly witty news program on television (no, I’m not counting The Daily Show or The Colbert Report). And I still laugh every time he refers to “Billo the Clown”. It’s entertaining enough that I put up with Olbermann’s obvious, strong partisanship and radio-talk-show-like distortions, cherry-picking, oversimplifications, etc. all for the purpose of painting things in black and white and then expressing outrage. But the last couple of minutes of this rant were just Olbermann spinning out of control – pun intended.

And in general his show, much of it having been a nightly infomercial for Obama against Hillary, is now largely an infomercial for Obama vs. McCain, and those parts are hard to watch – whether it’s Olbermann or his partner-in-crime, Rachel Maddow from Air America (the equivalent of Limbaugh or Hannity in terms of objectivity, sincerity, and commitment to accuracy and fairness), who sometimes makes valid points, but as in the case of any committed partisan of either side, those valid points are somewhat fitting with the broken clock principle. I’ll still keep watching the show, but I’ll probably click around more when the silly, dumbed-down partisan propaganda starts getting unbearably thick, which happens quite quickly and predictably whenever Olbermann and Maddow have one of their regular dialogues, among other times.

It's a shame that an intelligent guy like Olbermann can't/won't present more intelligent and fair partisan arguments, and it's a shame that conveniently distorted, oversimplified characterizations of matters and unfair snark and rants are better for ratings.

Are you trying to say that he is the same as Limbaugh and (#111410)
by Davinci

Hannity in terms of facts? I am not saying he is fair but I don't think he outright lies... A big difference IMHO..

--

Ask courageous questions. Do not be satisfied with superficial answers. Be open to wonder and at the same time subject all claims to knowledge, without exception, to intense skeptical scrutiny. Be aware of human fallibility. Cherish your species and your

Probably not as bad as (#111453)
by Brooks and B Ra...

Probably not as bad as Limbaugh and Hannity

Can't really blame Olbermann (#110754)
by Spartacvs

when McCain feeds him straight lines like this:

Though victory in Iraq is finally in sight, a great deal still depends on the decisions and good judgment of the next president. The hard-won gains of our troops hang in the balance. The lasting advantage of a peaceful and democratic ally in the heart of the Middle East could still be squandered by hasty withdrawal and arbitrary timelines. And this is one of many problems in the shifting positions of my opponent, Senator Obama.

With just three months to go before the election, a lot of folks are still trying to square Senator Obama's varying positions on the surge in Iraq. First, he opposed the surge. Then he confidently predicted that it would fail. Then he tried to prevent funding for the troops who carried out the surge. Not content to merely predict failure in Iraq, my opponent tried to legislate failure. This was back when supporting America's efforts in Iraq entailed serious political risk. It was a clarifying moment. It was a moment when political self-interest and the national interest parted ways. For my part, with so much in the balance, it was an easy call. As I said at the time, I would rather lose an election than lose a war.

Thanks to the courage and sacrifice of our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines and to brave Iraqi fighters the surge has succeeded. And yet Senator Obama still can't quite bring himself to admit his own failure in judgment. Instead, he commits the greater error of insisting that even in hindsight, he would oppose the surge. Even in retrospect, he would choose the path of retreat and failure for America over the path of success and victory. Behind all of these claims and positions by Senator Obama lies the ambition to be president. What's missing is the judgment to be commander in chief.

McCain still believes in the same pony Bush and the neocons started touting the day after it became blindingly obvious to everyone that WMD would not be found in Iraq.

--

GW Bush, leading contender for worst President ever.

"This Program Has Been Sponsored. . . (#110689)
by M Scott Eiland

. . .by the makers of Thorazine, Prozac, and Kool-Aid."

--

When you have a cable news channel created for the purpose (#110735)
by Spartacvs

of serving as the propaganda outfit for a permanent Republican majority, then pushback in the form of a figure like Olbermann is the natural result.

--

GW Bush, leading contender for worst President ever.

I see, Jedi mind trick...move along.. :) (#110691)
by Davinci

nt

--

Ask courageous questions. Do not be satisfied with superficial answers. Be open to wonder and at the same time subject all claims to knowledge, without exception, to intense skeptical scrutiny. Be aware of human fallibility. Cherish your species and your

Good one. (#110688)
by Zelig

--

Me: We! -- Ali

i gotta say (#110687)
by nilsey

that was pretty over the top..... all i want to know is, how do i get the spittle off teh inside of my screen after watching that?

that guys is just nuts...

Recent Diaries
Links

Conservative
Liberal
Moderate/Mixed/Non-Partisan
Non-Political/Reference

Related Sites -

Polisci Applied (Aaron)
Intrepid Liberal Journal (Intrepid Liberal)
Obsidian Wings (Bird Dog)
Open Hand/Open Eye (locutas)
Red State (Bird Dog)
Swords Crossed (brendanm98)
Wagster Speaks (Wagster)
WatchingAmerica (BlaiseP)
The Social Pathologist (TSP)

Foreign Affairs -

Abu Aardvark
'Aqoul
American Footprints
Council on Foreign Relations
CSIS
Democracy Arsenal
Intel Dump
The Fourth Rail
The Head Heeb
War and Piece

Politics -

Ace of Spades HQ
Andrew Sullivan
Balloon Juice
Belgravia Dispatch