Fiscally Conservative, Socially tolerant, Anti-War
Keith Olbermann is suing. This was a very bad decision by those in charge at Current. They should have just let Keith do what he wanted and everything would have been fine.The Hollywood Reporter says, "Now, let's disabuse those who think he's unemployable given his track record of going someplace and then leaving not too long after, burned bridges and accusations littering the highway behind him. That reputation of his hasn't stopped anyone yet. And it won't in the future. Olbermann's delivered ratings wherever he's been -- most recently his defining stint at MSNBC and then Current. If you want to equate him to a diva wide receiver in the NFL (or quarterback or whatever), that's fine. If you're a sports fan, you know that those divas always find a home and always get paid".It's back to MSNBC for me. I'm not going to watch Elliot Spitzer. He's OK, but hiring him to host the lynchpin show for the network is unbelievably stupid.The Hollywood Reporter's conclusion is that you should "bet on Olbermann to be around longer [than Current]". I agree. Sorry Al Gore, but I think your network's days are numbered.Up Next: Comments from Rusty and dmarks where they gloat about Keith's "firing".
It's a promition, just like when he left MSNBC to move up to Current-TV.No doubt his new job will put him in the pinnacle of propa... cough "opinion' journalism. Probably doing opinion on public access cable in Ashland, New York. Only on a filler basis when the lady who shows hamster trick's hamster gets sick and then need someone to fill the time slot.As for "Up Next: Comments from Rusty and dmarks where they gloat about Keith's "firing"..... seriously, if not not for your comments in this blog, I'd have no idea Olbermann had still been employed at all after he left MSNBC.
I was thinking DQ counter work or Pinkerton guard duty myself....SIR!!
Then he can call someone the worst person in the world for mistakenly giving him $2.50 for a sundae that costs $2.65.
If you're interested in the TRUTH about why Keith was fired, read my post on the topic, "Corporate Democrats Silence Keith Again!". I suspect none here will though, seeing as this crowd is only interested in bashing Keith and not at all concerned about the facts.I'd appreciate a comment from dmarks, seeing as I've been kind enough to leave a few on his blog recently. Which is saying a lot, given how incredibly boring most of his posts are (pictures of postcards and his thoughts on the postcard).
Us postcard bloggers love that kind of thing. Believe it or not, there are fields of blogging aside from political rants.
wd, weren't you just singing the praises of this corporate entity; something to the effect that "Current TV is even better than MSNBC"?......And what in the hell is wrong with dmarks's blog? Isn't it good that at least a few people aren't writing strictly about politics? Me, I was thinking about blogging only on sports and lesbians, maybe try to get our buddy, Truth, on as a consultant/co-conspirator.
Olbermann? The inconsequential leftist nutcase and blowhard? Well, can't say many who listened to his drivel will give a rats arse that he tanked once again.I'm sure he'll surface again. Slim seems to have a way of floating on the surface.
Les, please, tell us what you really think of Mr. Olbermann. LOL
"Postcard bloggers"? You mean there are other people also blogging on this snooze-inducing topic? That's a little hard to believe.And, I guess there's nothing wrong with it, if you are an individual who likes being bored silly. A sports/lesbian blog sounds, perhaps, just a tiny bit less boring.Have you ever read one of dmarks' posts Will? I don't recall seeing any comments from you. If you really find his blog that exciting I'd expect a comment from you on EVERY post.Yes, I was singing Current's praises, but it was because I didn't know what was going on behind the scenes. Current co-founder Joel Hyatt is a douche.He was hands-off back when Current featured dull viewer-generated content. After the decision was made to switch to news -- and former president Mark Rosenthal hired Keith Olbermann -- Hyatt got excited and decided to take charge again.Keith got along with Rosenthal but clashed with Hyatt. No surprise, seeing as Hyatt is a DLC/Corporate Democrat. This debacle is his fault. He should have stayed hand-off (and not elbowed Rosenthal out of his position), or vetoed the hiring of Olbermann from the get go. Any idiot could have predicted these two wouldn't get along. (that's a summary of my blog post, which I'm positive no one here will read).
Keith did not "tank". He has a loyal following and his viewers added SIGNIFICANTLY to Current's viewership.He was fired because of ideological differences with Current co-founder Joel Hyatt (who wasn't in charge when Keith was hired).
WD said: "Have you ever read one of dmarks' posts Will? I don't recall seeing any comments from you. If you really find his blog that exciting I'd expect a comment from you on EVERY post."You caught me. I have it set so you can't see Will's posts when you visit.
Les said: "I'm sure he'll surface again. Slim seems to have a way of floating on the surface."That explains why I keep seeing this at garage sales.
WD: You might like this blog post of mine. But I won't demand you go look at it.
dmarks: You might like this blog post of mine. But I won't demand you go look at it.Read, and comment left. But dmarks has enabled comment moderation, so whether or not it's published is up in the air. If dmarks decides not to publish... and I ask him why... he'll probably blame it on Blogger. That seems to be the way it goes on his blog.
No, I did not enable comment moderation. Blogspot did, just like it makes many other "improvements" without asking. Yes, Blogger/Blogspot deserves the blame, just like with the recent 'threading' downgrade and the impossible capcha letters.
Olbermann's next stop....a kiosk at the Paramus Mall. WD may very well have to go to his house now,or maybe he'll be on shortwave.
Rusty said: "Olbermann's next stop....a kiosk at the Paramus Mall."Yeah, selling either $40 iphone covers or that awful ice cream that comes in tiny frozen pellets."WORST ICE CREAM IN THE WORLD!!!!""WD may very well have to go to his house now,or maybe he'll be on shortwave."Not even that. He'll be sitting on top of WD's TV giving monologues himself (when he is not kneeling in front of the screen with a Sharpie drawing silly evil moustaches on the glass when O'Reilly comes on). WD, after all, is or was himself an important percentage of Olbermann's "Current TV" audience.
wd (and this is actually a constructive suggestion), maybe Olbermann could do like Howard Stern and some of the others have done and go on Satellite. It's a lot more liberating and you don't have to deal with anywhere near the amount of bullshit. That's what I would do if I were him.......And I've made dozens of comments on dmarks's blog. You just didn't look hard enough.
I feel a lesbian post coming on, btw.
You do notice WD's absence from this post.Even he cant put a spin on this.
Mine was the FIRST post Rusty. Open your eyes. I DID "spin" it (give the real reason, which was not Keith's fault). The corporate Dems can't abide his truth telling.
Will said; "...maybe Olbermann could do like Howard Stern...."This is the first time I've heard about Howard Stern since he went to satellite radio. Otherwise, it is like he died or went into a monastery. No mention of him anywhere.
WD said: "Keith got along with Rosenthal but clashed with Hyatt. No surprise, seeing as Hyatt is a DLC/Corporate Democrat."It didn't take much research at all to find out that Kieth Olbermann is in fact a corporate Democrat. He has worked for media corporations since even before he joined the CNN corporation in 1981. His corporations have included GE (corporate parent of MSNBC), Fox (part of New Corp) and the Walt Disney corporation (corporate parent of ESPN). The man has gotten millions from these major corporations, and for 31 years his career has of nothing but being a mouthpiece for these corporations.He's also been a Democrat for at least as long. He's as corporate as they come, and as Democrat as they come.It's hard to have a conspiracy of "corporate Democrats" against Olbermann, when he is absolutely one of them.We already know Joel Hyatt is also a corporate Democrat. But here it would also be good to point another corporate Democrat, Al Gore, who sits on the board of directors of the world's largest corporation.Is there anyone involved in this dispute who is not a corporate Democrat? Sure does not look like it.
dmarks, you need to buy a clue. I did not mean "corporate" as in they work for a corporation. I meant "corporate" as in they believe in the preachings of the DLC. Keith Olbermann is a PROGRESSIVE, and NOT a DLC/Corporate Democrat. Keith Olbermann speaks against the Conservative/Corporate/DLC wing of the Democratic Party. Keith Olbermann is decidedly NOT a "mouthpiece" for this faction, and this most certainly is why he was fired.IMO anyone who claims Keith is a corporate Democrat is an idiot and/or a liar. Although I'm willing to give you a mulligan this time, seeing as you appear to not have understood what I meant by "corporate".
WD I already have a clue."dmarks, you need to buy a clue. I did not mean "corporate" as in they work for a corporation. I meant "corporate" as in they believe in the preachings of the DLC"What an obtuse twisted meaning (especially since the DLC has little to do with corporate anything). Anyway to ignore that these men either lead large corporations or get millions from them. All of them.Yes, of course. Keith Olbermann is a progressive corporate democrat."Keith Olbermann is decidedly NOT a "mouthpiece" for this faction"Yeah, he is not a mouthpiece for the DLC. I never said he was. But he has spent most of his career making lots of money being a mouthpiece for corporations. And that's a fact, and it makes him very corporate."Although I'm willing to give you a mulligan this time, seeing as you appear to not have understood what I meant by "corporate"."Yes, I did not, as you are running under some obtuse twist of things that has nothing to do with whether or not someone is corporate or not.
from Urban dictionary: Corporate Democrat: A politician who poses as a believer in representative democracy, but is actually, by ideology or legislative action, a firm proponent of a ruling corpocracy, where most power and policy is centered around propping up or protecting corporate interests. [end urban dictionary entry].The definition is not "some obtuse twist of things", it's terminology that has been in use for quite some time. Again, I say you need to buy a clue.
Keith Olbermann is not a corporate Democrat. He is (or was) an employee of a corporation. Working for a corporation doesn't require a person to change their political ideology. I think your definition is "some obtuse twist of things".I'll bet that Will knew what I meant.
A clueless dmarks wrote: ...especially since the DLC has little to do with corporate anythingThe DLC is very much corporate."The Corporatist Democratic Leadership Council" by Ralph Nader.Agree or disagree with Ralph Nader, the point is: here we have a prominent voice in the political arena calling the DLC corporate. You acting all confused by my use of the term PROVES how clueless you are.
Ralph who? When you google corporate democratNader's thing doesn't even come up in the top ten. In fact, the top ten are all over the place.Given how obscure and unused your twist on it is, the usage I am using (if someone is corporate and a Democrat, they are a corporate Democrat) stands out as quite reasonable.Your use of the term is confused and very obscure. I'm not confused at all. Perhaps if you had used "DLC Democrat" as your insult instead, you would have a better argument.
dmarks: Perhaps if you had used "DLC Democrat" as your insult instead, you would have a better argument.They're the same. A DLC Democrat is a corporate Democrat. It isn't "obscure" at all, it is very well known.I suspect you're lying about not having heard the term. You were confused at first but didn't want to admit making such a huge gaffe. You probably slapped your head and said, "how dumb of me!" when I pointed out what I meant. The reason I suspect this is because saying you've never heard the term "corporate Democrat" (the way I used it/the correct way) is only slightly more believable then claiming you've never heard of Ralph Nader.
The DLC is indeed a corporation. However, the corporations that are most relevant for Olbermann are the ones he's received millions for being a mouthpiece for. And the one for corporate Democrat Al Gore is the biggest corporation in the world (the one he sits on the board of).As for the urban dictionary, which is chock full of fake definitions, this one "... where most power and policy is centered around propping up or protecting corporate interest..." is just a nutty conspiracy theory.
By the way, here is an example of NBC News doing what WD claims to decry: lying and misleading in the news, by presenting doctored and faked statements from George Zimmerman on the "Today Show". This is the same company as MSNBC and Rachel Maddow.And in this case Fox turned out to be the real investigative journalists.This is just one of countless examples which makes WD's claim that Fox News lies and the rest do not sort of misleading "propaganda" in itself.This is hardly new. CBS News once presented a fabricated claim of Bush being AWOL that was based on faked documents. WD still defends the bad journalism of "the evidence was fake, but the story was real".
By the way, the obscure definition WD found at the fake dictionary "urban dictionary" is a fail:click here.Most of the people who have reviewed this definition have voted it down.It's worse than "The definition is not "some obtuse twist of things"". The dictionary you dug real hard to find it in presents it as a failed definition.
dmarks, I don't give a damn how many times you gave a thumbs down on the Urban Dictionary definition. That's the definition. I've heard it used on Leftwing news channels and leftwing radio, and you can find hundreds of articles that use it if you do a Google search. It is not at all "obscure", but in fact quite common. I also don't give a damn if you're not familiar with it.Here's a YouTube video about Corporate Democrat Blanche Lincoln.Also, bush was AWOL. The evidence was real. The story was real. The story was NOT based on "faked documents". You're a liar. I never said "the evidence was fake, but the story was real". I NEVER said it.
I can think of a lot of corporate Democrats, wd; Jon Corzine, Rahm Emanuel, Chuck Schumer, Chris Dodd, Timothery Geithner, Tom Daschle, Bill Richardson, Robert Rubin, Barack Obama. I mean, my God, the list of non-corporate Democrats would probably be the shorter one.
"Also, bush was AWOL. The evidence was real. The story was real. The story was NOT based on "faked documents"""The story was fake. The evidence was fake: in fact it was forged. In fact it is the only evidence of the story.On the other side, you have the real story: George W. Bush was never charged with AWOL, and he was discharged honorably (no fake documents there). That doesn't happen in an AWOL case. Sorry, forged documents, an angry party hack or two who can't back up what they say, and a blogger who wishes real hard it were true don't make for a real story.-------------"dmarks, I don't give a damn how many times you gave a thumbs down on the Urban Dictionary definition."I didn't even do one thumbs down, or look into what is necessary to set up an account to do so.In any case, the DLC has nothing to do with corporate interests.
Will, almost none of the Democrats you listed are "corporate"... because the still work for the government. The government isn't a corporation (according to dmarks' redefinition of the term).dmarks: In any case, the DLC has nothing to do with corporate interests.Except their advocating that Democratic politicians accept campaign contributions from them and do their bidding. Other then that, no, nothing.
When did I redefine corporation?The government is often in regards to the negative attributes ascribed to corporations. It's less accountable (due to being a monopoly) and it will readily shoot you or harm you in other ways if you refuse to do business with it. The DLC is actually known for being a somewhat less hardline version of leftist: giving more consideration to the interests of the people instead of the State, compared to the more hardline leftists.
dmarks: When did I redefine corporation?You didn't. I used the word "corporate" to mean in the pocket of big business. You redefined it to mean "works for, or owns, a corporation". None of the politicians Will mentioned (those that still are politicians) work for corporations, and are therefore (using your redefinition) not corporate.dmarks: The DLC is actually known for... giving more consideration to the interests of the people...If you believe corporations are people, then, yes, the DCL definitely DOES give more consideration to the interests of "the people" (ie corporations).I happen to strongly disagree that corporations are people, as do most Democratic voters and progressive politicians. That is why we don't like the DLC.
WD said: "You didn't. I used the word "corporate" to mean in the pocket of big business."Yet, you listed as an example the DLC, which is not in the pocket of big business. More incoherence from you."If you believe corporations are people, then, yes"No, I was referring to the fact, that by being more centrist, the DLC tends more toward the interest of actual persons (not corporations) than the interests of the State.
dmarks: Yet, you listed as an example the DLC, which is not in the pocket of big business. More incoherence from you.Actually, the incoherence is coming from you. Sucking up to corporate interests for campaign cash is one of the primary founding principles of the DLC.dmarks: I was referring to the fact, that by being more centrist, the DLC tends more toward the interest of actual persons...Another of your "false facts" dmarks. Being centrist means they tend more toward the interests of corporations (as exemplified by Will) and away from the interests of the people.
wd, I listed those individuals, a) because they take a lot of corporate money and b) because the legislation that they proffer is frequently a bonanza (that cap and trade turkey is a perfect example) for big money interests and tends to hurt far more more the smaller businesses and start-ups.......And if that's your definition of a centrist, wd, then President Obama blows me clear out of the water. NO CONTEST.
Will: President Obama blows me clear out of the water. NO CONTEST.But, regarding whether or not President Obama gets "it", you said, "doubtful so far". Those are your words: he doesn't get it (or it's doubtful, at least).He (according to your definition of "it") can't "blow you out of the water". You get "it" and president Obama does not.
wd, you're conflating two entirely separate topics. Yes, in my opinion, Mr. Obama is at least a dabbling corporatist. But how in the hell does that mean that he "gets the economy"? Are you saying that I think that only corporatists understand the economy (a ridiculous construct in that it's the smaller and mid-sized firms who are emerging drivers of the economy and those who tend to get the shaft when big business and big government get into bed together)?
Will: Are you saying that I think that only corporatists understand the economy...Yes, that is what I understood you meant by "it". Which is why Progressives admire FDR... for not getting "it".Also, you're referring to that book/hit job by the Rightwing author with an agenda (I forget the title and author, but I'm sure you know which book I mean). The one with the subtitle that confirms that the "facts" within will be highly spun to make Obama look as bad as possible.But, yes, Obama is a centrist who is "at least a dabbling corporatist". But that would mean he "got it", and you said he didn't. Which is it?
Timothy Carney is a well-respected libertarian whose book is one of the most completely documented and researched books that I've ever read (and he hammers the Republicans and Bush as well). And the fact that you can't give even one specific of how he "spun" the data (almost all of which he derived from nonpartisan sources such as opensecrets.org and even some leftists sources such as the New York Times) is yet another example of you making callous and unsubstantiated accusations.......I'll deal with the rest of your nonsequitor when I get home from work.
You haven't read the book and you haven't researched the book. And you're basing your entire assessment of it based upon one cherry-picked review from Amazon by yet another malcontent who probably hasn't read it, either! And you did the same exact thing with Dr. Emanuel's book, too....I'm beginning to see a disturbing (as in frighteningly closed minded) trend here, wd.
Alright, let me try and explain this to you AGAIN. a) "Getting it" does not mean playing favoritism and footsy with large corporations (a la Mr.s Bush and Obama). It doesn't mean that at all. It means that a person understands that an overtaxed and over-regulated economy IN GENERAL (the economy isn't just corporations, wd - you are in fact aware of that, correct?) is bad for America's business sector.......b) Regulations oft-times end up hurting smaller firms and start-ups more so than they do the larger corporations. The larger corporations have the higher priced lawyers and are able to afford compliance more readily and some regulations actually make it impossible for working and middle class individuals to even start a damned business (again, I refer you the Medallion cab monopoly in N.Y.C. and the fact that a young kid can't even start a lemonade stand these days without some stupid-assed official bearing down on him/her).......c) Big government legislation all too often HELPS the big corporations. I refer you to the health-care bill, the stimulus, cap and trade (a monstrosity of a perk-barreled turkey), etc.. I mean, it's a veritable love-fest at times.
Will: It means that a person understands that an overtaxed and over-regulated economy...It's my understanding that you use "overtaxed and over-regulated" as code for bending over backward to please our corporate masters.I do not believe the economy is over-taxed or over-regulated. I'm sure there are some dumb regulations, and there are some regulations that are unnecessary, but, in general, I think corporations are under-regulated, and/or the regulations that exist aren't being enforced.This is how we got the housing bubble and the BP oil spill.
Will: You haven't read the book and you haven't researched the book. And you're basing your entire assessment of it based upon one cherry-picked review from Amazon by..."I did not base my assessment of the book based on an Amazon review. I based it on the highly inflammatory subtitle... "How Barack Obama Is Bankrupting You and Enriching His Wall Street Friends, Corporate Lobbyists, and Union Bosses".Union bosses? Yeah, I know where this guy is coming from, and I don't share his worldview.But I did a little research, and according to a Firedoglake post, "The reality of Obama's presidency is so bad that Cenk Uygur has called it Barack Obama, Inc".Now, the article doesn't say that Cenk Uygur (an individual I trust) read and approves the book, so I'm still thinking (based on the title) that there is still a fair amount of spinning going on, but I'll also concede that there definitely is some criticisms to be rightly levied against Obama in regard to his relationship with Wall Street and Corporate Lobbyists (but NOT with "Union Bosses").Not that I didn't think this before though. I think you misunderstood my mistrust of this book. I never said I thought everything in it was probably an outright lie.Maybe he's got it fairly accurate (except for the union bashing, of course).
I just looked at the Amazon reviews, and I remember now which review I must have referenced before. It was this one:Disgusting Title.The author of this Amazon review is 100 percent correct.I bet you're basing your entire assessment of this guy's review on my recommendation of it. In other words, you're bashing the reviewer without having read his review. Yet you bash me for not reading or researching the Carney book (which the reviewer points out has a title meant to pander to the rightwingers)... what do you make of that?I'm going to take the reviewer's advice and pass on this book/Obama hit job by a partisan with an agenda.
a) Your understanding is wrong. b) The housing bubble had little to do with under-regulation (the budget of the SEC more than doubled under Mr. Bush), in my opinion, and far more to do with the idiotic policies of Alan Greenspan and the FED; artificially low interest rates causing too much money to flow into the housing sector, a far too expanding money supply, the creation of a bailout culture, etc.. c) You base your opinion of an entire book based on a subtitle? Wow. d) Timothy Carney is NOT a partisan (Chris Hayes says that he reads his tweets every day). He hammers Bush almost as he does Mr. Obama. You are totally wrong on this one. e) Maybe his next book will have a better subtitle.
You're going to vote for the candidate who is bankrupting you, and enriching his Wall Street friends, corporate lobbyists, and "union bosses"?! I wouldn't vote for that guy. Not if there were an alternative who was a moderate like like me (if I were a moderate, which I'm not).[A] Business is not overtaxed or over-regulated. Therefore my understanding is correct.[B] The housing bubble was caused by under regulation. The things you cite were factors too, but it was mostly under regulation.[C] Yes.[D] Carney is a Libertarian partisan. And Alan Greenspan is a Libertarian... in fact, he had direct interaction with Ayn Rand.So what if Chris Hayes reads his tweets? I don't care... but what about you? I thought you had a low opinion of Chris Hayes? Does this change your opinion of him?There may be some interesting info in his tweets, although one would have to decipher them and disregard the Libertarian BS.
A) When Blacks and Hispanics in many cities can't start their own cab companies because they can't afford the licensing, when little girls won't even start a lemonade stand for fear of getting busted, and when my own dang mother had to spend hundreds of dollars to renovate simply because some idiot at OSHA said the sinks at her beauty parlor were a couple of inches too close together, then, yeah, we really DO have a spate too many regulations.......B) Investment banks such as Lehman Brothers and Bears Stearns were at the center of the financial crisis and they would have been able to make the same bad investments had the Gramm-Leaech-Bliley Act never even passed.......As for the SEC, yes, it did change it's rules relative to an investment bank's debt to net-capital ratios (2004). But an analysis of these companies' ratios indicate that in many instances they were actually HIGHER prior to 2004. HIGHER, wd!.......I've already cited that spending on financial regulation and the number of pages in the regulation codes were both at an all-time high during the eight years of the Bush administration (kind of a pesky little fact, huh?).......The Commodities Futures Modernization Act, you ask? Yes, it did allow for the emergence of credit swaps and other such "instruments", but it didn't in any way create the original risk to happen - you know, the actual toxic loans themselves. Hell, if anything, that law may have spread the risk around a little.......C) An excessively close-minded and childlike criteria - judging something on such a ridiculously superfluous ground.......D) A libertarian partisan? Wow, is that kind of like a Green Party partisan? And why do you rag so much on libertarians? Except for the taxing the shit out of successful people and redistributing it to the irresponsible people component, you just might find that they're a hell of a lot less crony and corporate leaning than the Democrats and Keynesians. That, and they're certainly a hell of a lot better than the Dems on civil liberties, reducing the military budget, and foreign policy.......And Mr. Greenspan is a registered Republican (perhaps with some libertarian leanings - though, based on his worrysome/idiotic FED policies, I highly doubt it at this point) who I've consistently been critical of (funny, you NEVER cite that fact when calling me a conservative).
Post a Comment