The “Crushing” 1998 Vin Scully/Mike Piazza Interview Isn’t That Crushing

Mike Piazza has written a new book in which he claims that Dodgers fans turned against him during his ill-fated contract negotiations in 1998 because Vin Scully asked him about it during a Spring Training interview.

“He wasn’t happy about it. And Scully’s voice carried a great deal of authority in Los Angeles…The way the whole contract drama looked to them (the fans) — many of whom were taking their cue from Scully — was that, by setting a deadline and insisting on so much money, I was demonstrating a conspicuous lack of loyalty to the ball club. I understood that.”

As he started the season poorly at the plate, “Vin Scully was crushing me,” Piazza concluded.

The ‘crushing’ 1998 Scully interview on my alma mater KTLA is available online. Watching it, it can only be hoped that Mike hasn’t seen it, and had it (mis)interpreted for him by someone who has since been treated for paranoia or at least crippling – maybe the right word is crushing - tone deafness.

(C) KTLA

(C) KTLA

“We’re visiting with Mike Piazza, and I’m sure neither one of us would like to talk about it, and yet the millions of people out there watching are interested in it, it is a big story, so consequently we have to address it. And that is, you’re down here, playing out the last year of your contract, coming up hopefully for you will be a multi-year multi-million dollar contract. Is that on your mind?”

Crushing.

Piazza answered generically about trying not to think about it and being blessed with a great family and agent. Twice he said he hoped “it’d just take care of itself.” He went to nearly every cliche except ‘Employees Must Wash Hands.’

Then Scully went for the kill:

“Well to be honest, you know, the outsiders, myself and all the other fans, we pick up a newspaper: ‘Piazza issues an ultimatum,’ and you say ‘whoa! What is that all about?”

While branding himself just a fan, Scully has actually done something that a fair reporter does (and so it is rarely seen or heard or done). He offers Piazza the opportunity to say that the characterization as an “ultimatum” of the timeline he set for the Dodgers to sign him to a new deal – a very fair thing for Piazza to do with free agency seven months away – was inappropriate or incorrect.

Piazza will have none of it. He doesn’t criticize the reporting, he doesn’t criticize the Dodgers. He gives it the old c’est-la-vie: “We basically just made clear our intentions that for me, I mean, I made all along that I would love to work things out with the Dodgers. We didn’t mean it to be threatening, we didn’t mean it to – unfortunately it comes out that way sometimes – but again, I stated I would love to be a Dodger for my whole career and I hope we can work things out and again that remains to be seen. If for some reason I happen to be a free agent at the end of this year I hope the Dodgers are the number one team that’s interested. So, again those things, unfortunately sometimes get a little bit misconstrued in the paper and they come out maybe a little bit aggressive but for me again, I try to be very professional about it and realize my job is on the field and my representative, what he does is his job, so I have to trust him on a lot of things.”

Scully, Question Three:

“Sure. Well ultimatum is a heavy word. That’s the kind of the thing, ‘if you don’t do this, we bomb you.’”

Here that stinker Scully goes again, giving Piazza a chance to say it’s not an ultimatum, that he doesn’t want the thing to drag through the season and potentially ruin 1998 for him, or the Dodgers, or the franchise for the next decade (or, as it proved, all of the above).

But instead of taking this second opportunity to paint himself in a good light, Piazza again tries to have it both ways. Instead of saying ‘it’s not an ultimatum,’ or ‘I don’t think of it as an ultimatum,’ or ‘the Dodgers have unfairly leaked this to make me look bad,’ or even ‘Vin, you’re being unfair to me,’ he again tacitly accepts the term: “Well, again, that wasn’t the intention at all, we just wanted to make clear that for me, again, I basically came up through this organization and my intentions are to work things out and it remains to be seen. But again, as far as I’m concerned, it’s done, it’s over with, I’m here to play baseball, I’m signed to play through this year and I’m going to go out there and give 110% as far as not short-changing myself, the fans, or the organization. And everything else, again, remains to be seen.”

Ah, but that’s when Scully absolutely destroys Piazza.

“Absolutely. And well said.”

At this point Scully literally turns the interview to the question of Piazza’s knees, and then how many stolen bases Piazza had in 1997, and the next we hear of this almost milquetoast chat, it’s fifteen years later and this - not Piazza’s intransigence in negotiations nor the lunkheadedness of the Dodgers’ then-new owner Rupert Murdoch - this Scully interview is what induced Armageddon at Chavez Ravine.

Scully was understandably mystified. ”As God is my judge, I don’t get involved in these things,” he told The Los Angeles Times. ”I can’t imagine I would ever put my toe in the water as far as a player and his negotiations.

What Piazza was trying to do in the interview, of course, is exactly what he has so belatedly and unfairly accused Scully of so many years later. He was trying to influence Dodger fans. He wanted them to rally to his side. He wanted them to help him pressure the team to give him the money (now a ridiculous-sounding $105 million over seven years – $15,000,000 a season). He didn’t want to issue an ultimatum, but he wanted them to think there was an ultimatum dictated by circumstances and he had done all he could to avoid it and would continue to do so and gee don’t the Dodger Dogs smell good?

Again, one hopes Piazza hadn’t seen the interview and simply had it recounted to him by somebody who didn’t get it. You know: somebody who doesn’t understand English. That Piazza had a totally hit-and-miss record with, and understanding of, the media (if asked in 2000 to identify the most cooperative MLB star and the least cooperative one, my answer each time would’ve been “Mike Piazza”) suggests otherwise.

The sadness here is that until the release of his new book, Piazza’s exit from Los Angeles had been seen as one of the sharpest downhill turning points in the years between Kirk Gibson’s homer and the day the franchise was wrested away from Frank McCourt. If Dodgers fans did have it in for Piazza – because of Scully or their frustration or the shape of his mustache – they quickly turned. For nearly all of the last fifteen years he had been viewed as the victim in the equation, and his departure as an unnecessary and uncorrectable mistake.

Until, that is, he went and blamed Vin Scully, of all people, and forever made it look like Rupert Murdoch was the good guy in all this.

84 Comments

Pingback: The “Crushing” 1998 Vin Scully/Mike Piazza Interview Video - Unofficial Network

KO again you are the best when it comes to understanding baseball, you once again wrote a right on article and showing why you are this generations Murrow. Keep it up, it was a great read, keep showing that you are on to bigger and better things. Sorry again that Current treated you like crap, again will not be happy if you do not get the justice you desrve for being unjustily fired from there. Keep being yourself and you will always have a fan in me. Love you faults and all.

Just another crybaby overpriced unproFUSSYinal athlete …

BB was a commentator, not an athlete. But other than that, right on.

V
Thanks for showing how igorant you are about KO. KO V is not a commentator he is a journalist and do not say different because you would be lying. KO thier is no such thing as BB, that V is a made up story by Gibson, because V Gibson hated being called out on his bullying.
Also KO is not a crybaby, you would not know what a crybaby looks like. You think a guy who wants what is in his contract and wanted to be able to work in good enviroment aka working studio and set, is not V what a crybaby looks like. Sorry but that does not describe KO, that descibes you, you hate when KO tells the truth and calls out Fox and republicans on thier lies.
Thanks for showing that V has no idea who KO is. Sorry KO is not a crybaby that V is pure BS and not true no matter what you say. You V support the cyrbabies like Gibson, who hate being called out on thier bullying so they make stories up that have no truth in them.
Thanks for posting something that does and never will as much as you wish it what KO is, just posting a name that is not a name that KO has and is made up along with the story.
V you show that you have no idea who KO is and never will, I have to laugh with how made up this post is and how igonrant you are about who KO is and what happened at Current. YOu did not describe KO V you describe yourself and the other bullies like Gibson that support and do not say different because that would be another V lie, here is who Gibson is and how you have zero idea what being human looks like Also keep showing that BY has no idea what being human is,
here again is who Gibson is KO is not BB, thier is no such thing as bath tub boy that is something that was made up by John Gibson because KO was not allowed to call him worst person. Also anyone that uses that name shows that they have zero clue what being human is. John Gibson thought it was funny to make fun of Stewart’s pain on 911, he thought it was funny to make fun of Lugar’s suicude by his I could never quit you quto, UPDATE: John Gibson has “apologized” for his distasteful comments on Heath Ledger’s death. Though he first defended his statements on his radio show yesterday — there is “no point in passing up a good joke,” he said, and repeated his “Brokeback Mountain” joke saying, “I’m not giving that up” — he eventually caved to pressure to apologize and did so on his television show.
Still, his apology seemed forced, and relatively half-hearted:
Those who knew him say he was a good actor and a loving dad. And what happened to him was terrible, but was evidently an accident. Once again, to anyone offended by my comments, I’m sorry. But I’m also sorry that Heath Ledger is no longer alive and with us.
ThinkProgress has the audio of Gibson’s defense of his comments, and MediaMatters has the video of his “apology.”

ORIGINAL ITEM: Fox News’ John Gibson found a way to outdo MSNBC’s Courtney Hazlett for the most inappropriate comment on Heath Ledger’s death. ThinkProgress reports that, on his radio show yesterday (which opened with funeral music), Gibson called Ledger a “weirdo” with a “serious drug problem.” Making fun of the famous “I wish I knew how to quit you” line from “Brokeback Mountain,” Gibson said of his death, “Well, he found out how to quit you.”
This is not Gibson’s first time making inappropriate comments in the wake of tragedy. In July 2005, just one day before the 7/7 terrorist bombings in London, Gibson said that “the International Olympic Committee missed a golden opportunity….If they had picked France instead of London to hold the Olympics, it would have been the one time we could look forward to where we didn’t worry about terrorism. They’d blow up Paris, and who cares?” The next day, after the London bombings, Gibson.
Also only people that live in alterante universes think that this is Obama’s Monica lewsinsky. Excuse me, were was the cover up, were was Obama lying, wow were was Obama having a affair with a intern. You really show that you have no idea what you talk about.
Also I love how you put out a made up Special Comment that KO never gave. Showing that you do not know what pardoy is. This story has nothing to do with KO, so keep showing how igonrant you are on KO and that you have zero clue what make believe aka pardoy sketch and reality are.
KO is not BB that is a made up story and anyone that uses it shows that they have zero idea what being human is.
Wow once again you show that you not KO are the immature one, and do not say different because that would be a lie. Only people that are igorant about who KO is and what immature behavior like you would believe those made up talking points, that again are debunked like everything that you say, and again I am someone who would care crap if Ko was that, that is how I know that KO is opposite of immature and that those talking points describe you to a tee.
Keep showing that you do not know what being human means, only people in alternate unvierses would believe the made up lie by Gibson that get’s debunked.
Keep lying and showing how igorant you are about who KO is, sorry KO is no crybaby that is who you and Gibson are.

Also here is more of what happened at Current I really laugh because all those points do not describe KO.
Let’s see point one making excuses wow I did not know having a doctor say that you have throat infection was making an excuse wow, I guess you were in those appointments, By do you live in alternate reality, in KO’s business having thorat infections are career dangerous if you do not get them treated. Wow trying to get what in his contract like control of the news department, wow I did not know that was makng excuses, I did not know that trying to get his studio to work and his set to work was making excuses. So sorry that first one does not describe KO.
What despitful behavior has KO done, wow I love how you show how igorant you are on KO, Ko has never given anyone the silent treatment and do not put out debunk articles that only show that one to be false. Also again love how you show that you are igorant about not being couties or the other. Again you put out made up crap trying to show that KO is something that he not.
So you have shown that KO is neither number one or number two, but those two describe you and Current.
Wow I did not know that wanting your set to work and your studio to work was being selfish, wow I did not know that wanting what was in your contract was being selish. Please keep lying about who KO is and showing that you not KO are the imature one. Also thanks again for describing Current.
Wow again I did not know your set not working your studio falling apart and Current ignoring it was called being hypersentive, wow thanks again for showing that you do not know what those traits look like. You keep showing how mature kO is and how imature Hyatt and Gibson and you are.
Wow were has KO twisted the truth, I did not know that wanting again to have what in your contract, to make sure that your brand is not hurt aka Current making KO do a commerical for AT&T was what twisting truth is. Thanks again for showing that Current, you and Gibson are immature ones.
Wow sorry again that does not describe KO, where has KO defied logic. Wanting to rest your voice so you can give more years to your employer is showing that you are being unlogical and unreasonable, again trying to get your studio to work and your set to work, that is what being unlogical is. Wow you show that you have no idea what logic is.
Wow I did not know that wanting time to recover from a infection that if did not left untreated could be a end of a career for a broadcaster, wow keep showing that you have no idea what being a crybaby is and if you say different you will be lying. Thanks V for showing that KO once again is opposite of what you want him to be, and that V is everything that they claim KO is. Keep showing why KO is this generations Murrow and will be around for years to come.

This is really deplorable behavior on the part of Mike Piazza. It’s just to sell his book which he probably had little influence in writing. I feel sorry for Lonnie Wheeler, the co-author, to have had to sit down and listen to this whiner about how he felt when playing on the team, and how he didn’t get along with teammates, and how Vin Scully ‘crushed’ him during an interview in the last season with the Dodgers. If he really wanted to play for the Dodgers, then he should have just accepted the terms and not given a time frame for resolution. Contract negotiations are difficult enough without the added pressure of putting a time limit on it.
And who is to say our illustrious Mr. Murdoch did not leak the story and call it an ultimatum in the first place. I would not put it past the man to soil the negotiations. Look at all the phone hacking that went on under his nose. Since Mike Piazza did not dispute the charge when given the opportunity, he has no cause for stating what he did about Vin Scully who clearly gave him chances to set the record straight.
This is a clear case of trying to make yourself out to be a victim when you really didn’t make the grade you promised you would. He failed in that season to produce the 110% he promised. And now it has turned out to be a publicity stunt to draw attention to his book. By the way, I wouldn’t buy it.
Great article Keith. Vince Scully is a man of great integrity and I do not believe anything otherwise.

This is a ver intersting post and also thought provking, and I agree with you Mary that I would not put anything past Murdouch also, espically when it comes to stuff like this aka phone scandal like you said. Keep it up.

Having say that get off this blog and let people talk baseball, you belong on we are igorant about KO and love to show why we have no idea what being human means, by supporting people that think it funny to make fun of sucide like Gibson did, and do not say different because that would be another lie from V. You really make me love and respect KO by showing me that KO is opposite of who you say he is and always will be, and do not say different on that because that would be another lie from V and showing that V is everything that they say KO is and that V has no idea and never will have any idea who KO, only comes on here to show how igorant V is on KO and do not say different V because that would be another lie. Only people V that live in alternate universes would believe the crap that comes out of your mouth and do not say different on that because that would be another lie.

Moderators we have a troll on the loose, please get them removed.

This is like being mad at God for putting the ocean too far from my house.

KO keep being yourself and showing why you are this generations Murrow and you will always have a fan in me, cannot wait to see you on Fugerson, keep showing why you will be around for years to come. Love you faults and all, will not be happy if you do not get the justice that you desrve for being unjustily fired at Current.

Pingback: The “Crushing” 1998 Vin Scully/Mike Piazza Interview Isn’t That Crushing - Unofficial Network

I started the book last night – I’m up to his first full season with the Dodgers. I’ve always been a HUGE fan of catchers – Fisk & Piazza – my top two. That Piazza came up through the Dodgers who were MY TEAM until Murdoch bought them made it a double source of fun for me. As a kid who grew up with Vin Scully in her ear every night listening to games on the radio – this who thing makes my heart hurt.

BUT – I agree with your interpretation Kieth. I also agree with your description of Mike as the most and least cooperative player. He was always complicated – he’d have some fantastically fun and insightful conversations with Jim Rome on the radio one day, then clam up and be totally Mr Media/Image savvy coolness the next. I didn’t care though – what mattered to me was what he did on the field and in that way he never disappointed me. Nor did Fisk who has always been a cantankerous New Englander with a mighty chip on HIS shoulder here and there in interviews too.

The book so far is a fun read mostly because it mirrors my memories as a kid growing up watching baseball in the same era as Mike (he’s just three years younger than me). It is well told, but he also comes across as more disillusioned and defensive than I would have expected.

Unfortunately for Mike – Vin Scully will win out in the take back from that interview just about every time. As he should. No one classier or better at his job than Scully.

Christina
I love you insight on this, also love the passion you have for the Dogers and the game. I think if I remember correctly my mom loved this team when they were still in New York. Again KO you wrote a great article. Keep showing what a gifted writer you are. Again keep being yourself and you will always have a fan in me. Love you faults and all.

… but wait just a dang minute, Jon Stewart swears by this guy’s integrity, and Jon Stewart’s like never wrong, ever.

Good article, Keith. In other words: from-way-downtown-bang.

I can remember a Dodgers pitcher at the time saying that the staff hoped that he got a hit in his first at bat so that he could concentrate on calling the game not his hitting. But to blame VIN SCULLY? How ridiculous!

Even though I am a long time SF Giants fan, Have always liked and respected Mr. Scully. He is a real gentleman. Also, off topic, but somehow relevant; I have always gotten a big kick out of that other die-hard Dodger Tommie Lasorda (yea, I know, heresy from a Giants Fan, I could get booed for saying it out loud). As for Piazza; just another Whiner.

I spend many hours each season listening to Vin Scully– he’s the most fair-minded, positive, objective person I’ve ever listened to when it comes to baseball, and probably in other matters too (though he has contributed quite a bit of money to Republican candidates– forgiven). He turns play-by-play into sheer poetry. And he’s funny too. One day at Dodger stadium there were quite a few flies buzzing around. After noting them for a couple innings Mr. Scully said: “The top of the third inning at Dodger Stadium and the flies rule the infield.” I love that guy.

The best thing about being a great guy or gal is that no matter what anyone else says, YOU know and OTHER folks with good sense know that you ARE that great person. Such a character does not have to worry about a thing, because there are indeed other grand folks who will come along and insist that you are as good as gold! Like you just DID! One’s own life is constantly blogging about WHO one is. Mama used to say, “Your friends don’t need and explanation, and your enemies won’t believe it.” Mama knew. And Vin Scully does too. ;)

One commentator said that the interview isn’t dispositive in this sense: Piazza referred to Scully broadcasting about him, and, in theory, he could have been critical there–but the same commentator made the important point that whatever The Vin said, Piazza wouldn’t have heard it, since he was playing. Now, that said, I have listened to The Vin (he isn’t a big ego, but he isn’t merely Vin any more, you know?) for 40 years and, if I were to criticize him for anything, it would be that he really isn’t critical enough at times (I have thought his friendship with Tommy Lasorda may have contributed him to not pointing out some obviously boneheaded moves). The idea that he would have gone after Piazza in the way he suggests is ridiculous.

This sort of thing has happened once before. When the Dodgers got rid of reliever Mike Marshall, he claimed that the fans never accepted him in LA because Scully never gave him the credit he deserved. Uh, what? The next time Marshall pitched in LA for the Braves, after being introduced, he got the biggest round of boos I have ever heard, and there was not even a hint of a trace of satisfaction in the voice of the play-by-play announcer, who happened to be … yes, Scully. Nor did he say a word on the air about Jeff Kent, if you’ll recall that bundle of cuddliness complaining that The Vin didn’t know when he was talking about when he said that Kent benefited from having a big hitter in the lineup with him. The great Jim Murray, who was one of his best friends, said that the only two players he knew of whom Scully disliked were Marshall and Eddie Murray, but I never heard any sign of it on the air. As it should be.

Micheal
This is a intersting post, thanks for your imput.

Back in the 1960′s a washed-up actor named Keefe Brasselle got in the Jacqueline Sussan derby by writing a trashy novel called “The Cannibals.” One of the characters was an egomaniacal comedian nakedly based on…wait for it…Jack Benny. Benny was such a beloved character (try to find someone saying a bad word about him) it generated a backlash against Brasselle as being both talentless and tone-deaf. That’s my take on Piazza. Vin Scully, besides being the only baseball announcer in history who is consistently “better than the game” is one of the most benign media presences anywhere. The idea of him trashing ANYBODY is ludicrous.

Very intersting fact there

Hey Jerk- How about letting actual baseball fans like myself enjoy this blog?

Trust me Fred I would love if that troll would leave, I hate when people bully so that is why I have to react, but I want to sit back and listen to you guys talk baseball, guys like you and KO have taught me and continue to teach me and make this game intersting.

Wow keep showing that you love to support hate speech, by using this word.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=olbermann
1. Olbermann
119 up, 0 down

1. Obama supporting, Hillary/McCain bashing, talking head on MSNBC. Also spends time bashing Bill O’reilly. He frequently makes fun of O’reilly’s fat head. It’s incredibly funny that Keith now has a head of equal proportion.
2. To bash Hillary Clinton for 20 minutes, bash John McCain as old and stupid for 15, tell 1 minute goofy stories that were once the a corner stone of Countdown, 5 minutes railing on random Republicans and Foxnews. About ten minutes is taken from the Hillary or McCain bashing three times a week to either praise his Jesus Barack Obama or talk about American Idol which he claims to hate but loves to talk about.
Olbermann is said to be the new Edward R. Murrow. I had no idea Murrow was a douche bag/cunt.

Olbermann is talking down to his viewers. He speaks like they are mindless idiots. The way he over explains in condescending tones you’d think no one ever heard of his current subject matter that has been on every TV and the front of every newspaper in the country.

Wow
By shows that BVy has no idea what telling truth which KO does and bashing which By is doing right now with KO.
First Olbermann has critized both Clinton and Obama

Text of Keith Olbermann’s “Special Comment” delivered live last night on MSNBC, decrying Hillary Clinton for the tactics of her campaign and specifically for her failure to categorically reject the remarks of Geraldine Ferraro about Barack Obama. The video may be viewed here. Transcript below:

KEITH OLBERMANN: Finally, as promised, a special comment on the presidential campaign of the junior senator from New York. By way of necessary preface, President and Senator Clinton and the senator’s mother and the senator’s brother were of immeasurable support to me at the moments when these very commentaries were the focus of the most surprise, the most uncertainty and the most anger. My gratitude to them is unbiding.

Also, I am not here endorsing Senator Obama`s nomination, nor suggesting in it is inevitable. Thus I have fought with myself over whether or not to say anything. Events insist.

Senator, as it has reached its apex in their tone deaf, arrogant and insensitive reaction to the remarks of Geraldine Ferraro, your own advisers are slowly killing your chances to become president. Senator, their words and your own are now slowly killing the chances for any Democrat to become president. In your tepid response to this Ferraro disaster, you may sincerely think you disenthralling an enchanted media and righting an unfair advance bestowed on Senator Obama. You may think the matter has closed with Representative Ferraro’s bitter, almost threatening resignation letter.

But, in fact, senator, you are now campaigning as if Barack Obama were the Democrat and you were the Republican. As Shakespeare wrote, senator, “that way madness lies.” You have missed a critical opportunity to do what was right. No matter what Miss Ferraro now claims, no one took her comments out of context. She had made them on at least there separate occasions, then twice more on television this morning. Just hours ago, on “NBC Nightly News,” she denied she had made the remark in an interview, only at a paid political speech.

In fact, the first time she spoke them was 10 days before that California newspaper published them, not in a speech, but in a radio interview. On February 26, quoting, “if Barack Obama were a white man, would we be talking about this as a potential real problem for Hillary. If he were a woman of any color, would he be in this position that he’s in? Absolutely not.”

The content was inescapable. Two minutes earlier, a member of Senator Clinton’s finance committee, one of her Hill-Raisers had bemoaned the change in allegiance by super delegate John Lewis from Clinton to Obama and also the endorsement of Obama by Senator Dodd; “I look at these guys doing it,” she had said, “and I have to tell you, it`s the guys sticking together.”

A minute after the color remark, she was describing herself as having been chosen for the 1984 Democratic ticket purely as a woman politician, purely to make history. She was, in turn, making a blind accusation of sexism and dismissing Senator Obama`s candidacy as nothing more than some equal opportunity stunt.

The next day, she repeated her comments and a reporter from the newspaper in Torrence, California heard them; “If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. If he was a woman of any color, he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is and the country is caught up in the concept.”

And when this despicable statement, ugly in its overtones, laughable in its week grip of the facts, and moronic in the historical context, when it floats outward from the Clinton campaign like a poison cloud, what do the advisers have their candidate do? Do they have Senator Clinton herself compare the remark to Al Campanis (ph) talking on “Nightline” on Jackie Robinson Day about how blacks lack the necessities to become baseball executives, while she points out that Barack Obama has not gotten his 1600 delegates as part of some kind of affirmative action plan?

Do they have Senator Clinton note that her own brief period in elected office is as irrelevant to the issue of judgment as is Senator Obama’s, while she points out that FDR had served only six years as governor and state senator before he became president? Or that Teddy Roosevelt had four and a half years before the White House? Or that Woodrow Wilson had two years and six weeks?

Or Richard Nixon 14? And Calvin Coolidge 25?

Do these advisers have Senator Clinton invoke Samantha Power, gone by sunrise after she used the word monster, and have Senator Clinton say, this is how I police my campaign, and this is what I stand for, while she fires former Congresswoman Ferraro from any role in the campaign? No, somebody tells her that simply disagreeing with, then rejecting the remarks is sufficient. She should then call regrettable words that should make any Democrat retch.

And that she should then try to twist them, first into some pox on both your houses plea to stick to the issues, and then to let her campaign manager try to bend them beyond all recognition into Senator Obama’s fault. And thus these advisers give Congresswoman Ferraro nearly a week in which to send Senator Clinton`s campaign back into the vocabulary of David Duke; “anytime anybody does anything that in any way pulls this campaign down and says, let`s address reality and the problems we’re facing in this world, you`re accused of being racist, so you have to shut up. Racism works in two different directions. I really think they are attacking me because I’m white. How’s that?”

How’s that? Apart from sounding exactly like Rush Limbaugh attacking the black football quarterback Donovan McNab, apart from sounding exactly like what Miss Ferraro said about another campaign nearly 20 years ago, quote, “President Reagan suggested Tuesday that people don’t ask Jesse Jackson tough questions because of his race. Former Representative Geraldine A. Ferraro said Wednesday that because of his, quote, radical views, if Jesse Jackson were not black, he would not be in the race.”

So apart from sounding like insidious racism that is at least two decades old, apart from rendering ridiculous Senator Clinton`s shell game about choosing Obama as vice president, apart from this evenings resignation letter; “I am stepping down from your finance committee so I can speak for myself and you can continue to speak for yourself about what is at stake in this campaign. The Obama campaign is attacking me to hurt you.”

Apart from all that, well, it sounds as if those advisers wanted their campaign to be associated with those words, and the cheap, ignorant, vile racism that underlies every syllable of them, and that Geraldine Ferraro has just gone freelance.

Senator Clinton, that is not a campaign strategy. This is a suicide pact. This week alone, your so-called strategists have declared that Senator Obama has not yet crossed some commander in chief threshold, but he might still be your choice to be vice president, even though a quarter of
the previous 16 vice presidents have become commander in chief during the greatest kind of crisis this country can face, a midterm succession, but you only pick him if he crosses that threshold by the time of the convention.

But if he does cross that threshold by the time of the convention, he will only have done so sufficiently enough to become vice president, not president? Senator, if the serpentine logic of your so-called advisers were not bad enough, now thanks to Geraldine Ferraro and your campaigns initial refusal to break with her, and your new relationship with her, now more disturbing still with her claim that she can now speak for herself about her vision as Senator Obama as some kind of embodiment of a quota if she wishes.

If you were to seek Obama as a vice president, it would be to Miss Ferraro some called of social engineering gesture, some kind of racial make good. Do you not see, senator?

To Senator Clinton`s supporters, to her admirers, to her friends for whom she is first choice and to her friends for whom she is second choice, she is still letting herself be perceived as standing next to and standing by racial divisiveness and blindness. Worse yet, after what President Clinton said during the South Carolina primary, comparing the Obama and Jesse Jackson campaigns, a disturbing but only border line remark, after what some in the black community have perceived as a racial undertone to the 3:00 a.m. ad, a disturbing but only borderline interpretation, and after the moments hesitation in her own answer on “60 Minutes” about Obama’s religion, a disturbing but only borderline vagueness — after those precedents, there are those who see a pattern. False or true, they see it. After those precedents, there are those who see an intent. False or true, they see it. After those precedents, there are those that see the Clinton campaign`s anything but benign neglect of the Ferraro catastrophe, falsely or truly, as a desire to hear the kind of casual prejudice which still haunts the society voiced, and to not distance the campaign from it.

To not distance you from it, Senator. To not distance you from that which you, as a woman, and Senator Obama, as an African-American, should both know and feel with the deepest of personal pain, which you should both fight with all you have, which you should both ensure has no place in this contest ever.

This, Senator Clinton, is your campaign and it is your name. Grab the reigns back from whoever has led you to this precipice before it is too late. Voluntarily or inadvertently, you are still awash in this filth. Your only reaction has been to disagree, reject, to call it regrettable. Her only reaction has been to brand herself as the victim and resign from your committee and insist she will continue to speak. Unless, senator, you say something definitive, the former congresswoman is speaking with your
approval.

You must remedy this and you must reject and denounce Geraldine Ferraro. Good night and good luck.
Wow so keep lying about Hillary Clinton being his idol, all he did was tell the truth about what Hillary did that By is why he this generations Murrow and why By would not know who Murrow is even Murrow came up and said hello.
Here is what he says about Obama
SHARE THIS STORY

1,042
154
344

Get Media Alerts
Sign Up
Submit this story
Keith Olbermann excoriated President Obama on his Friday show for halting the impending toughening of environmental regulations against smog.

The announcement from the White House that it would keep widely criticized 2006 regulations in place until at least 2013 did not sit well with Olbermann. In the voiceover introduction to his show, he thundered, “what the hell is going on in the White House?”

Olbermann said that Obama had given a huge gift to polluters and corporations, and had delivered an equally large “whack across the knees” to his base.

“It seems, in short, to reduce his campaign logic to ‘what are you going to do, vote for Rick Perry?’” Olbermann said. He noted that Obama’s EPA administrator had called the 2006 standards “not legally defensible,” and scoffed at the president’s stated excuse for not updating them — that, since the standards were going to be reviewed in 2013, he did not want to ask states and businesses to undergo two rounds of tinkering with their environmental policies.

“So, if you’re having trouble breathing, or if you just occasionally do breathe, kindly help the president out and hold your breath until the year 2013 or later,” Olbermann said. Later, speaking to a guest about the issue, he was equally scornful.

“Who on earth in the White House thinks this is a positive for them and in which delusional parallel universe do they live?” he asked.
Here he is critizing bankers Finally tonight, as promised, a Special Comment on the latest atrocity from the banks. The vast, engorged, gluttonous multi-national corporations. Whose sneezes can be fatal to our jobs. Whose mistakes can turn us into the homeless. Whose accounting errors can be so panoramic that they can make our economy tremble and force us to hand them billions after billions in a blackmail scheme that has come to be known as “bailout.”
Five weeks ago Vikram Pandit, the chief executive officer of Citigroup, went back to Congress, tail seemingly between his legs, and, with entreaty dripping from his voice, announced “I get the new reality and I’ll make sure Citi gets it as well.”
In point of fact, as Bloomberg News reports today, what Mr. Pandit “got” was a new $10 million executive suite for himself and his key associates.
This is the same Mr. Pandit who said he would show his leadership by accepting compensation of $1 a year. In fact, he then “accepted” a total compensation package for 2008 of $38 million.
Enough!
Mr. Pandit, you’re probably just a good actor and a damned liar and a con man. But I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume instead, that you just can’t tell the difference between $1 and 38 million of them. That would certainly explain the maelstrom into which you, and your colleagues at Citi and your counterparts elsewhere, have gotten us, including the vast majority of us who are innocent bystanders.
Your bank says your new $10 million office is part of a global strategy of space reduction that will ultimately save billions. It seems entirely appropriate to remind everyone, sir, that this promise could be fulfilled by Citi saving $2 a year for a billion years.
Advertise | AdChoices

God knows you guys have pulled off every other accounting trick every dreamt up by immoral man. You, Sir, and the other corporate pirates like you — those who are saved from your obsessive spending and greed and self-aggrandizement by the taxpayer — who then pretend to atone — who then publicly promise good behavior — and who then revert immediately to the rapaciousness that is your only skill.
You, sir, all of you, need to be fired.
Enough!
And Mr. Pandit’s corporation should be cut up into little pieces. And when he and the other ultra-millionaires wonder what hit them, we should make sure they are easily reminded. Our representatives should entitle the legislation that ends their moral ponzi schemes, “The Punish Vikram Pandit Act of 2009.”
The far right in this country, without the slightest provocation, screams “socialism,” and the sheep who follow it, who do not know what the word means and do not know it is only being used because “communism” now rings laughably hollow. In this cry of fire in a crowded unemployment line, there is outrage.
But there is also license. They think this is socialism? There is a million miles of reform to go before we hit socialism but if they’re going to call us names whether they apply or not let’s give them real reform.
Break up the banks. Regulate the financial industries, to within an inch of their existences. Roll back corporate legal protections. Make liable the officers of corporations, for their debts, and for their deeds. Resurrect the rallying cry of a hundred years past: bust the trusts!
AIG gives “failure bonuses” to the cretins whose dalliances in derivatives brought the company and part of the nation to her knees? Spin off that division whose traders are owed the 165 million in bonuses, under fund it, and cause it to go bankrupt.
Enough!
Let those with bonuses owed, stand in line before a bankruptcy referee, and wind up — just as you and I would — with half a cent on the dollar. Northern Trust fires 450 employees in December. Then takes a billion six in bailout money. Sponsors a golf tournament. Flies hundreds of clients to Southern California for private Oscar Parties including the renting of an airplane hangar and the hiring of the group “Earth, Wind & Fire?”
Enough!
Fire the executives. And fire up the Justice Department to figure out just how much fraud was involved in asking for a billion-six in bailout money when Northern Trust said nothing as the checks were written, even though it knew in advance that millions could be saved by simply cutting the fluff and the trumpery.
Advertise | AdChoices

Thirteen more companies that took bailouts, signed the mandatory documents that said they owed no back taxes lied turned out, per Congressman John Lewis of Ways and Means today lied — they owe, just among those thirteen firms, 220 million in back taxes?
Enough!
Have the IRS take these companies, immediately, to the tax courts to which the rest of us are liable. And strip those ancient, outdated laws of Corporation, so that the officers of the corporation are personally liable for their companies’ debts, just as you or I would be. And if the monopolies of radio or television rear up to support the corporate structure, to say a contract is a contract, even though that isn’t true for a union these days, only for an AIG Trader. Take the invisible, unused Sword of Damocles they still fatuously insist hangs over their heads, and make it real.
Enough!
Make sure both sides are heard. Re-regulate the radio and television industries to limit station ownership and demand diversity of management and product. Re-instate the old rules that denied one man all the voices in a public square. End all waivers of multiple ownership of television stations and networks and newspapers in the same market.
And, yes, if a voice of the privileged classes unfairly uses his cable platform to call our neighbors who are the victims of this, “losers” to insist he alone speaks for the real people.
Show more text
Discuss: Olbermann: Time to get tough on bankers
0 comments
Wall Street treated the bailout bill like a national blackmail scheme

Leave your comment

You
Related: Countdown with Keith Olbermann , Vikram Pandit, Citigroup
Advertise | AdChoices
msnbc headlines
Exonerated man lobbies against the death penalty
“I’m grateful that I’m able to look beyond the hatred,” Franky Carrillo told Rev. Al Sharpton. Carrillo spent 20 years behind bars for a crime he did not commit.
Former PA Gov. Ed Rendell: Bain Capital is fair game for Obama campaign
Civil rights hero denounces voter suppression laws
NAACP takes stand in favor of gay marriage
Jane Lynch on why being out is important to her, and how she was moved by Obama’s support of gay marriage
Is Super PAC influence about transparency or dirty politics?
Multimedia

Video
SAC Suffers $1.68 Billion In Q1 Redemptions

Video
Financials Continue to Surge

Video
US energy independence within sight

Video
Japan: Hottest Trade on the Planet?
NBCNews.comsites & shows: TODAYRock CenterNightly News
Wow here is some more because By is igorant about who KO is and why he will always be this generations Murrow, inally tonight, as promised, a Special Comment on Health Care Reform in this country, and in particular, the “public insurance option.” In March of 1911, after a wave of minor factory fires in New York City, the City’s Fire Commissioner issued emergency rules about fire prevention, protection, escape, sprinklers. The City’s Manufacturers Association in turn called an emergency meeting to attack the Fire Commissioner and his ‘interference with commerce.’
The new rules were delayed. Just days later, a fire broke out at the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory. The door to the fire escape was bolted shut to keep the employees from leaving prematurely. One hundred and fifty of those employees died, many by jumping from the seventh floor windows to avoid the flames. Firefighters setting up their ladders literally had to dodge the falling, often burning, women. This was the spirit of the American corporation then. It is the spirit of the American corporation now. It is what the corporation will do, when it is left alone, for a week. You know the drill. We all know the drill.
You get something done, at a doctor’s, at a dentist’s, at an emergency room and the bills are in your hands before the pain medication wears off. And if you’re one of the lucky ones, and you have insurance, you submit the endless paperwork and no matter whether it’s insurance through your company, or your union, or your non-profit, or on your own dime, you then get your turn… at the roulette wheel.
How much of it is the insurance company going to pay this time? How much of it is the insurance company — about which you have next to no choice, and against which you have virtually no appeal — how much is this giant corporation going to give you back? What small percentage of what they told you they were going to pay you, will they actually pay you?
You know the answer. And, you know the answer if you don’t have insurance. But do you know why that’s the answer?
Because the insurance industry owns the Republican Party. Not exclusively. Pharma owns part of it, too. Hospitals and HMO’s, another part. Nursing homes — they have a share. You name a Republican, any Republican, and he is literally brought to you by… campaign donations from the Health Sector. Sen. John Thune of South Dakota? You gave the Republican rebuttal to the President’s weekly address day before yesterday. You said the Democrats’ plan was for…
“…government run health care that would disrupt our current system, and force millions of Americans who currently enjoy their employer-based coverage into a new health care plan run by government bureaucrats.”
That’s a bald-faced lie, Senator. And you’re a bald-faced liar, whose bald face is covered by…your own health care plan run by government bureaucrats. Nobody would be forced into anything; and the Public Insurance Option is no more a disruption than letting the government sell you water, and not just Poland Spring and Sparkletts. But, as corrupt hypocrites go, Senator, at least you’re well paid. What was that one statement worth to you in contributions from the Health Sector, Sen. Thune?
Five thousand dollars? Ten? We know what you are, Sir, we’re arguing about the price. What about your other quote? “We can accomplish health care reform while keeping patients and their doctors in charge, not bureaucrats and politicians.” Wow, Senator — this illustrates how desperate you and the other Republicans are, right? Because Sen. Thune, if you really think “bureaucrats and politicians” need to get out of the way of “patients and their doctors,” then you support a woman patient’s right to get an abortion, and you supported Michael Schiavo’s right to take his wife off life support, and you oppose “bureaucrats and politicians” getting in the way, and we’ll just mark you down on the pro-choice list. That’s a rare misstep for you Sen. Thune. No twelve-thousand dollar payoff for that statement! I am not being hyperbolic, am I, Senator? On the money?
Advertise | AdChoices

Sen. Thune has thus far received from the Health Sector, campaign contributions — and all these numbers tonight are from “The Center For Responsive Politics” — campaign contributions amounting to $1,206,176. So much for Sen. Thune. How about Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite? Good evening Ma’am. You are the Florida representative who claimed on the Floor that Democrats had…”…released a health care bill which essentially said to America’s seniors: drop dead.”
Now those are strong, terrorizing, words — that’s exactly what your Insurance and Medical Overlords wanted to hear. But are you truly worth every dollar of the $369,255 of them you have received over the years from the Health Sector? I’d reed the rest of the operative part of your speech myself, but your rendition actually cannot be matched:
Listen up, America, seniors have special needs. This bill ignored the, ignores the needs of Florida’s health care system. We should be fixing what is broke. Not disseminate, disseminating, decimating, the care of our senior population. — July 21, 2009

You can always tell, can’t you, Congresswoman, when the hostage is reading her own ransom note, and when she is reading one written for her? So much for Rep. Brown-Waite. There are so many other Republicans, bought and sold — like the unfortunate Congresswoman there —by the Health Sector. Minority Leader McConnell of the Senate?
You’re worth $3.1 million to the Health Sector? A million and a half just for last year’s election? And I’m supposed to think you aren’t a sellout, a liar, a paid spokesman, a shill, a carnival barker? So much for Sen. McConnell. Rep. Joe Barton of Oklahoma — $2,660,000, Congressman? That’s ten times what Sen. Robert Byrd has accepted from the Health Sector.
Congressman! What a guy! So much for Rep. Barton. Sen. McCain — $1.6?
To serve the Hospitals, and the Drug Companies, and the Nursing Homes? And not to serve the retirement communities of Arizona? Or the cancer survivors? Or the veterans? So much for Sen. McCain. I could go on all night and never exaggerate in the slightest.
PBS pointed out that the health and insurance industries are spending more than a million, $400,000 a day, just to destroy the “public option” – the truly non-profit, wieldy, round-up and not round-down, government, from helping you pay your medical bills with about a billionth of the recklessness with which it is still paying Halliburton and its spin-offs to kill your kids.
And much of this money is going to, and through, Republicans. But that’s the real point tonight.
Not all of it is going through Republicans. Because the evil truth is, the Insurance industry, along with Hospitals, HMO’s, Pharma, nursing homes — it owns Democrats, too.
Not the whole party.
Candidate Barack Obama got more than $18 million from the Health Sector just last year. And you can bet somebody in the Health Trust, somebody responsible for buying influence, got fired over what Obama’s done. No, the Democrats are not wholly owned. Hundreds of Democrats have taken campaign money from the Health Sector without handing over their souls as receipts. But conveniently, the ones who are owned, have made themselves easy to spot in a crowd.
They’ve called themselves “Blue Dogs,” and they are out there, hand-in-hand with the Republicans who they are happy to condemn day and night on everything else, throatily singing “Kumbaya” with the men and women who were bought and sold to defend this con game of an American health care system against the slightest encroachment.
Rep. Mike Ross of Arkansas. Leader of the Blue Dogs in the House. You’re the guy demanding a guarantee that Reform won’t add to the deficit. I’m guessing you forgot to demand that about, say, Iraq. You’re a Democrat, you say, Congressman? You saw what Sandy Barham said?
Advertise | AdChoices

Sandy Barham is 62 years old, she’s got a bad heart, and she’s hoping her valves will hold together for three more years until Medicaid kicks in, because she can’t afford insurance.
Not just for herself, mind you. For her employees. She needs the public option. So do those six people who work at that restaurant of hers, Rep. Ross. And why should you give a crap?
Because Sandy Barham’s restaurant is the Broadway Railroad Café, and it is at 123 West First Street North in Prescott, Arkansas.
Prescott, Arkansas, Rep. Ross. Your home town. You are Sandy Barham’s congressman. Hers, Sir. Not Blue Cross’s and Blue Shield’s, even if they do insure 75% of the state and they own you. The top donor so far to Congressman Ross’s bid for re-election next year? The Blue Dog PAC — $10,000. Second? Something called Invacare — $7,300. Oh, they make wheelchairs and rollers. And slings, they’re big in slings. Tied for third? The American Dental Association, another $5,000.
Your top donors by industry, Rep. Ross? Health professionals: $29,250. Then, Pharma and Health products: $12,250. And so far in your career, Rep. Ross, your total haul from the Health Sector is $921,000. That’s 90th in the combined list of donations for the House and the Senate, Sir. 90th out of 537. You should be proud, Congressman!
Except for the fact, that before you started living off the public dime, you owned a pharmacy. And your grandmother was a nurse. And turns out you’re not Sandy Barham’s congressman, you’re Blue Cross’s. So much or Rep. Ross.
Rep. Bart Gordon of Tennessee. Congressman? Undecided on the public option? At $1,173,000 in donations from the Health Sector, I’m surprised. You should have already said no — and loudly. The only thing you should be “undecided” about, is whether or not you’re really a Democrat. So much for Rep. Gordon. Sen. Max Baucus of Montana. Good evening, Senator.
So you’re supposed to be negotiating all this out with the Republicans and hesitant Democrats? To gain bi-partisanship with a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Health Sector? Bi-partisanship that will get you, what? A total of no votes? And your price has been, let’s see $414,000 in donations from Hospitals. About $667,000 from the insurance companies and just over a million from Big Pharma. There was a $1,300,000 from other health professional and $237,000 from Nursing Homes.
When you think of getting $237,000 in campaign contributions from nursing homes, Sen. Baucus, do you ever think about whether they subtract that amount of money evenly from all the patients suffering and dying in the lousy ones, or just from a few of the lousy ones? So much for Sen. Baucus. Sadly, this list could go on almost all night, too.
I could ask Blue Dog Congressman, Democrat John Tanner of Tennessee, if, since he’s gotten $215,000 from hospitals over the years, if I and the appropriate number of my friends were willing to make it $216,000, if we could buy his vote — or would there have to be an auction?
We could bring up Senator Hagan, and Congressman Pomeroy, who, at 628-thousand, appears to represent the Insurance Industry and not North Dakota. I could bring up Sen. Carper, and Sen.Blanche Lincoln.
Senator Lincoln? By the way, considering how you’re obstructing health care reform, how do you feel… every time you actually see Sen. Kennedy? I could bring up all the other Democrats doing their masters’ bidding in the House or the Senate, all the others who will get an extra thousand from somebody if they just postpone the vote another year, another month, another week, because right now without the competition of a government-funded insurance company, in one hour the health care industries can make so much money that they’d kill you for that extra hour of profit, I could call them all out by name.
But I think you get the point. We don’t need to call the Democrats holding this up Blue Dogs. That one word “Dogs” is perfectly sufficient. But let me speak to them collectively, anyway.I warn you all. You were not elected to create a Democratic majority. You were elected to restore this country. You were not elected to serve the corporations and the trusts who the government has enabled for the last eight years.
You were elected to serve the people. And if you fail to pass or support this legislation, the full wrath of the progressive and the moderate movements in this country will come down on your heads. Explain yourselves not to me, but to them. They elected you, and in the blink of an eye, they will replace you.
If you will behave as if you are Republicans — as if you are the prostitutes of our system —you will be judged as such. And you will lose not merely our respect. You will lose your jobs!
Advertise | AdChoices

Every poll, every analysis, every vote, every region of this country supports health care reform, and the essential great leveling agent of a government-funded alternative to the unchecked duopoly of profiteering private insurance corporations. Cross us all at your peril.
Because, Rep. Ross, you are not the Representative from Blue Cross.
And Mr. Baucus, you are not the Senator from Schering-Plough Global Health Care even if they have already given you $76,000 towards your re-election. And Ms. Lincoln, you are not the Senator from DaVita Dialysis.
Because, ladies and gentlemen, President Lincoln did not promise that this nation shall have a new death of freedom, and that government of the corporation, by the corporation, for the corporation, shall not perish from this earth.
Good night and good luck.
Wow he goes after both the democrats and republicans on that one. BY you once again show that you know nothing about who KO is and what he did on Countdown, all you want to do is bash him because republicans are not suppose to be critized in BY’ world and Oreilly has to lie and so does Fox. Sorry but you once again show why KO is this generations Murrow and that BY loves to bash and loves to show that BY hates people like Ko that have no idea how to lie.
Sorry BY but KO does not bash and do not say different beacause that would be another BY lie.
By get off this blog and go to we are igorant about who Murrow and KO are blogs and the we love to bash people that are jouranlist like KO is and speak truth to power. Sorry but KO has critized everyone from Republicans to Obama to Clinton to Democrats, showing that unlike you BY he tells the truth, you do not. Keep making me love and respect KO with your igorance about who he is, You show that you BY have never watched Countdown and do not say different because that would be another BY lie. BY keep embarassing yourself by showing that you have no idea what jouranlism is and what honesty is and who KO is.

Also BY
Here is KO praising McCain showing that he not afraid to give people praises when need be even republicans inally tonight, as promised, a Special Comment on Health Care Reform in this country, and in particular, the “public insurance option.” In March of 1911, after a wave of minor factory fires in New York City, the City’s Fire Commissioner issued emergency rules about fire prevention, protection, escape, sprinklers. The City’s Manufacturers Association in turn called an emergency meeting to attack the Fire Commissioner and his ‘interference with commerce.’
The new rules were delayed. Just days later, a fire broke out at the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory. The door to the fire escape was bolted shut to keep the employees from leaving prematurely. One hundred and fifty of those employees died, many by jumping from the seventh floor windows to avoid the flames. Firefighters setting up their ladders literally had to dodge the falling, often burning, women. This was the spirit of the American corporation then. It is the spirit of the American corporation now. It is what the corporation will do, when it is left alone, for a week. You know the drill. We all know the drill.
You get something done, at a doctor’s, at a dentist’s, at an emergency room and the bills are in your hands before the pain medication wears off. And if you’re one of the lucky ones, and you have insurance, you submit the endless paperwork and no matter whether it’s insurance through your company, or your union, or your non-profit, or on your own dime, you then get your turn… at the roulette wheel.
How much of it is the insurance company going to pay this time? How much of it is the insurance company — about which you have next to no choice, and against which you have virtually no appeal — how much is this giant corporation going to give you back? What small percentage of what they told you they were going to pay you, will they actually pay you?
You know the answer. And, you know the answer if you don’t have insurance. But do you know why that’s the answer?
Because the insurance industry owns the Republican Party. Not exclusively. Pharma owns part of it, too. Hospitals and HMO’s, another part. Nursing homes — they have a share. You name a Republican, any Republican, and he is literally brought to you by… campaign donations from the Health Sector. Sen. John Thune of South Dakota? You gave the Republican rebuttal to the President’s weekly address day before yesterday. You said the Democrats’ plan was for…
“…government run health care that would disrupt our current system, and force millions of Americans who currently enjoy their employer-based coverage into a new health care plan run by government bureaucrats.”
That’s a bald-faced lie, Senator. And you’re a bald-faced liar, whose bald face is covered by…your own health care plan run by government bureaucrats. Nobody would be forced into anything; and the Public Insurance Option is no more a disruption than letting the government sell you water, and not just Poland Spring and Sparkletts. But, as corrupt hypocrites go, Senator, at least you’re well paid. What was that one statement worth to you in contributions from the Health Sector, Sen. Thune?
Five thousand dollars? Ten? We know what you are, Sir, we’re arguing about the price. What about your other quote? “We can accomplish health care reform while keeping patients and their doctors in charge, not bureaucrats and politicians.” Wow, Senator — this illustrates how desperate you and the other Republicans are, right? Because Sen. Thune, if you really think “bureaucrats and politicians” need to get out of the way of “patients and their doctors,” then you support a woman patient’s right to get an abortion, and you supported Michael Schiavo’s right to take his wife off life support, and you oppose “bureaucrats and politicians” getting in the way, and we’ll just mark you down on the pro-choice list. That’s a rare misstep for you Sen. Thune. No twelve-thousand dollar payoff for that statement! I am not being hyperbolic, am I, Senator? On the money?
Advertise | AdChoices

Sen. Thune has thus far received from the Health Sector, campaign contributions — and all these numbers tonight are from “The Center For Responsive Politics” — campaign contributions amounting to $1,206,176. So much for Sen. Thune. How about Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite? Good evening Ma’am. You are the Florida representative who claimed on the Floor that Democrats had…”…released a health care bill which essentially said to America’s seniors: drop dead.”
Now those are strong, terrorizing, words — that’s exactly what your Insurance and Medical Overlords wanted to hear. But are you truly worth every dollar of the $369,255 of them you have received over the years from the Health Sector? I’d reed the rest of the operative part of your speech myself, but your rendition actually cannot be matched:
Listen up, America, seniors have special needs. This bill ignored the, ignores the needs of Florida’s health care system. We should be fixing what is broke. Not disseminate, disseminating, decimating, the care of our senior population. — July 21, 2009

You can always tell, can’t you, Congresswoman, when the hostage is reading her own ransom note, and when she is reading one written for her? So much for Rep. Brown-Waite. There are so many other Republicans, bought and sold — like the unfortunate Congresswoman there —by the Health Sector. Minority Leader McConnell of the Senate?
You’re worth $3.1 million to the Health Sector? A million and a half just for last year’s election? And I’m supposed to think you aren’t a sellout, a liar, a paid spokesman, a shill, a carnival barker? So much for Sen. McConnell. Rep. Joe Barton of Oklahoma — $2,660,000, Congressman? That’s ten times what Sen. Robert Byrd has accepted from the Health Sector.
Congressman! What a guy! So much for Rep. Barton. Sen. McCain — $1.6?
To serve the Hospitals, and the Drug Companies, and the Nursing Homes? And not to serve the retirement communities of Arizona? Or the cancer survivors? Or the veterans? So much for Sen. McCain. I could go on all night and never exaggerate in the slightest.
PBS pointed out that the health and insurance industries are spending more than a million, $400,000 a day, just to destroy the “public option” – the truly non-profit, wieldy, round-up and not round-down, government, from helping you pay your medical bills with about a billionth of the recklessness with which it is still paying Halliburton and its spin-offs to kill your kids.
And much of this money is going to, and through, Republicans. But that’s the real point tonight.
Not all of it is going through Republicans. Because the evil truth is, the Insurance industry, along with Hospitals, HMO’s, Pharma, nursing homes — it owns Democrats, too.
Not the whole party.
Candidate Barack Obama got more than $18 million from the Health Sector just last year. And you can bet somebody in the Health Trust, somebody responsible for buying influence, got fired over what Obama’s done. No, the Democrats are not wholly owned. Hundreds of Democrats have taken campaign money from the Health Sector without handing over their souls as receipts. But conveniently, the ones who are owned, have made themselves easy to spot in a crowd.
They’ve called themselves “Blue Dogs,” and they are out there, hand-in-hand with the Republicans who they are happy to condemn day and night on everything else, throatily singing “Kumbaya” with the men and women who were bought and sold to defend this con game of an American health care system against the slightest encroachment.
Rep. Mike Ross of Arkansas. Leader of the Blue Dogs in the House. You’re the guy demanding a guarantee that Reform won’t add to the deficit. I’m guessing you forgot to demand that about, say, Iraq. You’re a Democrat, you say, Congressman? You saw what Sandy Barham said?
Advertise | AdChoices

Sandy Barham is 62 years old, she’s got a bad heart, and she’s hoping her valves will hold together for three more years until Medicaid kicks in, because she can’t afford insurance.
Not just for herself, mind you. For her employees. She needs the public option. So do those six people who work at that restaurant of hers, Rep. Ross. And why should you give a crap?
Because Sandy Barham’s restaurant is the Broadway Railroad Café, and it is at 123 West First Street North in Prescott, Arkansas.
Prescott, Arkansas, Rep. Ross. Your home town. You are Sandy Barham’s congressman. Hers, Sir. Not Blue Cross’s and Blue Shield’s, even if they do insure 75% of the state and they own you. The top donor so far to Congressman Ross’s bid for re-election next year? The Blue Dog PAC — $10,000. Second? Something called Invacare — $7,300. Oh, they make wheelchairs and rollers. And slings, they’re big in slings. Tied for third? The American Dental Association, another $5,000.
Your top donors by industry, Rep. Ross? Health professionals: $29,250. Then, Pharma and Health products: $12,250. And so far in your career, Rep. Ross, your total haul from the Health Sector is $921,000. That’s 90th in the combined list of donations for the House and the Senate, Sir. 90th out of 537. You should be proud, Congressman!
Except for the fact, that before you started living off the public dime, you owned a pharmacy. And your grandmother was a nurse. And turns out you’re not Sandy Barham’s congressman, you’re Blue Cross’s. So much or Rep. Ross.
Rep. Bart Gordon of Tennessee. Congressman? Undecided on the public option? At $1,173,000 in donations from the Health Sector, I’m surprised. You should have already said no — and loudly. The only thing you should be “undecided” about, is whether or not you’re really a Democrat. So much for Rep. Gordon. Sen. Max Baucus of Montana. Good evening, Senator.
So you’re supposed to be negotiating all this out with the Republicans and hesitant Democrats? To gain bi-partisanship with a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Health Sector? Bi-partisanship that will get you, what? A total of no votes? And your price has been, let’s see $414,000 in donations from Hospitals. About $667,000 from the insurance companies and just over a million from Big Pharma. There was a $1,300,000 from other health professional and $237,000 from Nursing Homes.
When you think of getting $237,000 in campaign contributions from nursing homes, Sen. Baucus, do you ever think about whether they subtract that amount of money evenly from all the patients suffering and dying in the lousy ones, or just from a few of the lousy ones? So much for Sen. Baucus. Sadly, this list could go on almost all night, too.
I could ask Blue Dog Congressman, Democrat John Tanner of Tennessee, if, since he’s gotten $215,000 from hospitals over the years, if I and the appropriate number of my friends were willing to make it $216,000, if we could buy his vote — or would there have to be an auction?
We could bring up Senator Hagan, and Congressman Pomeroy, who, at 628-thousand, appears to represent the Insurance Industry and not North Dakota. I could bring up Sen. Carper, and Sen.Blanche Lincoln.
Senator Lincoln? By the way, considering how you’re obstructing health care reform, how do you feel… every time you actually see Sen. Kennedy? I could bring up all the other Democrats doing their masters’ bidding in the House or the Senate, all the others who will get an extra thousand from somebody if they just postpone the vote another year, another month, another week, because right now without the competition of a government-funded insurance company, in one hour the health care industries can make so much money that they’d kill you for that extra hour of profit, I could call them all out by name.
But I think you get the point. We don’t need to call the Democrats holding this up Blue Dogs. That one word “Dogs” is perfectly sufficient. But let me speak to them collectively, anyway.I warn you all. You were not elected to create a Democratic majority. You were elected to restore this country. You were not elected to serve the corporations and the trusts who the government has enabled for the last eight years.
You were elected to serve the people. And if you fail to pass or support this legislation, the full wrath of the progressive and the moderate movements in this country will come down on your heads. Explain yourselves not to me, but to them. They elected you, and in the blink of an eye, they will replace you.
If you will behave as if you are Republicans — as if you are the prostitutes of our system —you will be judged as such. And you will lose not merely our respect. You will lose your jobs!
Advertise | AdChoices

Every poll, every analysis, every vote, every region of this country supports health care reform, and the essential great leveling agent of a government-funded alternative to the unchecked duopoly of profiteering private insurance corporations. Cross us all at your peril.
Because, Rep. Ross, you are not the Representative from Blue Cross.
And Mr. Baucus, you are not the Senator from Schering-Plough Global Health Care even if they have already given you $76,000 towards your re-election. And Ms. Lincoln, you are not the Senator from DaVita Dialysis.
Because, ladies and gentlemen, President Lincoln did not promise that this nation shall have a new death of freedom, and that government of the corporation, by the corporation, for the corporation, shall not perish from this earth.
Good night and good luck.
This is how dishonest you are about who KO is, here is another Thursday night’s “Countdown” brought, as promised, a Special Comment from Keith Olbermann on John McCain’s comments that it doesn’t matter when we bring the troops home from Iraq on the “Today” show.

Olbermann remained subdued and forlorn as he blasted the Republican nominee for previous statements on the impending success in Iraq and for the hypocrisy inherent in trumpeting his veteran status and yet callously remarking that it doesn’t matter when American troops come home. Olbermann’s running theme was providing “context” for McCain’s “Today” show remarks, a counter to the McCain camp’s claim that his remarks were taken out of context.

Watch:
Here is what it said As promised the briefest of ” Special Comments ” on the statements by the senior senator from Arizona after the arrest of Faisal Shahzad , the suspected Times Square terrorist . “Don`t give this guy his Miranda rights until we find out what it is all about,” said John McCain. “Obviously, that would be a serious mistake at least until we find out as much information as we have.” Mr. McCain , apart from the obvious fact that following your advice could mean that because of you Shahzad could walk free on technicalities. It is clear that your comments or, really, your utter lack of faith in the system of justice that has kept this country free and safe for 234 years — the laws are not there to be switched on and off at your discretion, Senator. They are not applicable to all except when you are having trouble getting renominated and you need to boost your poll numbers with the lunatic fringe in Arizona . This man, whatever other reprehensible thing he appears to be, is an American citizen . And if you can decide that he shouldn`t have the same rights we would give to the man who shot President Reagan or to serial killers or to Bernie Madoff , then the precedent that you set in doing so can someday end thusly — someday for some crap reason, somebody will be able to arrest you, Mr. McCain , and declare that you are not entitled to your Miranda rights and that perhaps you should be tried by a military court . While you pander to a group that tries to dress up its bitching about paying its fair share of taxes as “the government is taking away freedom,” you propose that the government should take away freedom. You shame yourself in the eyes of American patriots and in the eyes of your fellow veterans who sacrificed and the honored dead who gave their lives to protect the freedoms and the laws — you have today suggested should be optional. Freedom loving Americans look back with horror at what could have happened on Saturday night six blocks from here. And we also look back with horror on how a man who thinks America is some kind of brand name , who does not respect the laws and honor of this great nation , could have come so perilously close to becoming its leader.!
Wow Mcain also still tries to pass of a war that was unjust but you would rather lie about KO than listen to the truth, here is what Iraq is It is a shame and it is embarrassing to us all when President Bush travels 8,000 miles only to wind up avoiding reality again.
And it is pathetic to listen to a man talk unrealistically about Vietnam, who permitted the “Swift-Boating” of not one but two American heroes of that war, in consecutive presidential campaigns.
But most importantly — important beyond measure — his avoidance of reality is going to wind up killing more Americans.
And that is indefensible and fatal.
Asked if there were lessons about Iraq to be found in our experience in Vietnam, Mr. Bush said that there were, and he immediately proved he had no clue what they were.
“One lesson is,” he said, “that we tend to want there to be instant success in the world, and the task in Iraq is going to take a while.”
“We’ll succeed,” the president concluded, “unless we quit.”
Advertise | AdChoices

If that’s the lesson about Iraq that Mr. Bush sees in Vietnam, then he needs a tutor.
Or we need somebody else making the decisions about Iraq.
Mr. Bush, there are a dozen central, essential lessons to be derived from our nightmare in Vietnam, but “we’ll succeed unless we quit,” is not one of them.
The primary one — which should be as obvious to you as the latest opinion poll showing that only 31 percent of this country agrees with your tragic Iraq policy — is that if you try to pursue a war for which the nation has lost its stomach, you and it are finished. Ask Lyndon Johnson.
The second most important lesson of Vietnam, Mr. Bush: If you don’t have a stable local government to work with, you can keep sending in Americans until hell freezes over and it will not matter. Ask Vietnamese Presidents Diem or Thieu.
The third vital lesson of Vietnam, Mr. Bush: Don’t pretend it’s something it’s not. For decades we were warned that if we didn’t stop “communist aggression” in Vietnam, communist agitators would infiltrate and devour the small nations of the world, and make their insidious way, stealthily, to our doorstep.
The war machine of 1968 had this “domino theory.”
Your war machine of 2006 has this nonsense about Iraq as “the central front in the war on terror.”
The fourth pivotal lesson of Vietnam, Mr. Bush: If the same idiots who told Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon to stay there for the sake of “peace With honor” are now telling you to stay in Iraq, they’re probably just as wrong now, as they were then … Dr. Kissinger.
And the fifth crucial lesson of Vietnam, Mr. Bush — which somebody should’ve told you about long before you plunged this country into Iraq — is that if you lie your country into a war, your war, your presidency will be consigned to the scrap heap of history.
Consider your fellow Texan, sir.
After Kennedy’s assassination, Lyndon Johnson held the country together after a national tragedy, not unlike you did. He had lofty goals and tried to reshape society for the better. And he is remembered for Vietnam, and for the lies he and his government told to get us there and keep us there, and for the Americans who needlessly died there.
Advertise | AdChoices

As you will be remembered for Iraq, and for the lies you and your government told to get us there and keep us there, and for the Americans who have needlessly died there and who will needlessly die there tomorrow.
This president has his fictitious Iraqi WMD, and his lies — disguised as subtle hints — linking Saddam Hussein to 9/11, and his reason-of-the-week for keeping us there when all the evidence for at least three years has told us we need to get as many of our kids out as quickly as possible.
That president had his fictitious attacks on Navy ships in the Gulf of Tonkin in 1964, and the next thing any of us knew, the Senate had voted 88-2 to approve the blank check with which Lyndon Johnson paid for our trip into hell.
And yet President Bush just saw the grim reminders of that trip into hell: the 58,000 Americans and millions of Vietnamese killed; the 10,000 civilians who’ve been blown up by landmines since we pulled out; the genocide in the neighboring country of Cambodia, which we triggered.
Yet these parallels — and these lessons — eluded President Bush entirely.
And, in particular, the one over-arching lesson about Iraq that should’ve been written everywhere he looked in Vietnam went unseen.
“We’ll succeed unless we quit”?
Mr. Bush, we did quit in Vietnam!
A decade later than we should have, 58,000 dead later than we should have, but we finally came to our senses.
The stable, burgeoning, vivid country you just saw there, is there because we finally had the good sense to declare victory and get out!
The domino theory was nonsense, sir.
Our departure from Vietnam emboldened no one.
Advertise | AdChoices

Communism did not spread like a contagion around the world.
Video: Vietnam’s lessons for Iraq And most importantly — as President Reagan’s assistant secretary of state, Lawrence Korb, said on this newscast Friday — we were only in a position to win the Cold War because we quit in Vietnam.
We went home. And instead it was the Russians who learned nothing from Vietnam, and who repeated every one of our mistakes when they went into Afghanistan. And alienated their own people, and killed their own children, and bankrupted their own economy and allowed us to win the Cold War.
We awakened so late, but we did awaken.
Finally, in Vietnam, we learned the lesson. We stopped endlessly squandering lives and treasure and the focus of a nation on an impossible and irrelevant dream, but you are still doing exactly that, tonight, in Iraq.
And these lessons from Vietnam, Mr. Bush, these priceless, transparent lessons, writ large as if across the very sky, are still a mystery to you.
“We’ll succeed unless we quit.”
No, sir.
We will succeed against terrorism, for our country’s needs, toward binding up the nation’s wounds when you quit, quit the monumental lie that is our presence in Iraq.
And in the interim, Mr. Bush, an American kid will be killed there, probably tonight or tomorrow.
And here, sir, endeth the lesson.
Wow here is what he says about Fox did on a interview The headlines about them are, of course, entirely wrong.
It is not essential that a past president, bullied and sandbagged by a monkey posing as a newscaster, finally lashed back.
It is not important that the current President’s portable public chorus has described his predecessor’s tone as “crazed.”
Our tone should be crazed. The nation’s freedoms are under assault by an administration whose policies can do us as much damage as al Qaida; the nation’s marketplace of ideas is being poisoned by a propaganda company so blatant that Tokyo Rose would’ve quit.
Nonetheless. The headline is this:
Bill Clinton did what almost none of us have done in five years.
He has spoken the truth about 9/11, and the current presidential administration.
Advertise | AdChoices

“At least I tried,” he said of his own efforts to capture or kill Osama bin Laden. “That’s the difference in me and some, including all of the right-wingers who are attacking me now. They had eight months to try; they did not try. I tried.”
Thus in his supposed emeritus years has Mr. Clinton taken forceful and triumphant action for honesty, and for us; action as vital and as courageous as any of his presidency; action as startling and as liberating, as any, by any one, in these last five long years.
The Bush Administration did not try to get Osama bin Laden before 9/11.
The Bush Administration ignored all the evidence gathered by its predecessors.
The Bush Administration did not understand the Daily Briefing entitled “Bin Laden Determined To Strike in U.S.”
The Bush Administration did not try.
Moreover, for the last five years one month and two weeks, the current administration, and in particular the President, has been given the greatest “pass” for incompetence and malfeasance in American history!
President Roosevelt was rightly blamed for ignoring the warning signs—some of them, 17 years old—before Pearl Harbor.
President Hoover was correctly blamed for—if not the Great Depression itself—then the disastrous economic steps he took in the immediate aftermath of the Stock Market Crash.
Even President Lincoln assumed some measure of responsibility for the Civil War—though talk of Southern secession had begun as early as 1832.
But not this president.
To hear him bleat and whine and bully at nearly every opportunity, one would think someone else had been president on September 11th, 2001 — or the nearly eight months that preceded it.
Advertise | AdChoices

That hardly reflects the honesty nor manliness we expect of the executive.
But if his own fitness to serve is of no true concern to him, perhaps we should simply sigh and keep our fingers crossed, until a grown-up takes the job three Januarys from now.
Except for this.
After five years of skirting even the most inarguable of facts—that he was president on 9/11 and he must bear some responsibility for his, and our, unreadiness, Mr. Bush has now moved, unmistakably and without conscience or shame, towards re-writing history, and attempting to make the responsibility, entirely Mr. Clinton’s.
Of course he is not honest enough to do that directly.
As with all the other nefariousness and slime of this, our worst presidency since James Buchanan, he is having it done for him, by proxy.
Thus, the sandbag effort by Fox News Friday afternoon.
Consider the timing: the very weekend the National Intelligence Estimate would be released and show the Iraq war to be the fraudulent failure it is—not a check on terror, but fertilizer for it.
The kind of proof of incompetence, for which the administration and its hyenas at Fox need to find a diversion, in a scapegoat.
It was the kind of cheap trick which would get a journalist fired—but a propagandist, promoted:
Promise to talk of charity and generosity; but instead launch into the lies and distortions with which the Authoritarians among us attack the virtuous and reward the useless.
And don’t even be professional enough to assume the responsibility for the slanders yourself; blame your audience for “e-mailing” you the question.
Advertise | AdChoices

Video: Clinton fumes Mr. Clinton responded as you have seen.
He told the great truth untold about this administration’s negligence, perhaps criminal negligence, about bin Laden.
He was brave.
Then again, Chris Wallace might be braver still. Had I in one moment surrendered all my credibility as a journalist, and been irredeemably humiliated, as was he, I would have gone home and started a new career selling seeds by mail.
The smearing by proxy, of course, did not begin Friday afternoon.
Disney was first to sell-out its corporate reputation, with “The Path to 9/11.” Of that company’s crimes against truth one needs to say little. Simply put: someone there enabled an Authoritarian zealot to belch out Mr. Bush’s new and improved history.
The basic plot-line was this: because he was distracted by the Monica Lewinsky scandal, Bill Clinton failed to prevent 9/11.
The most curious and in some ways the most infuriating aspect of this slapdash theory, is that the Right Wingers who have advocated it—who try to sneak it into our collective consciousness through entertainment, or who sandbag Mr. Clinton with it at news interviews—have simply skipped past its most glaring flaw.
Had it been true that Clinton had been distracted from the hunt for bin Laden in 1998 because of the Monica Lewinsky nonsense, why did these same people not applaud him for having bombed bin Laden’s camps in Afghanistan and Sudan on Aug. 20, of that year? For mentioning bin Laden by name as he did so?
That day, Republican Senator Grams of Minnesota invoked the movie “Wag The Dog.”
Republican Senator Coats of Indiana questioned Mr. Clinton’s judgment.
Republican Senator Ashcroft of Missouri—the future attorney general—echoed Coats.
Advertise | AdChoices

Even Republican Senator Arlen Specter questioned the timing.
And of course, were it true Clinton had been “distracted” by the Lewinsky witch-hunt, who on earth conducted the Lewinsky witch-hunt?
Who turned the political discourse of this nation on its head for two years?
Who corrupted the political media?
Who made it impossible for us to even bring back on the air, the counter-terrorism analysts like Dr. Richard Haass, and James Dunegan, who had warned, at this very hour, on this very network, in early 1998, of cells from the Middle East who sought to attack us, here?
Who preempted them in order to strangle us with the trivia that was, “All Monica All The Time”?
Who distracted whom?
This is, of course, where—as is inevitable—Mr. Bush and his henchmen prove not quite as smart as they think they are.
The full responsibility for 9/11 is obviously shared by three administrations, possibly four.
But, Mr. Bush, if you are now trying to convince us by proxy that it’s all about the distractions of 1998 and 1999, then you will have to face a startling fact that your minions may have hidden from you.
The distractions of 1998 and 1999, Mr. Bush, were carefully manufactured, and lovingly executed, not by Bill Clinton, but by the same people who got you elected President.
Thus, instead of some commendable acknowledgment that you were even in office on 9/11 and the lost months before it, we have your sleazy and sloppy rewriting of history, designed by somebody who evidently read the Orwell playbook too quickly.
Advertise | AdChoices

Thus, instead of some explanation for the inertia of your first eight months in office, we are told that you have kept us “safe” ever since—a statement that might range anywhere from zero, to 100 percent, true.
We have nothing but your word, and your word has long since ceased to mean anything.
And, of course, the one time you have ever given us specifics about what you have kept us safe from, Mr. Bush, you got the name of the supposedly targeted Tower in Los Angeles wrong.
Thus was it left for the previous president to say what so many of us have felt; what so many of us have given you a pass for in the months and even the years after the attack:
You did not try.
You ignored the evidence gathered by your predecessor.
You ignored the evidence gathered by your own people.
Then, you blamed your predecessor.
That would be a textbook definition, Mr. Bush, of cowardice.
To enforce the lies of the present, it is necessary to erase the truths of the past.
That was one of the great mechanical realities Eric Blair—writing as George Orwell—gave us in the book “1984.”
The great philosophical reality he gave us, Mr. Bush, may sound as familiar to you, as it has lately begun to sound familiar to me.
Advertise | AdChoices

“The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power…
“Power is not a means; it is an end.
“One does not establish a dictatorship to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship.
“The object of persecution, is persecution. The object of torture, is torture. The object of power… is power.”
Earlier last Friday afternoon, before the Fox ambush, speaking in the far different context of the closing session of his remarkable Global Initiative, Mr. Clinton quoted Abraham Lincoln’s State of the Union address from 1862.
“We must disenthrall ourselves.”
Mr. Clinton did not quote the rest of Mr. Lincoln’s sentence.
He might well have.
“We must disenthrall ourselves and then we shall save our country.”
And so has Mr. Clinton helped us to disenthrall ourselves, and perhaps enabled us, even at this late and bleak date, to save our country.
The “free pass” has been withdrawn, Mr. Bush.
You did not act to prevent 9/11.
Advertise | AdChoices

We do not know what you have done to prevent another 9/11.
You have failed us—then leveraged that failure, to justify a purposeless war in Iraq which will have, all too soon, claimed more American lives than did 9/11.
You have failed us anew in Afghanistan.
And you have now tried to hide your failures, by blaming your predecessor.
And now you exploit your failure, to rationalize brazen torture which doesn’t work anyway; which only condemns our soldiers to water-boarding; which only humiliates our country further in the world; and which no true American would ever condone, let alone advocate.
And there it is, Mr. Bush:
Are yours the actions of a true American?
Wow keep showing me how KO is this genearations Murrow and that you do not know what joruanlism is.

Here is another that he did about A part of what I will say, was said here on Jan. 31. Unfortunately it is both sadder and truer now than it was then.
“Who’s to blame?” Mr. Bush also said this afternoon, “Look, these folks in Congress passed a good bill late last summer…. The problem is, they let the bill expire. My attitude is: If the bill was good enough then, why not pass the bill again?”
Like the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. Or Executive Order 90-66. Or The Alien and Sedition Acts. Or slavery.
Mr. Bush, you say that our ability to track terrorist threats will be weakened and our citizens will be in greater danger. Yet you have weakened that ability!
You have subjected us, your citizens, to that greater danger! This, Mr. Bush, is simple enough for even you to understand.
For the moment, at least, thanks to some true patriots in the House, and your own stubbornness, you have tabled telecom immunity, and the FISA act.
You. By your own terms and your definitions, you have just sided with the terrorists. You’ve got to have this law, or we’re all going to die. But, practically speaking, you vetoed this law.
Advertise | AdChoices

It is bad enough, sir, that you were demanding an ex post facto law that could still clear the AT&Ts and the Verizons from responsibility for their systematic, aggressive and blatant collaboration with your illegal and unjustified spying on Americans under this flimsy guise of looking for any terrorists who are stupid enough to make a collect call or send a mass e-mail.
But when you demanded it again during the State of the Union address, you wouldn’t even confirm that they actually did anything for which they deserved to be cleared.
“The Congress must pass liability protection for companies believed to have assisted in the efforts to defend America.”
Believed? Don’t you know? Don’t you even have the guts Dick Cheney showed in admitting they did collaborate with you? Does this endless presidency of loopholes and fine print extend even here? If you believe in the seamless mutuality of government and big business, come out and say it! There is a dictionary definition, one word that describes that toxic blend.
You’re a fascist — get them to print you a T-shirt with fascist on it! What else is this but fascism? Did you see Mark Klein on this newscast last November?
Mark Klein was the AT&T whistleblower who explained in the placid, dull terms of your local neighborhood IT desk how he personally attached all AT&T circuits, everything, carrying every one of your phone calls, every one of your e-mails, every bit of your Web browsing into a secure room, room No. 641-A at the Folsom Street facility in San Francisco, where it was all copied so the government could look at it.
Not some of it, not just the international part of it, certainly not just the stuff some spy, a spy both patriotic and telepathic, might be able to divine had been sent or spoken by or to a terrorist.
Everything! Every time you looked at a naked picture. Every time you bid on eBay. Every time you phoned in a donation to a Democrat. “My thought was,” Mr. Klein told us last November, “George Orwell’s ‘1984.’ And here I am, forced to connect the Big Brother machine.”
And if there’s one thing we know about Big Brother, Mr. Bush, it is that he is — you are — a liar.
“This Saturday at midnight,” you said Thursday, “legislation authorizing intelligence professionals to quickly and effectively monitor terrorist communications will expire. If Congress does not act by that time, our ability to find out who the terrorists are talking to, what they are saying and what they are planning will be compromised.” You said that “the lives of countless Americans depend” on your getting your way.
This is crap. And you sling it with an audacity and a speed unrivaled by even the greatest political felons of our history.
Richard Clarke — you might remember him, sir: He was one of the counterterror pros you inherited from President Clinton, before you ran the professionals out of government in favor of your unreality-based reality — Richard Clarke wrote in the Philadelphia Inquirer:
Advertise | AdChoices

“Let me be clear: Our ability to track and monitor terrorists overseas would not cease should the Protect America Act expire.
“If this were true, the president would not threaten to terminate any temporary extension with his veto pen. All surveillance currently occurring would continue even after legislative provisions lapsed because authorizations issued under the act are in effect up to a full year.”
You are a liar, Mr. Bush. And after showing some skill at it, you have ceased to even be a very good liar.
And your minions like John Boehner, your Republican congressional crash dummies who just happen to decide to walk out of Congress when a podium-full of microphones await them, they should just keep walking, out of Congress and, if possible, out of the country.
For they and you, sir, have no place in a government of the people, by the people, for the people.
The lot of you are the symbolic descendants of the despotic middle managers of some banana republic to whom “freedom” is an ironic brand name, a word you reach for when you want to get away with its opposite.
Thus, Mr. Bush, your panoramic invasion of privacy is dressed up as “protecting America.”
Thus, Mr. Bush, your indiscriminate domestic spying becomes the focused monitoring only of “terrorist communications.”
Thus, Mr. Bush, what you and the telecom giants have done isn’t unlawful; it’s just the kind of perfectly legal, passionately patriotic thing for which you happen to need immunity!
Richard Clarke is on the money, as usual.
That the president was willing to veto this eavesdropping means there is no threat to the legitimate counterterror efforts under way.
As Sen. Edward Kennedy reminded us in December:
Advertise | AdChoices
“The president has said that American lives will be sacrificed if Congress does not change FISA.
“But he has also said that he will veto any FISA bill that does not grant retroactive immunity.
“No immunity, no FISA bill. So if we take the president at his word, he’s willing to let Americans die to protect the phone companies.”
And that literally cannot be. Even Mr. Bush could not overtly take a step that actually aids the terrorists. I am not talking about ethics here. I am talking about blame. If the president seems to be throwing the baby out with the bath water, it means we can safely conclude there is no baby.
Because if there were, sir, now that you have vetoed an extension of this eavesdropping, if some terrorist attack were to follow, you would not merely be guilty of siding with the terrorists. You would not merely be guilty of prioritizing the telecoms over the people. You would not merely be guilty of stupidity. You would not merely be guilty of treason, sir.
You would be personally, and eternally, responsible.
And if there is one thing we know about you, Mr. Bush, one thing that you have proved time and time again — it is that you are never responsible.
As recently ago as 2006, we spoke words like these with trepidation.
The idea that even the most cynical and untrustworthy of politicians in our history, George W. Bush, would use the literal form of terrorism against his own people was dangerous territory. It seemed to tempt fate, to heighten fear.
We will not fear any longer. We will not fear the international terrorists, and we will thwart them. We will not fear the recognition of the manipulation of our yearning for safety, and we will call it what it is: terrorism. We will not fear identifying the vulgar hypocrites in our government, and we will name them. And we will not fear George W. Bush. Nor will we fear because George W. Bush wants us to fear.
© 2013 msnbc.com Reprints
More from NBCNews.com
North Korea crisis: China speaks softly to avoid alienating nuclear-armed neighbor
Ancient asteroid strike in Australia ‘changed face of Earth’
Pregnant Texas teen files suit against parents in abortion feud
Body found in water tank of Los Angeles hotel is missing tourist
Bark up or down? TV show on firewood splits Norwegians
A ‘good’ priest’s lurid fall — to suspected meth dealer
From around the web
Selena Gomez Is Spending All Her Time in a Bikini These Days (Zimbio)
Michelle Obama’s mixed race heritage proved by DNA. (Ancestry.com)
Danica Patrick on Racing, Revealing Photo Shoots, and Double Standards (Makers)
Is it the End of Stainless Steel? (Oven Info)
What You May Not Know About Buffet Food (Lifescript.com)
When does wife get your Social Security? (Bankrate.com)
[what's this]
New! Share what you’re reading & see what your friends are viewing
Allow

What’s this?

Hide more text
Discuss: A veto of the FISA bill ‘endangers Americans’
0 comments
Olbermann: The president is demanding immunity for the telecoms yet, he can’t confirm they did anything for which they need to be cleared

Leave your comment

You
Related: Countdown with Keith Olbermann , United States Congress
Advertise | AdChoices
msnbc headlines
Exonerated man lobbies against the death penalty
“I’m grateful that I’m able to look beyond the hatred,” Franky Carrillo told Rev. Al Sharpton. Carrillo spent 20 years behind bars for a crime he did not commit.
Former PA Gov. Ed Rendell: Bain Capital is fair game for Obama campaign
Civil rights hero denounces voter suppression laws
NAACP takes stand in favor of gay marriage
Jane Lynch on why being out is important to her, and how she was moved by Obama’s support of gay marriage
Is Super PAC influence about transparency or dirty politics?
Multimedia

Video
Explosive town hall reveals ugly rhetoric on immigration

Video
For Obama, the gun control battle is personal

Video
Rebranding attempt hits roadblock with CPAC schedule

Video
Bipartisan push for marriage equality
NBCNews.comsites & shows: TODAYRock Center
Wow The Democratic leadership in the Senate, Republican knuckle-dragging in the same chamber, and the mediocre skills of whoever wrote the final version of the FISA bill, have combined to give Sen. Barack Obama a second chance to make a first impression.
And he damned well better take it. The Senate vote on this tortured and reckless piece of legislation has now been postponed until after the 4th of July break. The Democrats, completing their FISA experience, a collective impression of Homer Simpson falling off a cliff and hitting every bramble on the way down, didn’t exactly plan this fortuitous delay.
Last week, the vote on their cave-in was imminent. But, while arguing over a piece of housing legislation, about how many mortgage lenders can dance on the head of a pin, Republicans dithered so long about protecting their constituents, the banks, that the Senate calendar got backed up.
This, in turn, gave Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid some time to think.
There was one among his group, chosen to run for President, who had loudly assailed the idea of handing a get-out-of-jail-free card to corporations who had approached definitional fascism by breaking the law in concert with the Bush Administration.
But this Senator had suddenly realized, that to the large group of voters who operate with an information base that would make Cliffs Notes look like the Encyclopedia, if, in the final vote, he stood against FISA, he would hand them a rock with which they could hit him over the head, a rock wrapped up in a piece of paper reading:
“Obama voted uh-uh… thing terror stop.” Thus, Sen. Obama, was born your first second chance.
Advertise | AdChoices

Sen. Reid was kind enough to help you out by composing an amendment that would keep FISA, which you rightly endorse, but strips out the telecom immunity, which you rightly oppose.
It’s a protest, a decidedly lame one, but in our daily world of political transactions, voting for the amendment when it has no chance of passing and has been in essence constructed as pure Obama CYA, that is a petty crime.
Whether it will do more to harm your premise of “new politics” than to your credibility as an immunity-opponent, is for you, Senator, to assess.
And live with. It would be sweet to have a pure, politics-free president, but the last of those retired from office in 1797. And while we’ve all quoted the farewell address of “The Father Of Our Nation” for 211 years now, nobody seems to want to remember that its point was to urge his children that: whatever you do, for God’s sake, don’t form political parties, some day they will kill you.
Anyway, Senator, your problem here isn’t the backlash about telecom immunity, and it isn’t really about your political fluidity on the FISA bill.
Your problem is what happens even if this plays out according to plan next week:
You vote for the anti-immunity amendment
The anti-immunity amendment fails
You vote for the FISA legislation
The FISA legislation passes
Senator: The Republicans still run against you with the ‘elections-for-dummies ‘message: “Obama voted uh-uh… thing terror-stop.”
Because, inside the obscenity that was Charlie Black’s comment about how a terrorist attack in this country would be good for his boy John McCain’s chances for election.
Inside the inhuman calculation that Benazhir Bhutto did not die in vain, she helped McCain in the New Hampshire primary. There is a sad and cynical reality. The Republicans can scare some of the people all of the time, and they can scare all of the people some of the time. This is all they are right now. Nobody ever said it better than did Aaron Sorkin in his script for the movie “The American President”:
“Whatever your particular problem is, friend, I promise you, Bob Rumson (and for Rumson, read “McCain”) is not the least bit interested in solving it. He is interested in two things and two things only: Making you afraid of it, and telling you who’s to blame for it.”
Republicans, with almost no exceptions, have no true credibility on counter-terrorism, no track record of prevention or amelioration, and their president can’t even remember the name of the skyscraper he claims to have saved in Los Angeles.
And yet, somehow, the Republicans have managed to convince the public that it doesn’t matter that Mr. Bush had already completed 22 percent of his first term, when he, his administration, and his party, failed so catastrophically on 9/11.
Advertise | AdChoices

The President and party who were at fault, were magically transformed into the president and party who would never let it happen again. An unjust… repellant… nefarious, trick. But, politically, rather a neat trick. Senator, the Republicans are going to paint you as soft on terror no matter how you vote on FISA.
Or how you vote on the Telecom Immunity Amendment. Or on the next farm bill. Last week it was Grover Norquist calling you “John Kerry with a tan.” By November 1st, it’ll be Dick Cheney calling you “Osama Bin Laden with a tan.” When you announced your support of this latest FISA bill, with or without the telecom immunity, the Republicans raced to get out a press release accusing you of flip-flopping.
You shared the exact same position, on which they are running their entire campaign and they criticized you anyway!
So, Senator, from their point of view, they think they’ve got you boxed in. Vote for FISA and you’ve contradicted yourself. Vote against FISA and it’s “Obama voted uh-uh… thing terror-stop.” Vote for FISA and against immunity, and it’s: political expediency, and Democrats soft on terror, and “Obama voted uh-uh… thing terror-stop.” This is a problem, Senator.
Because, flatly, of all the measures that can be taken to aid our damaged nation, and our de-valued constitution, the first, if not the foremost, is not blocking telecom immunity, but making sure no Republican is in the White House past noon next January 20th. Of all the remedial efforts against the Bush Administration’s high crimes and misdemeanors, and of all the prophylactic steps against further inroads against the freedoms of the citizens of this nation and the rights of everyone else, the primary step must still come to us through the prism of politics.
Would that it were otherwise. But it ain’t. Frankly, Senator, this political tight-rope act you’ve tried on FISA the last two weeks, which from the outside seems to have been intended to increase the chances of your election, probably hasn’t helped in the slightest. There is, fortunately, a possible, a most unexpected, solution. Your second second chance.
Since the final version of the FISA bill was passed down from on high, John Dean has been reading it, and re-reading it, and cross-referencing it with other relevant law, and thinking. Something bothered him about it. Or, more correctly, something didn’t bother him about it. Turns out lawyers at the ACLU have been doing the same thing for the last ten days. John compared notes with them, and will be devoting his column at “Find Law” this week, to this unlikely conclusion:
The Republicans who wrote most of this bill at Mr. Bush’s urging, managed to immunize the telecoms from civil suits. But not from criminal prosecution. Senator, here is John Dean’s summary of his findings, which he sent me this morning. “It is clear not only from the language of the bill which must be read in the context of other, related statutes to be clearly understood, but also from the legislative history, that there is absolutely no criminal immunity for anyone in these FISA amendments.”
More over, Senator, it seems as if a lot of people have known this, for a long time.”During the January 24th, 2008 debate in the Senate, Sen. Sam Brownback noted, “The immunity provisions would not apply to the Government or Government officials. Cases against the Government regarding the alleged programs would continue. And the provisions would apply only to civil and not criminal cases.”
In fact, Senator, just last week, Attorney General Mukasey and Director of National Intelligence McConnell sent a letter, for the record, to House Speaker Pelosi emphasizing that the liability protection, quote, “does not immunize any criminal conduct.” And if you ask, Senator, about the President responding to all this by belching out a series of pardons or a blanket pardon to those who broke the law on his behalf, Dean has you covered here, too…
It “would require acceptance by them of the fact that they had broken the law, and thus be an admission of guilt.”
“And a blanket pardon would be an admission by Bush that his war on terror has been a lawless undertaking, operating beyond the bounds of the Constitution and statutes that check the powers of the president and the executive branch.”
Advertise | AdChoices

“It would be an admission by Bush, too, of his own criminal culpability which is why Nixon refused to grant his aides a pardon.”
Senator, sometimes it is better to be lucky, than good. Keep your eye on the wording of the legislation to make sure the Republicans don’t realize its flaws. Then vote for the amendment to strip telecom immunity out of the FISA bill. Then after that fails, vote for the FISA bill, if that’s your final answer. Then the minute the president has signed the FISA bill, you announce that you voted for it because it renews FISA and because it permits a bigger prize than just civil suits, that it allows for criminal prosecution of past illegal eavesdropping.
Say, loudly, that your understanding of this bill is such, that if you are elected, your Attorney General will begin a full-scale criminal investigation of the Telecom Companies who collaborated with President Bush in eavesdropping on Americans. And mention that your Attorney General will subpoena such records, notes, e-mail, data, and testimony, from any and all Bush Administration officials, FBI or CIA personnel, or any members of the Executive Branch, who may have as much as breathed in the general direction of these nefarious acts of domestic spying at Mr. Bush’s behest.
Wait, you say there’s a political hit waiting for you there too? Another “Obama voted uh-uh… thing terror-stop.” Actually, Senator, you’ve already gone down this road, when you spoke to my colleague, Will Bunch, of the Philadelphia Daily News, on April 14th of this year. He asked about the possibility of criminal investigations of the 43rd President and his henchmen.
“What I would want to do,” you told him, “is have my Justice Department and my Attorney General immediately review the information that’s already there and to find out, are there inquiries that need to be pursued. I can’t prejudge that, because we don’t have access to all the material right now.”
“You’re also right that I would not want my first term consumed by what was perceived on the part of Republicans as a partisan witch hunt, because I think we’ve got too many problems we’ve got to solve.”
“Now, if I found out that there were high officials who knowingly, consciously broke existing laws, engaged in cover-ups of those crimes with knowledge forefront, then I think a basic principle of our Constitution is: nobody above the law. And I think that’s roughly how I would look at it.”
Make this clear, Senator. You’ve already taken the political hit from the Right, for saying you’d seek to strip out, or rescind immunity. You’ve already taken the political hit from the Left, for saying you’d vote for the FISA bill even with the immunity. You’ve paid the political price in advance. Now buy yourself and those who have most ardently supported you something worth more than just class action suits against Verizon.
Explain that you are standing aside on civil immunity, not just for political expediency, but for a greater and more tangible good, the holding to account, of the most-corrupt, the most dangerous, and the most anti-democracy presidential administration in our long history.
Of course, if you disagree with this interpretation, if you think the FISA bill doesn’t have the giant loophole, or if you don’t think you, as president, would be ready to support criminal prosecution of well, criminals then your duty is clear.
Vote against the FISA bill, if it still carries that immunity. The Republicans are going to call you the names any which way, Senator. They’re going to cry regardless, Senator. And as the old line goes: give them something to cry about.
Also here is who Oreilly is and how right on KO has been about him

September 13 — O’Reilly stated: “Of course” Fluke is “demanding the taxpayer fund female birth control, abortion, and now transgender operations.”
September 11 — O’Reilly stated: Americans “don’t want to pay for Sandra Fluke’s lifestyle choices.” O’Reilly went on to say, “if you’re going to tell me that I got to pay for Sandra Fluke’s birth control, I’m going to tell you that’s an extremist position.”
September 5 — O’Reilly stated: “Sandra Fluke wants us to pay for her birth control.”
August 27 – O’Reilly described, “Sandra Fluke, who wants everybody to pay for her birth control.” He asked his guest, Juan Williams, “Do you want to pay for [her] birth control?” He finished by claiming that Fluke “wants us to pick up her lifestyle expenses,” and said in another segment that Fluke “believes the constitution mandates that the American people pay for her birth control.”
In addition, O’Reilly has repeatedly attacked or facilitated attacks on Fluke on his show:

September 13 – O’Reilly read an email from a viewer who claimed she “stood up and cheered Dennis Miller hammering Sandra Fluke,” and an email that rebuked O’Reilly for falsely claiming the activist wanted government to pay for her birth control – a charge O’Reilly denied.
September 12 – O’Reilly guest Dennis Miller said that Fluke “reminds me of that character, the little whiney girl in ‘Willy Wonka,’ Veruca Salt, ‘Daddy, I want my own Oompa Loompa.’ It’s code for ‘Hey, you, pay for my diaphragm.’ People [are] sick of it, honey….[You're] a 31-year-old woman who’s stuck in a Virginia Slims magazine ad from 1968.”
September 11 – O’Reilly read two viewer emails that reference Fluke. One contrasted her opposition to mandatory ultrasounds for women who want abortions to her advocacy for abortion rights. The other defended Fluke, saying “you are coming across as the extremist, not Sandra Fluke.” He discussed Fluke with two guests in a segment on gender reassignment surgery for prison inmates and suggested she would require Fox News to pay for his surgery, if he wanted it.
September 10 – O’Reilly called Fluke’s speech “smug and immature,” invoked her name twice when discussing the convention with guest Brit Hume and asked two of his guests, Juan Williams and Mary Katharine Ham, if they believed her to be an extremist.
September 6 – When guest Megyn Kelly mentioned that Fluke was given a prime time speaking slot, O’Reilly commented, “Yes, you know, smirking all the way through it.”
September 5 – O’Reilly [listed] categorized Sandra Fluke as a “far left loon” who the Democrats were highlighting at their convention. He said “President Obama should be embarrassed.”
August 30 – O’Reilly: “I’m just wondering when Sandra Fluke speaks next week at the Democratic Convention, what they’re going to drop from the ceiling.”
August 29 – Previewing the Democratic convention, O’Reilly said “they’re loading up the Charlotte convention with Sandra Fluke and NARAL and, I mean, all the far left women.”
Even in O’Reilly’s absence, his guest host Laura Ingraham mentioned Fluke several times while asking if “Democrats are going overboard with their war on women campaign?”

Under the Affordable Care Act, “up to 47 million women may be eligible to get free access to preventive health care services,” which include, among other services:

Well-woman visits, including an annual check-up for adult women to get recommended preventive services, and additional visits if women and their doctors determine them necessary.
Contraception and contraceptive counseling: Women will have free access to all FDA-approved contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures and patient education and counseling without a co-pay. Most workers in employer-sponsored plans are currently covered for contraceptives.
Gestational diabetes screening for women 24 to 28 weeks pregnant, and those at high risk of developing gestational diabetes.
Breastfeeding support, supplies, and counseling for pregnant and postpartum women, including access to comprehensive lactation support and counseling from trained providers, as well as breastfeeding equipment.
O’Reilly is not the only Fox News host to have recently spread the falsehood that Fluke wants taxpayers to pay for her birth control. The same day as O’Reilly’s Stewart interview, contributor Charles Krauthammer said that Fluke’s “great demand” is “that ordinary Americans, average income $50,000, pay her contraceptives.” He called her the “personification of the idea of entitlement, of victimization.”

On the September 6 edition of The Five, co-host Greg Gutfeld said that Fluke “wants you to pay for her birth control. I am [woman], hear me roar is now I am needy, give me more.” The next day he smeared actress and Obama supporter Scarlett Johansson, who spoke at the Democratic National Convention, saying that since the actress is “worth millions,” she should pay for her friends’ contraception, “instead of asking me.” His co-host Dana Perino, on August 23, said “thanks to Sandra Fluke and President Obama women now have free birth control.”

The “free birth control” smear has also filtered into Fox’s ostensibly “straight news” shows, with Megyn Kelly claiming, “You got Sandra Fluke out there saying thank God for government paying for my birth control, which for me is now free,” and White House reporter Ed Henry saying that “a fight with the Catholic Church” over contraception coverage “highlighted [Obama's] support for free contraception.”

Short Link

Posted in
Health Care, Health Care Reform, Reproductive Choice
Network/Outlet
Fox News Channel
Person
Bill O’Reilly, Dana Perino, Dennis Miller, Ed Henry, Greg Gutfeld, Laura Ingraham, Megyn Kelly
Show/Publication
America Live, The Five, The O’Reilly Factor
here is another about Oreilly and lies that he puts out Thursday on Fox News Channel’s “The O’Reilly Factor,” host Bill O’Reilly and producer Jesse Watters engaged in a discussion of the changing demographics of the U.S. and noted, with puzzlement, that many Asian-Americans are voting Democratic. According to Media Matters, O’Reilly suggested that this is surprising because “Asian people are not liberal, you know, by nature.”

This discussion opened with the two men talking about the state of Hawaii, which they claim is rife with homeless people because of “addiction” and because, O’Reilly said, “they don’t enforce the drug laws.”

“But you know what’s shocking?” he continued, “35 percent of the Hawaiian population is Asian, and Asian people are not liberal, you know, by nature. They’re usually more industrious and hard-working.”

“But they did vote for President Obama,” said Watters.

“Big time,” O’Reilly agreed.

O’Reilly’s views on race have landed him in hot water before, such as the time he incredulously informed his radio listening audience that he had gone to dine at Sylvia’s, an upscale soul food restaurant in Harlem, and was shocked to find the patrons sitting upright at tables and eating with silverware.

“I couldn’t get over the fact that there was no difference between Sylvia’s restaurant and any other restaurant in New York City,” he said in September of 2007. “There wasn’t one person in Sylvia’s who was screaming, ‘M-Fer, I want more iced tea.’”

Watch the video, embedded via Media Matters, below:

Raw Story (http://s.tt/1xXQf)
He also loves to get history wrong like he did with Lincoln,When powerhouse pundit Bill O’Reilly decided to tackle the subject of Abraham Lincoln’s assassination he didn’t want to write just another “boring history book.”

Recent posts

02.20.13
A new work by Haruki Murakami is arriving in April – but only in Japanese
02.19.13
New James Bond novel will arrive this fall
02.15.13
‘The Aviator’s Wife’ author Melanie Benjamin is drawn to ‘locked doors and hidden closets’
02.15.13
Mark Zuckerberg’s sister Randi Zuckerberg plans memoir about working at Facebook
02.15.13
Bestselling author riles many, calling libraries ‘no longer relevant’
Related stories
Visit Book editor Marjorie Kehe’s Fan page (Facebook.com)
Ford’s Theatre, citing errors, refuses to carry Bill O’Reilly’s ‘Killing Lincoln’
What Bill O’Reilly should have read instead
Bill O’Reilly’s new book will “answer many questions” about JFK’s assassination
Ads by Google
AKB48 Concert livestream
Enjoy AKB48′s full livestreamed
concert on YouTube, Google+ 1/23-27
plus.google.com
Subscribe Today to the Monitor

Click Here for your FREE 30 DAYS of
The Christian Science Monitor
Weekly Digital Edition
As he told his colleagues at Fox and Friends, his goal was to craft a story that would read “like a thriller,” and yet instruct the nation on the qualities required of the next president of the United States. O’Reilly’s “Killing Lincoln” has succeeded in at least one respect. It delivers a taut, action-packed narrative with cliff-hangers aplenty, no mean feat since we all know how the story ends. But whether the book succeeds as a lesson in moral leadership is quite another question.

In the hands of O’Reilly and his co-author, Martin Dugard, Lincoln’s assassination most resembles the kind of morality tale beloved of cable news networks: sensationalized, suggestive, and overly simplistic. O’Reilly’s Lincoln is surrounded by a supporting cast of clichés. The cigar-smoking, horse-whispering Ulysses S. Grant, the proudly patrician Robert E. Lee, a childish and impulsive First Lady, and a suave demon in disguise, John Wilkes Booth – “handsome, brilliant, witty, charismatic, tender, and able to bed almost any woman he wants,” a passionate son of the Confederacy, and a virulent racist with a “pathological hatred for Lincoln.”

7 best political novels

Even as Booth is represented as evil incarnate, O’Reilly gives us a Lincoln cleansed of all controversy and complexity. This Lincoln is humble, courageous, compassionate, steadfast, a “man of faith” who knows that “God will guide him.” In the last days of the war, his primary goal is to reunite and heal a wounded nation, even though he knows it will likely cost him his life. O’Reilly’s Lincoln is, in short, an old-school national martyr.

While O’Reilly has promoted the book with promises of lessons for today’s fractious political climate, readers will be hard-pressed to find any insights into national leadership here. Indeed, Lincoln’s extraordinary skills as a politician and a leader are, curiously, almost entirely ignored in the book. Instead, Lincoln’s character is boiled down to a few banal and easily repeated slogans. “America is a great country,” O’Reilly reminds us, and “President Abraham Lincoln represents the good that can make us stronger.”

Rather than offering lessons in leadership or solutions for a politically divided nation, the book unwittingly exemplifies some of the greatest failings of our current mass mediated political discourse. There is the oversimplification of complex realities, the appeal of crass sensationalism, the stereotypical pigeon-holing of public figures, the innuendo based on hearsay and scant evidence. Throughout the book, in fact, O’Reilly strongly implies that Lincoln’s Secretary of War, Edwin Stanton, was a party to the assassination, a conspiracy that he hints may have included members of Congress, Army and Navy officers, bankers, industrialists, journalists, and a sitting governor. Of course, he is careful to cloak these allegations in the kind of accusatory rhetorical questions that are now so commonly employed by the punditocracy.

In the end, “Killing Lincoln” is both a thrilling historical tale and a disappointing reminder that in today’s media and political landscape, style and image often take precedence over evidence and substance.
and here ther Lincoln experts also say they have found inaccuracies in the book. In a review published in the November issue of “North & South — The Official Magazine of the Civil War Society,” historian Edward Steers Jr. cites several instances where the book strays from documented history. He then asks: “If the authors made mistakes in names, places, and events, what else did they get wrong? How can the reader rely on anything that appears in ‘Killing Lincoln’?”

By taking on Lincoln, O’Reilly and Dugard have set themselves up for avid scrutiny. Few presidents, indeed few subjects, are as voluminously researched and fought over as Lincoln. Steers notes that more than 16,000 books and articles have been written about Lincoln, with more than 125 volumes on the assassination. He adds that only eight of the assassination books were written by professional historians.

Eric Foner, a history professor at Columbia University who has written about the Civil War, Lincoln and the South for 40 years, said that he had not read “Killing Lincoln,” but added in an e-mail, “Many people outside the academy have written about Lincoln and the assassination, but all sorts of unproven theories about it abound and one would hope that any writer would make use of all the relevant sources (and avoid historical errors).”

“Killing Lincoln” has no footnotes. An afterword on sources lists “books, websites, and other archived information.” But to Steers, the list leaves out important primary documents.
Also here is more of Oreilly lies Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly resorted to his standard accusation of being taken out of context to defend himself against criticism that his recent comments about Asian-Americans were offensive. Last week on his show, O’Reilly stated that “Asian people are not liberal, you know, by nature. They’re usually more industrious and hard-working.”

Hawaii Democratic Rep. Colleen Hanabusa appeared on his Friday show to criticize O’Reilly, saying that she took issue with the way he described Asian-Americans. She stressed that Asian-Americans value their elders and that their culture teaches them to value each other.

O’Reilly replied by accusing of her not having seen the entire January 3 report and claiming that we took him out context:

O’REILLY: I don’t believe you saw that report on television. I saw it — I think you saw it on Media Matters, which you cite on your website. And you took a clip from Media Matters, which they took totally out of context — totally out of context. You didn’t see the full report on this program.

In fact, we accurately portrayed O’Reilly’s January 3 comments, in context, complete with relevant video and a transcript of his remarks.

On January 3, The O’Reilly Factor aired a segment featuring Fox News producer Jesse Watters interviewing people on the street in Hawaii and highlighting that state’s supposedly liberal culture. Following a clip of the interviews, Watters discussed the “social problems” in Hawaii such as homelessness and drug abuse with O’Reilly on-air. O’Reilly then said:

O’REILLY: I think the one person who said, Look, this is a place where people come to to escape. This is, you know, generally speaking. But you know what’s shocking? 35 percent of the Hawaiian population is Asian, and Asian people are not liberal, you know, by nature. They’re usually more industrious and hard-working.

After accusing Hanabusa of not having seen the entire report, O’Reilly stated that his remarks were “in the context of Watters going to Hawaii, interviewing guys in recliners, who are on unemployment, sitting back in the beautiful sun, and saying, ‘you know what? It’s — give me stuff. I don’t want to work for it.’” He went on to say: “It wasn’t an Asian-American report.” He later admonished Hanabusa to “never again condemn anybody unless you see the total report,” adding: “What I did was not offensive to Asians. I was talking into a context that you didn’t see because you took it off a far-left website that is dishonest.”

In fact, adding Watters’ man-on-the-street interviews to our clip would hardly have changed the nature of what O’Reilly said about Asian-Americans.

Hanabusa replied by calling his comments offensive and saying, “We are not one kind of person. We want you to recognize that we are different. That is all we are asking you to do.”

O’Reilly routinely accuses us of taking him out of context or deceptively editing his comments to defend himself from criticism.
In a “Factor Fiction” segment Wednesday night, Keith highlighted how Bill O’Reilly attacks MediaMatters for committing the mortal sin of quoting him accurately. It’s hysterical how he seeks to discredit everything MM does when all they do is accurately document what he says. It doesn’t matter if he actually said the quote in question; what matters is if it was documented by MM. If it was, then it’s immediately invalid — even though they always include the entire context and video/audio.

Download | play Download | play

“In an age in which we rightly fear being inaccurately quoted or misinterpreted, it would seem that Bill-O’s real anger and real fear rests in the dread that someone is quoting him correctly.”

MediaMatters has more, including the entire context of everything you see in this clip. Then again, since it’s on their site it’s all “vile far left propaganda” dictated by the evil and conspiratorial George Soros, who rules the world.On the April 23 broadcast of 630 KHOW-AM’s The Caplis & Silverman Show, KWGN CW2 meteorologist Rob “Sunny” Roseman made numerous false claims to support his contention that “man-made” global warming is “not settled science.” In addition to ignoring the consensus view that human activity is largely responsible for global warming, Roseman — without substantiation and counter to evidence presented in numerous peer-reviewed studies — falsely claimed that “500 years ago, the Earth was about 5 degrees warmer than it is” today. Co-host Dan Caplis responded to Roseman’s falsehoods by saying he made some “great points.”

Roseman told Caplis that he has a master’s degree in climatology, but he did not specify the institution that awarded it and his biography on the KWGN website does not provide that information. He responded to Caplis’ question, “Sunny, what do you think of … the underlying premise of man-made, man-corrected global warming?” by saying, “I don’t think it’s man-made.” Roseman added, “For some reason we as humans have a tendency to want to believe things that are popular in the media rather than just, say, listen to all of the scientists. Number one, it is not settled science — I will tell you that; absolutely not settled science. I could put 500 climate people into a room and probably 250 of them are going to agree and 250 will disagree with it.”

Roseman’s remarks about a purported lack of scientific consensus on why the Earth’s temperature is rising echoed those of some conservative media figures who continue to dispute that human activity is responsible for increasing global temperatures, as Colorado Media Matters has noted. Furthermore, as Media Matters for America has documented (here, here, and here), scientific organizations such as the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and the Union of Concerned Scientists share the consensus view that human activity is largely responsible for observed climate change forcing. As an IPCC report released in February found:

Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic [human-produced] greenhouse gas concentrations. This is an advance since the TAR’s [Third Assessment Report] conclusion that “most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations”. Discernible human influences now extend to other aspects of climate, including ocean warming, continental-average temperatures, temperature extremes and wind patterns. [Emphasis in original. The report defines "very likely" as a greater than 90 percent probability of occurrence.]

In May 2006, at the time of the theatrical release of former Vice President Al Gore’s global warming documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, The New York Times published an article by Andrew C. Revkin reporting that mainstream scientists — while taking issue with some details in the film — embraced its premise and subscribed to Gore’s “main point”:

In interviews and e-mail exchanges, many climate specialists who have seen the film quibbled about details but tended to agree with Eric Steig, a University of Washington geochemist who posted his reactions at the Web log realclimate.org after a recent Seattle screening: ”The small errors don’t detract from Gore’s main point, which is that we in the United States have the technological and institutional ability to have a significant impact on the future trajectory of climate change.”

A June 2006 Associated Press article reported a similar consensus among climate scientists, who said the film “mostly got the science right.”

Later in the interview, Roseman claimed that “500 years ago, the Earth was about 5 degrees warmer than it is now — especially in North America and Northern Europe” and that “we have proof that when it was 5 degrees warmer, none of this bad stuff happened.” However, scientific research does not support Roseman’s contention.

In response to a congressional request, the National Research Council (NRC) assembled a committee of climate professionals to “assess the state of scientific efforts to reconstruct surface temperature records for the Earth over approximately the last 2,000 years” and to produce a report presenting the committee’s findings. A June 22, 2006, press release accompanying the report noted:

There is sufficient evidence from tree rings, boreholes, retreating glaciers, and other “proxies” of past surface temperatures to say with a high level of confidence that the last few decades of the 20th century were warmer than any comparable period in the last 400 years, according to a new report from the National Research Council.

And while the committee noted with respect to multiple studies that “[l]ess confidence can be placed in proxy-based reconstructions of surface temperatures for A.D. 900 to 1600,” it nevertheless emphasized — contrary to Roseman’s claim — that “evidence does indicate that many locations were warmer during the past 25 years than during any other 25-year period since 900.” As a summary accompanying the report further stated:

Evidence for regional warmth during medieval times can be found in a diverse but more limited set of records including ice cores, tree rings, marine sediments, and historical sources from Europe and Asia, but the exact timing and duration of warm periods may have varied from region to region, and the magnitude and geographic extent of the warmth are uncertain.

As the report itself notes, “Within Europe, only two continuous records currently extend back before 1500 … both of which have been incorporated into synthetic large-scale temperature reconstructions.” The report states that these studies “mark the 20th century as exceptionally warm.” As MSNBC reported, with regard to recent warming as trends measured against a broad historical scale, the report concludes:

“[The] numerous indications that recent warmth is unprecedented for at least the last 400 years and potentially the last several millennia, in combination with estimates of external climate forcing variations over the same period, support the conclusion that human activities are responsible for much of the recent warming.”

Moreover, as MSNBC observed, the NRC’s report was commissioned by then-chairman of the House Science Committee, Rep. Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY), and was to “focus[] on research data criticized by warming skeptics … published in 2001 by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,” which concluded that “the Northern Hemisphere was the warmest it has been in 1,000 years.” Yet rather than validating the skeptics’ criticisms, the commission’s review of the existing science further refuted the notion that present warming trends are not unprecedented in the historical record. As MSNBC reported, “John Wallace, an atmospheric sciences professor at the University of Washington and a panel member” confirmed that “[t]he conclusions from the [IPCC] research ‘are very close to being right’ and are supported by even more recent data.”

As indicated by the plotting of the data from the seven studies it scrutinized the NRC found that, in relative terms, estimated temperatures for the year 1507 are well below observed global temperatures today. And as evidenced by the grey shading — the darker shading indicating a lower degree of confidence in the given results — the estimates from 500 years ago are not only consistent, but also carry a significant degree of scientific certainty.

From the April 23 broadcast of 630 KHOW-AM’s The Caplis & Silverman Show:

CAPLIS: Now, Sunny, what do you think of this — the, the underlying premise of man-made, man-corrected global warming?

ROSEMAN: I have a couple of thoughts. The biggest one is — and by the way, I studied climatology; that’s what I got a master’s degree in. So I have studied this.

[...]

CAPLIS: So now for, for me — you’ve got a master’s in this stuff. Bottom line: Is it man-made, and if it is, can man correct it?

ROSEMAN: I don’t think it’s man-made. I could give you, and will give you, just a couple of examples of — by way of questions — that will make people question why they think it’s man-made. For some reason we as humans have a tendency to want to believe things that are popular in the media rather than just, say, listen to all of the scientists. Number one, it is not settled science — I will tell you that; absolutely not settled science. I could put 500 climate people into a room and probably 250 of them are going to agree and 250 will disagree with it. I’ve got a couple real simple questions to ask. As we all know, at one point — or at several points over the last several thousand years –

CRAIG SILVERMAN [co-host]: Hey, Sunny, this is not TV, so you don’t need to be simple.

ROSEMAN: [laughing] Yeah, but I’m a simple kind of guy, though, you know? That’s the problem. Seriously though, Colorado was covered by thousands of feet of ice at some point. How did that melt unless there were some little guys driving around in cars that we didn’t know about?

SILVERMAN: I think it was a lot of pee — a lot of little boys peeing outside.

ROSEMAN: Maybe, and only using one thing of, of toilet paper. Maybe that was it.

SILVERMAN: That, that’s — that’s clearly how it happened.

ROSEMAN: Oh, it had to have been; that’s the only thing it could have been. But how about the other question: Greenland was named Greenland because guess what, it was green at one time.

CAPLIS: Right, right.

ROSEMAN: Before it became so ice encrusted. And now it’s going back to that. The reality is, if you look back on the cycle, it is exactly that. We have –

SILVERMAN: But what about the ozone layer? You know, I don’t know anything about science, but the, the people who are smart about this say that greenhouse gases are affecting the ozone layer. It, it does seem to make sense to me — and I’m not a scientist, I didn’t go to a correspondence school in climatology or anything like that. But as Bill O’Reilly — who is just like me, not a scientist — said, there’s a lot of guck in the air. And isn’t it natural to think that’s not good for us?

ROSEMAN: OK, now I will agree with you a hundred percent — we should not be using fuel to power our economy; we should be finding other things. But is that the sole cause of why it’s warming now? I don’t believe so. As far as ozone, by the way –

SILVERMAN: It’s that and the toilet paper.

ROSEMAN: Well that and the toilet paper. We could, we could all go back to rocks. What do you think?

SILVERMAN: That doesn’t sound too comfortable.

CAPLIS: I don’t think so, Sunny.

ROSEMAN: Leaves and stuff like that. But, but seriously, 500 years ago, the Earth was about 5 degrees warmer than it is now — especially in North America and Northern Europe. Guess what? Some of the best climate, the best crop-growing weather and everything else, and the seas weren’t 3 feet higher than they are today.

CAPLIS: Mm-hmm.

ROSEMAN: So why all of a sudden because some computer model says it –

CAPLIS: Right.

ROSEMAN: — we believe that, well because it’s going to warm 1 degree, it — when, when we have proof that when it was 5 degrees warmer, none of this bad stuff happened.

CAPLIS: Sunny, I think –

ROSEMAN: Why do we have that belief? I don’t, I don’t get that.

CAPLIS: I, I think those are all great points. And that’s why I think at this point, folks need to have a chance to really think about this, to hear the competing scientists, apply their own common sense. You know, weigh in the cost in, in terms of real life: jobs, which means people lose houses, which means kids can’t go to their schools. You know, the, the real-world costs of doing what people like Al Gore suggest we need to be doing and then, you know, let’s come to some kind of conclusion. But I’m with you, Sunny; I don’t think the debate’s over. But thank you for your time today.

ROSEMAN: Sure — thanks, guys. Appreciate you letting me yap a little.t’s all Soros all the time for O’Reilly. Didn’t Soros push Bush to invade Iraq? Wasn’t it Soros that funded Gitmo? And I believe Soros coached Alberto Gonzales before he testified last week…George wants to buy AMERICA! Poor Joe Lieberman…

Download | play Download | play

He doubled up on his production values by adding a nifty little chart…John Edwards is under his spell too…Move On, CAP, Media Matters, The NY Times, Jonathan Alter and NBC news…There’s too many…I’m getting dizzy…

UPDATE: Well–look at this….Countdown beat out The Factor in the 25-54 demo on Friday…Oliver Willis has more…

Bill from Portland has more: In a lengthy opening diatribe, this evening Bill O’Reilly laid out the far-left George Soros conspiracy in spades. He had a chart and everything. I can’t possibly do the segment justice. This diary is more of a “heads up” so that you can be on the lookout for the inevitable video that will pop up. But in a nutshell:

George Soros funds the Open Society Institute, the Democracy Alliance, MoveOn.org, and the Center For American Progress. And all four of these insanely powerful and nefarious organizations fund “millions” to…read on

So sorry KO even tells the truth about Oreilly, you need to get off this blog with your igorance about jouranlism and KO and who Murrow is. All you do By is prove why KO is this generations Murrow.

Moderators get the troll off the blog and let people talk baseball.
KO keep being yourself and you will always have a fan in me, you show why you are this generations Murrow everyday, sorry that you got treated like crap at Current and cannot wait to see you on Furgeson. Keep showing why you are on to bigger and better things, KO keep being yourself and you will always have a fan in me.

I love how history and BB bitch and moan about the quality of the set BB was given at Current without acknowledging the fact that Current budgeted $50 MILLION for Countdown and BB took the whole thing in salary and demanded more.
A portion of $50 MILLION would have paid for BB’s demands hundreds of times over, but BB couldn’t stand to be paid one penny less.
Then, he got his fat ass fired. AGAIN. And lost out on everything. :-)
Keep it up BB. Laughing at you keeps me young. :-)

Moderators please get this troll out here with igorant posts about what being human means, that make me laugh and respect KO more and more. By keep embarassing yourself with your igorance and bashing of KO because that is all you do. You live in a alternate universe that you think that debunk talking points and debunk names and are what honesty and is. Do not say different because that would be a lie. Get off this blog and let people talk baseball and go back to we are igroant about KO blogs and love to show it.

Also I love how you think that a set that kept breaking down, along with the equipment espically stuff that things that are needed to have a show would be up to 50 million or even worth the money that it paid for, I also love how you think that it okay for KO or any broadcaster should work in a studio that is falling apart along with a set and to work a infection which people like me who watched his show and even guests aka Myonseed could see, and if left untreated could mean no career, you really show By that you do not know what the term human means, and do not say different because that would be a lie.

You really do love to show how much of a hypocrite you are, I laugh at the fact that you love to show why you are everything that you claim KO is and do not say different because that would be a lie. Keep making me love and respect KO more and show why he unlike you knows what being human means. Do not say different on that because that would be a lie. Keep making me laugh with your made up crap and the fact that you cannot tell what someone would make if he had not gotten unjustily fired which he was, and what a price for a falling down set and equipment that was breaking down. Wow keep showing how igorant you are, you just show and prove that KO was unjustily fired and that Current broke the contract and always will.
Now get off and let people talk baseball.

I didn’t say it would cost $50 million to fix those “problems”.
I said that a PORTION of $50 million would have covered it all. But BB wanted to keep his whole salary and have MORE money to “fix” the set.

No
First V it does not matter what you said up top, because KO giving up a portion of that salary would not even have gotten half of the problems of the set and studio fixed. You again show that you are igorant about what was going on there and the problems that KO was having there. Also KO was willing to give up his salary to help out, one by helping Current when it came to hiring new people to help build a program he only asked that they keep thier promise to him about running the news department. So you are lying about KO only wanting the money, Only people that live in alternate universes believe that KO wanted to keep the money, he said in his lawsuit that he was willing to reduce his own salary to help Current pay a salary for hiring two people that he got to help choose when he was promised to be News Cheif, so please again to continue to lie about KO not wanting to help with the money. Also By it would have taken way more than 50 million to fix that set, or even that studio. So I have to laugh that you think KO giving up a portion of that salary would have helped pay to fix a set or even the studio. He could have gave everything up and that set and studio would still not have been fixed. Also By Current never even bothered to fix the problems they only complain about them. Also I love how you bash KO but do not get, that Current said that they handle the business side and KO the content, that means BY that it was Currents job to fix the set and studio problems, and they did not, they were the ones that bought the equipment BY that kept breaking down, also they were the ones that promised him a new studio and did not deliever on the it. So keep putting out talking points and saying that KO is the bad guy. BY again thier is no evidence that KO broke the contract, that is all CUrrent and you keep showing why it all Current, and showing how igorant you are about what happened there. KO giving up his salary which he 1. Current co-founder Joel Hyatt was kind of socially awkward: A thread running through Olbermann’s lawsuit is that Current tried to distance him from his representation, sometimes to disadvantage him in negotiations. But in this case, Olbermann makes a more personal allegation, that “Hyatt also attempted to isolate Olbermann from his professional representatives in an awkward attempt to form a close personal friendship with his new star.”
2. Current underinvested in its web presence, to the detriment of its audience base: Sometime, these charges are an opportunity for snark, as when the suit alleges “Stunningly, Al Gore’s network was not interested in establishing a strong internet presence.” But the suit also suggests that the network was slow to build out its web presence and wouldn’t allow Olbermann’s show to stream online, a hook that might have helped viewers who didn’t have Current or weren’t sure where to find the network on their channel lineups, continue to watch the program. “Current even refused Olbermann’s request and contractual right, to stream segments of the Program and additional web-only content over the Program Website. It is both sad and ironic that a channel owned and founded by Al Gore, for the stated purpose of creating an independent perspective, free from the control of large corporate interests, restricted the rights of its most celebrated commentator and Chief News Officer to fully broadcast his opinions over, of all things, the internet.”
3. Current’s facilities were a mess: This has been one of the most commonly reported points of dissension between Current and Olbermann, particularly after an electrical failure while the program was on-air led Olbermann to bring a candle on set. The lawsuit alleges that “Current President David Bohrman admitted ‘the 33rd St. facility is never going to be a professional facility. We need to move to HD, and a better location.’ He further admitted in that same e-mail ‘We are paying for a Porsche and getting a Yugo.’”
4. Hyatt behavior threatened Olbermann’s staff: “Hyatt’s leadership was highly erratic. Just days before the premiere of the Program, Hyatt even threatened to fire Olbermann and the loyal staff members who had followed him from MSNBC to Current. Hyatt behaved as if he had just paid Olbermann to become his puppet instead of the Chief News Officer of the network.”
5. Hyatt and Current were moustache-twirling blackmailers: “Hyatt blackmailed Olbermann into agreeing to put himself in a position that no other major talent in the entertainment or news industries has been forced into in decades: fending for himself without the benefit of hire advisors. Olbermann gave in to Hyatt’s blackmail for the purposes of saving the premiere of the Program and the jobs of those who worked on it. Olbermann left the meeting devastated at having discovered that he was working for a blackmailer.”
6. Hyatt doesn’t know how the television ratings system works: “The very success of the Program was compromised when Hyatt, displaying his utter lack of industry knowledge, ordered incorrect ratings data and then disseminated it to the media. In essence, Hyatt took what could have been a victory and turned it into an unrecoverable defeat. A show only has one opportunity to be launched. In reality, the Program’s premiere had higher ratings than both CNN and MSNBC in the key demographic for advertisers. The incorrect ratings purchased and disseminated by Hyatt, because they did not contain statistics for same day viewing through DVRs and other such methods, did not reveal that the Program had outrated MSNBC. Because Hyatt did not know that there were two types of ratings and ordered the cheaper ones, the Program missed out on its lone opportunity to tout its success.”
7. There are two journalists out there who Olbermann would take a pay cut to work with: This may be the biggest mystery of the lawsuit. Who in journalism does Olbermann like that much? “Olbermann even offered to reduce his own salary to help pay for two journalists with whom Olbermann had previously worked, who would have been immediately recognizable and had credibility with the ‘Countdown’ audience. Despite Olbermann’s generous offer and his proven track record of identifying star progressive voices, Hyatt ignored Olbermann’s advice, arrogantly believing in his own unproven eye for talent.”
8. Olbermann didn’t think the network should hire Jennifer Granholm or Cenk Uygur, but he really doesn’t like Uygur: “Hyatt and Bohrman asked Olbermann about the possibility of hiring Cenk Uygur. Olbermann told them that he did not believe Uygur would be a good choice. Olbermann opined to Bohrman that Uygur had difficulting separating facts from things he wanted to be true…It was, therefore, reasonable for Olbermann to decline to be associated with a host with a questionable journalistic standard and a show that was not up to the standards expected by the ‘Countdown’ audience.”
9. He’s also not much of a Van Jones fan: “The month prior, Bohrman had asked Olbermann’s opinion about a prospective show to be co-hosted by Granholm and Van Jones. Olbermann advised against it.”
10. Olbermann has a pretty low bar for what constitutes disparagement: The lawsuit refers to “Hyatt’s statements to the press, including The Wrap and the Daily Beast, disparaging Olbermann and referring to him as “replaceable.”
BY/V you do not get that the problems that were happening were ones that even if KO had reduce his salary would still have not gotten fixed. Again thier is no evidence that KO broke the contract and never will be.
Also I do not listen to people that use a made up name from a made up story by a guy who loves to make fun of sucide and people’s pain again here is who Gibson is.
KO V giving up a protion of his salary would not have fixed the problems because Current did not want to fix the problems that were happening on Countdown, again you show how igorant you are about what happened over there and show why Current broke the contract.
Keep showing how igorant you are about KO and what happened at Current. BY it was more and way more than set and studio problems for why KO was unjustily fired also. I just have to laugh with how igorant you are about KO and what happened at Current. Sorry Current BY/V broke the contract and that is the truth and always will be the truth. KO was unjustily fired there.
Again I want you to work with a throat infection and than come back and say that KO was the bad guy, here is more about Current and what they cared about t’s too bad that the two highest-profile explicitly liberal media efforts of the last decade—Air America and Current TV—were so brutally mismanaged.
Air America is old news, but yesterday we learned that Current TV was sold to Al Jazeera, as the Qatar-owned news network seeks greater U.S. penetration. Why they think Current’s shitty channel access is attractive beats me. They must be getting a hell of a cheap price.

Problem with Current was that its CEO, Joel Hyatt (from Hyatt Legal Services, also known as the asshole who fired an attorney with AIDS which became the movie Philadelphia), never cared about building a popular network. You could see this with their lack of promotion, with their signing of shitty distribution deals that prohibited them from posting anything of real value on the web, and from their ridiculous firing of their marquee star—Keith Olbermann. A network that had built up an audience of around a quarter million (and growing as people found the hard-to-find network) suddenly saw its prime-time audience plummet to the 40K’s with replacement Elliot Spitzer. So Olbermann can be mercurial. So what? It wasn’t as if his complaints weren’t valid—from shitty and non-improving production values, to lack of web access (his MSNBC special notes were seen by millions online), to lack of promotion.

But Hyatt didn’t give a damn because his business wasn’t selling advertising. It was collecting carriage fees from cable operators. Why did cable operators pay carriage fees to Current? Beats the crap out of me. They’re not very smart either, apparently, though those fees were one of the reasons Current wasn’t allowed to post their content online. (And by the way, cable companies are trying to upend that idiotic system, which is why Time Warner Cable took the opportunity to drop Current after the sale. It didn’t want to keep paying those carriage fees for programming no one watched or cared about.)

So it was a subscription business, not a ratings one. And if your motivation isn’t to increase ratings … what’s the point? You fire your one proven audience draw, you sign contracts that exclude you from the one medium that could promote you for free, and you refuse to advertise your existence. Is it any wonder it failed? That’s why I dramatically scaled back my appearances on the network after Olbermann’s departure, going from 50 appearances in 2011 to maybe three in 2012. What was the point? I had better things to do with my time.

So yet another “liberal” media operation collapses due to mismanagement, and yet again people will say that progressive media won’t work. But MSNBC’s prime-time lineup argues otherwise. Too bad no one has made that kind of investment for a truly 100 percent top-to-bottom progressive effort. There’s space for it.
Also having KO do a commerical for a corporation which was going against his brand is way more than set and studio, so keep living in your alternate universe when it comes to KO. Also keep showing that you V/By does not know what being human means. This post just makes me love and respect KO more and show why he this generations Murrow. Makes me more angry at Current and show how they broke the contract. Keep showing how igorant you are about KO and Current. Sorry KO did not break the contract that has been already BY been debunked and always will be false.

First V it does not matter what you said up top, because KO giving up a portion of that salary would not even have gotten half of the problems of the set and studio fixed. You again show that you are igorant about what was going on there and the problems that KO was having there. Also KO was willing to give up his salary to help out, one by helping Current when it came to hiring new people to help build a program he only asked that they keep thier promise to him about running the news department. So you are lying about KO only wanting the money, Only people that live in alternate universes believe that KO wanted to keep the money, he said in his lawsuit that he was willing to reduce his own salary to help Current pay a salary for hiring two people that he got to help choose when he was promised to be News Cheif, so please again to continue to lie about KO not wanting to help with the money. Also By it would have taken way more than 50 million to fix that set, or even that studio. So I have to laugh that you think KO giving up a portion of that salary would have helped pay to fix a set or even the studio. He could have gave everything up and that set and studio would still not have been fixed. Also By Current never even bothered to fix the problems they only complain about them. Also I love how you bash KO but do not get, that Current said that they handle the business side and KO the content, that means BY that it was Currents job to fix the set and studio problems, and they did not, they were the ones that bought the equipment BY that kept breaking down, also they were the ones that promised him a new studio and did not deliever on the it. So keep putting out talking points and saying that KO is the bad guy. BY again thier is no evidence that KO broke the contract, that is all CUrrent and you keep showing why it all Current, and showing how igorant you are about what happened there. KO giving up his salary which he 1. Current co-founder Joel Hyatt was kind of socially awkward: A thread running through Olbermann’s lawsuit is that Current tried to distance him from his representation, sometimes to disadvantage him in negotiations. But in this case, Olbermann makes a more personal allegation, that “Hyatt also attempted to isolate Olbermann from his professional representatives in an awkward attempt to form a close personal friendship with his new star.”
2. Current underinvested in its web presence, to the detriment of its audience base: Sometime, these charges are an opportunity for snark, as when the suit alleges “Stunningly, Al Gore’s network was not interested in establishing a strong internet presence.” But the suit also suggests that the network was slow to build out its web presence and wouldn’t allow Olbermann’s show to stream online, a hook that might have helped viewers who didn’t have Current or weren’t sure where to find the network on their channel lineups, continue to watch the program. “Current even refused Olbermann’s request and contractual right, to stream segments of the Program and additional web-only content over the Program Website. It is both sad and ironic that a channel owned and founded by Al Gore, for the stated purpose of creating an independent perspective, free from the control of large corporate interests, restricted the rights of its most celebrated commentator and Chief News Officer to fully broadcast his opinions over, of all things, the internet.”
3. Current’s facilities were a mess: This has been one of the most commonly reported points of dissension between Current and Olbermann, particularly after an electrical failure while the program was on-air led Olbermann to bring a candle on set. The lawsuit alleges that “Current President David Bohrman admitted ‘the 33rd St. facility is never going to be a professional facility. We need to move to HD, and a better location.’ He further admitted in that same e-mail ‘We are paying for a Porsche and getting a Yugo.’”
4. Hyatt behavior threatened Olbermann’s staff: “Hyatt’s leadership was highly erratic. Just days before the premiere of the Program, Hyatt even threatened to fire Olbermann and the loyal staff members who had followed him from MSNBC to Current. Hyatt behaved as if he had just paid Olbermann to become his puppet instead of the Chief News Officer of the network.”
5. Hyatt and Current were moustache-twirling blackmailers: “Hyatt blackmailed Olbermann into agreeing to put himself in a position that no other major talent in the entertainment or news industries has been forced into in decades: fending for himself without the benefit of hire advisors. Olbermann gave in to Hyatt’s blackmail for the purposes of saving the premiere of the Program and the jobs of those who worked on it. Olbermann left the meeting devastated at having discovered that he was working for a blackmailer.”
6. Hyatt doesn’t know how the television ratings system works: “The very success of the Program was compromised when Hyatt, displaying his utter lack of industry knowledge, ordered incorrect ratings data and then disseminated it to the media. In essence, Hyatt took what could have been a victory and turned it into an unrecoverable defeat. A show only has one opportunity to be launched. In reality, the Program’s premiere had higher ratings than both CNN and MSNBC in the key demographic for advertisers. The incorrect ratings purchased and disseminated by Hyatt, because they did not contain statistics for same day viewing through DVRs and other such methods, did not reveal that the Program had outrated MSNBC. Because Hyatt did not know that there were two types of ratings and ordered the cheaper ones, the Program missed out on its lone opportunity to tout its success.”
7. There are two journalists out there who Olbermann would take a pay cut to work with: This may be the biggest mystery of the lawsuit. Who in journalism does Olbermann like that much? “Olbermann even offered to reduce his own salary to help pay for two journalists with whom Olbermann had previously worked, who would have been immediately recognizable and had credibility with the ‘Countdown’ audience. Despite Olbermann’s generous offer and his proven track record of identifying star progressive voices, Hyatt ignored Olbermann’s advice, arrogantly believing in his own unproven eye for talent.”
8. Olbermann didn’t think the network should hire Jennifer Granholm or Cenk Uygur, but he really doesn’t like Uygur: “Hyatt and Bohrman asked Olbermann about the possibility of hiring Cenk Uygur. Olbermann told them that he did not believe Uygur would be a good choice. Olbermann opined to Bohrman that Uygur had difficulting separating facts from things he wanted to be true…It was, therefore, reasonable for Olbermann to decline to be associated with a host with a questionable journalistic standard and a show that was not up to the standards expected by the ‘Countdown’ audience.”
9. He’s also not much of a Van Jones fan: “The month prior, Bohrman had asked Olbermann’s opinion about a prospective show to be co-hosted by Granholm and Van Jones. Olbermann advised against it.”
10. Olbermann has a pretty low bar for what constitutes disparagement: The lawsuit refers to “Hyatt’s statements to the press, including The Wrap and the Daily Beast, disparaging Olbermann and referring to him as “replaceable.”
BY/V you do not get that the problems that were happening were ones that even if KO had reduce his salary would still have not gotten fixed. Again thier is no evidence that KO broke the contract and never will be.
Also I do not listen to people that use a made up name from a made up story by a guy who loves to make fun of sucide and people’s pain again here is who Gibson is.
KO V giving up a protion of his salary would not have fixed the problems because Current did not want to fix the problems that were happening on Countdown, again you show how igorant you are about what happened over there and show why Current broke the contract.
Keep showing how igorant you are about KO and what happened at Current. BY it was more and way more than set and studio problems for why KO was unjustily fired also. I just have to laugh with how igorant you are about KO and what happened at Current. Sorry Current BY/V broke the contract and that is the truth and always will be the truth. KO was unjustily fired there.
Again I want you to work with a throat infection and than come back and say that KO was the bad guy, here is more about Current and what they cared about t’s too bad that the two highest-profile explicitly liberal media efforts of the last decade—Air America and Current TV—were so brutally mismanaged.
Air America is old news, but yesterday we learned that Current TV was sold to Al Jazeera, as the Qatar-owned news network seeks greater U.S. penetration. Why they think Current’s shitty channel access is attractive beats me. They must be getting a hell of a cheap price.
Problem with Current was that its CEO, Joel Hyatt (from Hyatt Legal Services, also known as the asshole who fired an attorney with AIDS which became the movie Philadelphia), never cared about building a popular network. You could see this with their lack of promotion, with their signing of shitty distribution deals that prohibited them from posting anything of real value on the web, and from their ridiculous firing of their marquee star—Keith Olbermann. A network that had built up an audience of around a quarter million (and growing as people found the hard-to-find network) suddenly saw its prime-time audience plummet to the 40K’s with replacement Elliot Spitzer. So Olbermann can be mercurial. So what? It wasn’t as if his complaints weren’t valid—from shitty and non-improving production values, to lack of web access (his MSNBC special notes were seen by millions online), to lack of promotion.
But Hyatt didn’t give a damn because his business wasn’t selling advertising. It was collecting carriage fees from cable operators. Why did cable operators pay carriage fees to Current? Beats the crap out of me. They’re not very smart either, apparently, though those fees were one of the reasons Current wasn’t allowed to post their content online. (And by the way, cable companies are trying to upend that idiotic system, which is why Time Warner Cable took the opportunity to drop Current after the sale. It didn’t want to keep paying those carriage fees for programming no one watched or cared about.)
So it was a subscription business, not a ratings one. And if your motivation isn’t to increase ratings … what’s the point? You fire your one proven audience draw, you sign contracts that exclude you from the one medium that could promote you for free, and you refuse to advertise your existence. Is it any wonder it failed? That’s why I dramatically scaled back my appearances on the network after Olbermann’s departure, going from 50 appearances in 2011 to maybe three in 2012. What was the point? I had better things to do with my time.
So yet another “liberal” media operation collapses due to mismanagement, and yet again people will say that progressive media won’t work. But MSNBC’s prime-time lineup argues otherwise. Too bad no one has made that kind of investment for a truly 100 percent top-to-bottom progressive effort. There’s space for it.
Also having KO do a commerical for a corporation which was going against his brand is way more than set and studio, so keep living in your alternate universe when it comes to KO. Also keep showing that you V/By does not know what being human means. This post just makes me love and respect KO more and show why he this generations Murrow. Makes me more angry at Current and show how they broke the contract. Keep showing how igorant you are about KO and Current. Sorry KO did not break the contract that has been already BY been debunked and always will be false.
Also why should KO not be paid that, he has helped build two successful networks aka MSNBC and ESPN, and do not say different because that would be a lie. You really make me love KO with your igorance. KO suing to get what is owed to him like salary he would have gotten from a network that unjustily fired him is doing excatly what he should be doing. He gets alot of props from me and make love and resepct him more by doing this. Also that 50 million would not have even started paying for the problems that was plugging that studio and set, was not even thinking when I said half. So KO giving a portion of his salary would not have helped. Again here is what happened there and why KO needs to be suing Wow KO needs to sue over what happened at Current, you again do not listen, this has been debunked, again here is what happened first KO was dealing with a thorat infection KO was working while he had a thorat infection which is a big no in his industry and you are putting out that made up crap that has been debunked over and overe again that his attiude is what got him fired, Hope I reading his timeline where is KO being a dick, all he doing he telling you his opoin on Yankee fans that is not what being a dick looks like, I guess you are like Cenk and TC in that KO thinks that Cenk will not get ratings and thinks he does not tell the truth, and Cenk grants a interview and that shows that KO is two faced, wow I want you, TC and Cenk to explain how is that two faced, because I do not have to be a fan of KO to know that is not what a two face is, just like I do not have to be a fan to know that working while you are having thorat problems and getting told by a impocomptent mangement that wants to say they are professinal responsible and in charge of buiness side but will not fix a set or give KO a new studio and will not even let him rest his voice, and KO’s mad explain how is KO’s attitude got him fired, Why Hope should I believe a guy that fired someone with AIDs when it comes to honesty and morals, wow keep showing Hope how KO got unjustily fired at Current there is no proof that KO’s attitude got him fired, and KO telling you what he thinks of Yankee fans is not what being a dick is. You two show that KO is right about Yankee fans, you two disgust me with your bashing of KO because Yankee fans can never be critized. So I want you to explain why KO who works in broadcasting should be working why he sick, wow so I guess you think that broadcaster should loose thier voices. Here is another oneSorry but keep shwoing that you where not KO fan, KO’s attitude has zero to do with what happened at Current, I want you to explain why KO was promised to be news cheif and never got it, wow I guess wanting what he promised shows that his attitude was the problem, Hope I read his lawsuit and the conter-suit and nothing in there shows that KO broke the contract and I care crap about his attitude, nothing shows Hope that KO’s attitude is why he not at Current, that Hope has been debunked over and over again, Hope KO giving what he thinks of Yankee fans is not what being a dick looks like, you and bmer bashing KO and not letting KO disagree with you about Yankee fans that is what dickish bevahior is. Hope keep showing that you were no KO fan and that you not KO are the dick. Hope I want you to work with tenichal problems and studio falling apart and mangement that puts out negitive articles about you and than come bakc with that made up crap about KO’s attitude. Hope it not KO’s job to praise Yankee fans up the wall, people like you make me sick, if KO does not agree with you, you go with the made up talking points that he got fired for a bad attidue and that he a dick, because you and bmer cannot take that not everyone thinks that Yankee’s and there fans are the greatest since silece bread Hope keep showing me that KO’s attitude hasd and always will have zero to do with what happened at Current and that you have zero idea what being a dick is, you are being one right now with your BS about KO being bad because he angry at Yankee fans. KO keep being yourself and again will be pissed if you do not get the justice you deserve for being unjustily fired. Also Bmer you just keep showing that you not kO are the dick, so because KO read your tweet on the air that means that he has to tell you how great Yankee fans are. I have read his timeline Bmer there is nothing there that showing he being a dick, that is pure BS by you and hope who hate it when Ko critizes things that you do not want critized. Wow so again KO personality and this is from someone who cares crap about his personality was not the reason he was at Current. He doing the right thing by suing, you love to put up crap that has been debunked over and over agian showing that you do not know who KO is and showing that you do not care about facts and truth. Keep making me love and respect KO more. Wow again you OO shows how igorant they are on KO, again that car serive story is not true, they guy never drove KO, here again is what happened, because you do not like to listen to the facts The driver admited that he never drove KO and Current never deined when KO said that the services stopped picking him up because of unpaid bills showing that they know that they were the ones to blame for not being able get KO to Countdown. Those emails do not show that KO has tempory or that he was threatening, they show that he was dealing with a imcoptent staff that like Current would rather complain than take responsiblity. Current says they are charge of the business aspect fixing set problems is part of the business of putting on a good show, Current never takes responsiblity for not fixing the set and tenichal problems they do not deny that they tried to sabtoge KO by making him do a commerical for AT&T and have AT&T sponser Countdown thus trying to make KO a sell out and going against what he believes and fights for on his show. Also damging thier brand by showing that they are not coporate independent. They never deny this, KO’s promotes Countdown and even in October that they claim he did not when all you had to look on a fan site and see that he was on Letterman in late October, Current is just unahppy that KO would not promote they way they wanted, and not realizing which they also do not deny that he was willing to do those shows but he wanted to be able to answer the questions honesty which Current would not let him. They think KO putting out qutos that just is confirming what they are saying in the company about lawyers looking at the contract to see what can be done on the primary stuff. Other than that was defending Current and correcting newspaper articles, while Current was putting out letters and emails and basically talking to the press which bascially shows that they were sabtoging themselves and showing how unroganized and unprofessional they were way before that article and quto were written, also if you follow how the media puts out info when it come to stuff like this, they will always put KO’s name or anyone that works for him’s name out, so if you see source that means that it is Current, which shows that Current was the one releasing the salary but wanted to pin it on KO, they even do not deny when KO said manger when it comes to the black mail, but than say that KO was the one, basically showing that KO or his manger never released that info beacuse was it KO or his manger cannot be both. Also from that letter to now have made this personal and have been all over the press, while again KO has mostly been slient that shows that they broke the contract. Keep making me love and respect KO more. Also company’s provde this things like car service KO never asked for it. Also KO in real life actually rides the subway, here is another That Scinece is called a head injury not brain damage, also KO does not have a personal limo driver, that story Science turned out not to be true, the person that was suppose to have drove KO and said this basically came out and said that he had never drove KO. So keep lying, also you claim to read KO on twitter, so please Science if KO has his own Limo driver why are the pictures like last night that he shows are him reading the subway, wow some driver, also him not being able to drive Science does not mean that he has brain damage, I guess you are going say that people that are visaul imparied are also brain damged because they cannot drive, you really are putting up BS posts and showing that you the unintellngent one, not me and not KO. KO had a head injury that is why he cannot drive, head injuries and brain damage are not the same, you can have damage with out hitting your head, and you can have a regualry head injury that has nothing to do with your brain. Keep showing that you the one that has zero inteillgence and that KO is the intelligent one. Love how you believe debunked stoires. Again keep showing how igorant you are on KO. YOu just love to show why he is this generations Murrow and why you have no idea and never will have a an idea about who he is. KO never broke the contract and Current was not able to pay the drivers, which make sense because they never seemed to pay the electrity bill because KO was in the dark or fix his set. Keep proving that KO cannot make crap up and that you cannot tell the truth. You really love to prove that KO is this generations Murrow and you love to embarrass yourself in showing how igorant you are on him. Also here Nick also I want you to explain when has a professional responsible business ever put out a letter that is a personal attack on the person that they letting go, so again explain Nick how this ego and KO’s fault. Also KO keeps his fans up to date on twitter about his abences and what is going on and when the subs are going to on and letting the subs like Press tweet when he going to be on. He also saying who on the show and his staff doing twitter saying who on when Shuster is on, while Current will not take responsible for thier mistakes like the tenichal problems which is business which in the couter-suit they claim is thier job. Nick why did Current want KO to do a commerical for a corporation and have a corporate sponser, when they advertised that they were corporate free, also giving corporation his website, wow trying to make KO a hypocrite to his audience and people like me who are fans, and love that he stands on principle. Why did Current leak the primary story to the press, and KO and his lawyer only confirm that lawyers that were involved that Current said were saying, Nick how is that sabtoging them, when they were putting out email and letters and putting out qutos about KO, and all KO does is defend them and confirm that lawyers involved, along with making KO go against his principles and make them go again what they stood for by being corporate free. Wow Nick that shows that Current is sabtoging themselves and unjustily fired KO. So keep showing why KO will always be this generations murrow and why you have no idea what honesty is and never will, KO keep being yourself and you will always have a fan in me. LOve you faults and all, now let’s get back to baseball.

Neal Bortz is someone that would not know what the truth is if it bit on the head Conservative talk radio host Neal Boortz unleashed an astounding array of attacks on President Obama on Thursday, likening him to figures such as Adolf Hitler and serial killer Ted Bundy, as well as terrorist groups Al Qaeda and Ansar al-Sharia.
Boortz, whose Atlanta radio show is nationally syndicated, was addressing a commentary by Herman Cain, in which the former Republican presidential candidate congratulated Obama on his reelection. Boortz replied: “OK, Herman Cain, that’s BS.” He continued:
BOORTZ: I would like to congratulate Richard Speck. I would — you know, I would like to congratulate Ted Bundy on sneaking into yet another sorority house and killing another coed. I would like to congratulate Adolf Hitler on his invasion of Poland. I would like to congratulate the — Al Qaeda for their successful attack on New York City. I would like to congratulate the Ansar al-Sharia crowd over there in Benghazi for their successful assault on our consulate.
Congratulate Barack Obama? I’m sorry, Herman, love you but you can take that and stick in that phony damn cowboy hat of yours.
He went on to accuse Obama of being “dedicated to the destruction of our economic system” and the “weakening” of America and the U.S. military. Boortz also called Obama a liar and a thief and claimed he gave “away enough to con a bunch of ignorant, stupid voters into giving him the power to carry out his anti-American schemes.”
He concluded by saying, “I fear that man,” adding, “The Bible, according to Barack Obama: Though shalt not steal, except by majority rule.”
Boortz continued to reject Cain’s comments, saying later in the show that congratulating Obama was tantamount to congratulating a thief after his successful theft of your car.
He ended his commentary by saying, “What are they gonna do? Fire me?”
According to Talkers Magazine, Boortz holds a national audience of about 6 million weekly listeners. He was ranked by the magazine as the 13th most influential radio talk host in the nation this year.
News/Talk WSB in Atlanta, Boortz’s flagship station, reported on June 4 that Cain will replace Boortz as the host of his daily show when Boortz retires in January 2013.
Boortz, who has a history of inflammatory attacks against African-Americans, working-class Americans, and immigrants, previously likened Obama to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and said that Obama “is a bigger disaster to this country than 9-11.” That comment drew harsh criticism from 9-11 victims’ families. Here is also something else Last week conservative radio host Neal Boortz issued a challenge via Twitter:
Boortz’s challenge came after Media Matters shone a spotlight on his claim that President Obama’s reelection represented a bigger threat to the United States of America than Al Qaeda and Adolf Hitler.
After Boortz issued his challenge, I replied via Twitter:
Media Matters scheduled an appearance through Neal Boortz’s producer and the debate was set up for today from 10:05 to 10:20 AM – or so we thought.
After Media Matters followed up to confirm the debate, Neal’s producer emailed explaining the debate time that was previously discussed had been booked, and that no future timeframe was available for the debate to take place – a debate based on a challenge Boortz himself issued.
Have a listen to what Boortz did instead of debating Media Matters:
I stand behind my willingness to discuss this issue with Boortz, and Media Matters stands behind its willingness to debate our rhetorical adversaries at any time. In case you were wondering– yes, the “Obama’s going to take your guns!” crowd is having a complete meltdown over perfectly sensible gun safety measures.
How does the slippery slope thing work, anyway? Obama passes, say, mandatory background checks — then a few months later the ATF is raiding Boy Scout camps for .22s?
Anyway, only right-wing extremists like Boortz and the gun lobby oppose these common-sense measures. But when you make millions peddling lethal assault rifles to children, you’re going to fight like hell to protect your profit margins.This is to a tweet that was lying about what Obama wanted to do with gun control like Obama wanting to end gun ownership which is not true and never will be BY, here is more So agian you show that you love to support people that lie and fabercate facts and than bash people like KO who have never been able to lie. You show that By you are igorant and always will be on what facts are. Now get off the blog and go to we are igorant about facts blogs and let people talk baseball.
Wow you really embarass yourself with your BS posts that have always been debunked. Keep lying that is all you know how to do. Get off the blog and let people talk baseball. You really show why KO is this generations Murrow and always will, and do not say different because that would be another lie.

Wow
You want me to believe something from Fox, the channel that has no idea what truth means. Also I love how you think that OWS failed, only people that live in alternate universes believe that movement has failed.
You like Fox do not know what that movement was all about, it has succeed and here is how It is late August 2012. Dozens of people are sitting and standing in a circle in Tompkins Square Park, planning the actions to commemorate the one year anniversary of Occupy Wall Street. We are literally in the same place, even under the same tree, where the assemblies to plan the initial September 17 occupation took place a year ago. There are a few of the same faces, and many many new ones. As I stand there reflecting on what it means to be in exactly the same geographic spot, yet in an entirely different world, a young man bounces up to me. He is an artist and has played a consistent role in organizing Occupy since last summer. He almost always bounces rather than walks, and his eyes usually glisten with happiness. After a long hug by way of greeting he asks me, “Do you think we should be depressed?” His eyes are not sparkling as much as usual, and I am taken aback by the question. Depressed? Why? I had just been thinking about how far we had come.

Many people think Occupy has been a failure, he says. Hundreds of parks and plazas around the country are no longer occupied, and we are no longer in the mainstream news, and people are saying that we do not have a plan.

But, I say, and he also says, and we both agree: these seem like the wrong metrics. At the same time, what would the right metrics be?

The conversation was a familiar one. In June I traveled to Athens, Greece. Almost immediately after saying hello, a friend from a neighborhood assembly said to me, “Marina, you have to understand, the situation here is much worse, it is not like we thought it would be, we are not succeeding.” Only half the population of Athens was refusing to pay the newly imposed tax on the electric bill, he said. And the coordination among the more than 50 neighborhood assemblies in Athens was not as concrete as it should be, and, even more frustrating, many neighbors were coming to their local assemblies for support, but were no longer participating regularly. Maybe I looked like I was going to laugh, because he proceeded to remind me that in November of 2011, the expectations for the movement were quite high: some spoke of dual power and others even of revolutionary situations. By comparison, half the population engaging in direct action and another significant sector looking to the neighborhood assembly as the local power, but not directly participating regularly, was disappointing. After a long conversation I agreed that, based on his definition of success, the movement had not “succeeded”; but I also argued that it did not mean that they had been unsuccessful.

What does success mean? Who decides? By what standards? What has taken place over the course of this last year?

September 17, 2011, marked the beginning of a new refusal in the US. Joining our sisters and brothers around the globe, who in the years prior were declaring Enough is Enough!, as in Mexico and Greece, to Kefaya! (Enough) in Egypt, and They All Must Go! in Argentina. Together we are not only refusing — we are not just saying no! In each place, in ways that are unique and remarkably similar at the same time, we are affirming ourselves and our power. This is the power of the slogan the 99% or Real Democracy Ya! It is a claim of who we are and a recognition of that power.

Around the world there has been a move from the occupation of large plazas to the creation of neighborhood assemblies, weaving assemblies and actions into the fabric of everyday life. The movements have left the large public plazas to root themselves in workplaces and schools. In Greece, the refusal to pay the new electricity tax is organized through local neighborhood assemblies. Then, when the electricity is cut, it is also the neighborhood assembly that reconnects it. Sometimes the assembly breaks into the records office of the electric company and destroys records of debt. This is all done through local assemblies coordinating on regional levels. Similar actions are also taking place with regard to increased costs to basic health care. Again the neighborhood assemblies block the cashiers in the hospitals so that people do not have to pay. Additionally people are organizing barter networks, through local assemblies that then have more regional connections.

Here in New York we have seen the appearance of numerous local assemblies, which in some cases work directly to defend neighbors from evictions or to support their struggle for the right to affordable and dignified housing, as in Sunset Park, Brooklyn. Occupy assemblies have appeared in each of the college and university campuses of the public city university system in New York, coordinating together to resist cuts and proposed tuition increases, as well as to create a space for a “free university” where new forms of education and pedagogy are experimented with, led, and coordinated by students.

Throughout the United States, in large cities and small towns, people inspired by the politics and tactics of Occupy have been organizing to defend people from evictions, from the neighborhood of Bernal Heights in San Francisco to suburbs in midwestern Minnesota and Iowa. The form is the same. Neighbors come together, sometimes going door to door, sometimes meeting in a person’s home, and discuss who is at risk of foreclosure and what to do about it, often physically defending homes from eviction as well as petitioning for new terms for living in the home with the bank. Anyone who has been to one of these home defenses, or even looked at the photos, will quickly get a sense of what this means: teenagers in sports jackets, mothers holding children, grandparents and neighbors and activists, all together gather to prevent an eviction or foreclosure from taking place. In most cases they win, forcing the banks to allow people to keep their homes instead of being cast out on the street.

For example, in the Bernal Heights neighborhood of San Francisco, a few neighbors came together first to help defend a longtime resident who was facing foreclosure. After a long battle, they were able to force the bank to renegotiate his mortgage to one that he could afford. From there, a number of women began a door knocking campaign where they went house to house asking if people were facing foreclosure and if they wanted to fight. As Molly, one of the first participants in Occupy Bernal explained,

“Well, we’ve stopped a lot of auctions — that’s kind of a last-ditch effort, once the home is getting auctioned off. We’re trying to stop the foreclosures before that. And now we’re starting think about we need to talk to people before they even get in to foreclosure, because the more time we have the better it is, if we’re really trying to save people’s homes… A lot of people were skeptical at first, but there are people who’ve gotten their loans modified through work that we’ve done — their home would have been auctioned off; they would have been evicted. We feel like we’re doing something for our neighbors at least. And one thing that I found out, once we started at who was in foreclosure — we found out who they were: they were almost all people of color. This is a very diverse neighborhood, but I would say most of the people who live here were white people; so that people of color were the ones who the bank targeted for these bad loans. So it feels to me like — this is the main reason that I’m active in this — that the face of my neighborhood is getting changed every day by the banks, these big banks that made fraudulent loans to my neighbors. I’m just outraged. I’m outraged all the time anyway, but this is really outrageous.”
Similar stories are being told throughout the U.S., and many housing defenses are taking place that I am sure are not known about, that are not in the media or even the alternative press. As Molly and others from Occupy Bernal explain, they began to organize to defend their neighbors. It was and is the most basic thing to do — to speak with the person living next to you and organize together. This sort of direct action, facilitated by neighborhood assemblies, is part of what Occupy has inspired. This is where Occupy has come in less than a year.

Within workplaces the movement is still beginning, but the relationship of the Occupy movement to those involved in labor struggles is deepening and profound. Labor laws that threaten workers for taking action on the job have created such fear that there is often little fighting back within a workplace during business hours. However, there has been an increasing relationship with workers in struggle and movement participants. For example, in my neighborhood in Kensington Brooklyn, a local community group, together with the new Occupy in the neighborhood, have begun to support worker’s efforts to organize a union. The workers themselves fear losing their jobs, so they do not join the picket and flyering outside, but the movement has been successfully keeping neighbors from shopping in the grocery store (Golden Farms) and is increasing the pressure on the owners to recognize workers rights. Just last week, workers have won at Hot and Crusty, a cafe on the Upper East Side of Manhattan, where they have been organizing a union for almost a year. This victory would not have taken place without the support of community groups, labor and Occupy. Workers from the cafe began coming to Occupy meetings last fall, and with the support of the community and movements have maintained pressure inside the workplace. Then, once they were locked out, workers received movement participants’ support in maintaining an ongoing action outside the café, handing out food and coffee on a donation basis, as well as educating the neighborhood as to what was taking place. Finally, due to the pressure, the owners now have agreed to recognize the union and will reopen the cafe as a union shop. These are huge victories that demonstrate the powerful relationship between workers in struggle and Occupy. Similarly in Spain, when there is a struggle and workers ask for support, movement participants will sometimes physically block all people from entering a workplace so that it is effectively shut down, even if the workers cannot “legally” strike. In this way direct action by the movement directly supports the struggle of the workers, yet without placing the workers in any danger. The effect of strike has still occurred with solidarity action.

Not Just What, But How

There is no question as to the amount of Occupy-inspired actions across the country. What I have mentioned above is only the tip of the iceberg. But more important than making a list of what is happening under the umbrella of Occupy is how it is all taking place. People are coming together in horizontal assemblies and deciding what to do. No one is waiting on a political party or a boss or leader to come and tell them what to do and how, but we are looking to one another and figuring it out together. It is not about asking but about doing. It is from a point of affirming our power together and not from a position of weakness.

In Argentina, ten years after the popular rebellion, an interesting phenomenon arose with regard to the question of success of the movements. Young people, and even those in their 30s, who were generally teens or in their 20s during the rebellion, have begun to refer to themselves as Hijos (children) of the 19th and 20th. What they mean by this is not that they became political during the rebellion of December 19th and 20th, 2001, though many of them did. What they mean is that the way that they organize today, with assemblies, using horizontalidad, was created by the rebellion. What it means to be a child of the 19th and 20th lies in the forms of social relationships and the seeing of means as a part of the ends. Nicolas and Gisela, two movement participants explained this as follows in 2010: “[We say] we are the children of 2001 because we were formed by everything we lived within the assemblies, the factories, and everything that happened in the streets, it is there that we learned these cooperative principles of horizontalidad.”

Can One Measure a Dream?

Social movements are made up of people. People with ideas and dreams, dreams for themselves, dreams for the collective, and dreams for the movements and the world. Sometimes these movement dreams and goals measure up with those of social scientists who study movements, claiming to know what a successful movement is. Which I guess is like saying they know the dreams of the movement participants. Some theorists argue, for example, that the Occupy movement must ultimately take state and institutional power to be successful. Some Occupy movement participants however often say that dignity and freedom in their relationships is what they desire and dream. Who is right? Are the people who tell me that I need to own a home and have a well-paying job to be happy truly arguing I am not happy because I do not? Can one really argue that a movement is not successful because it did not meet the goals a person has imposed on the movement?

Who decides success? Success has to be decided by those people in struggle, those who are fighting or organizing for something.

Success of a movement, movement goals and people’s desires come from those people, those social actors, not those studying them or politically desiring to lead them. In fact, it is against this way of thinking and organizing that the Occupy movement was born. It was a rupture with people telling us what to do and how to do it. This includes not only governments and politicians, but also left political parties, journalists, and scholars.

One year after Occupy we have a success already. When people begin to organize all over the country they are doing so with assemblies, struggling against hierarchy, thinking about the question of leadership and power, and trying to create ways where all can be leaders. When people are organizing today it might not always be with the word Occupy, but the spirit of assemblies, direct action, and creating power together is there for sure. The mark of Occupy is there for sure.

Marina Sitrin is a writer, lawyer, organizer, militant and dreamer. Her latest book, co-authored with Dario Azzellini, is Occupying Language, published this week in the Occupied Media Pamphlet Series by Zuccotti Park Press.
Former President Jimmy Carter said on Wednesday that Occupy organizers have created a “relatively successful” movement because they focused national discussion on wealth disparity despite lacking leadership and a unifying set of goals.

The Georgia Democrat said at an event in Atlanta that Occupy organizers have succeeded in forcing the media and Congress to realize the “chasm is getting greater than leaps and bounds” between the rich and the poor.

“It’s been relatively successful even acknowledging there’s no leadership, there’s no coherence and there’s no single list of issues they want to succeed,” the former president said of the movement started late last year in lower Manhattan to decry corporate influence in government and wealth inequality.

“That issue was basically ignored by the Congress and the news media a year ago,” he said. “I believe they’ve achieved putting that back on the agenda.”

The remarks came at a Duke University event that also featured his oldest grandson, Jason, who was elected to the Georgia Senate in May 2010.

The former president said his travels abroad since he lost the 1980 election helped him realize the U.S. is “extra stingy” about sharing its wealth with developing nations, particularly when compared to European democracies that put an emphasis on foreign aid. Helping the less fortunate, he said, should be viewed as a moral obligation and not an act of charity.

“It dawned on me they were just as intelligent, they were just as ambitious, and their family values were just as good as mine,” he said. “It’s not a matter of superiority or generosity or handing out gifts to others who are less than you. They just haven’t had a chance in life.”

Jason Carter, who displayed the effortless Zulu he learned while working in rural South Africa for the Peace Corps, said his experience overseas helped shape his world view. He suggested that those who talk about liberty purely as a financial issue have lost sight about what it means to respect human rights.

“We talk about freedom at the Georgia Legislature as a half a point in your income tax,” he said. Around the anniversary of the official birth of Occupy Wall Street, a host of bank affiliated financial reporters used the occasion to designate the movement a failure in surprisingly strident terms. Why the need to kick a dead horse? By any standards, the outcry was peculiar and misguided. First, even if the movement accomplishes nothing else, it had already scored a considerable victory in galvanizing public opinion around the outside role of banks in politics and the economy, and on the related issue of income inequality. The movement even on its comparatively small ongoing scale was perceived to be enough of a threat to elicit a coordinated 17 city paramilitary crackdown. The vehemence of the response was a powerful testament to its impact.
Second, a year is an inadequate timeframe in which to assess the impact of social change movements. Remember, when Chinese premier Zhou Enlai was asked what he thought about the impact of French Revolution and famously responded, “It is too early to say,” he was referring to the 1968 uprisings, which had taken place a full five years earlier. As Columbia professor Suresh Naidu has pointed out, if you look at the history of civil rights protests in the US, during the first five years, the activity was at a very low level. After that period, the level of protests rose sharply and grew from that higher level. It would similarly be easy to have dismissed the anti-apartheid movement in South Africa in its early years, and it took over thirty years to achieve its aims. Even the revolutions of 1848, which were, like the Arab Spring, an uncoordinated set of national revolts that appeared to produce little, actually led to lasting changes in some countries.
Even last September, there were more judicious rethinkings of the impact of Occupy. One came from Reihan Salam, a conservative Reuters writer:
One year on, the encampments that had sprung up in Lower Manhattan and in cities, college campuses and foreclosed homes across the country have for the most part been abandoned. And so at least some observers are inclined to think, or to hope, that the Occupy movement has been of little consequence. That would be a mistake. Occupy’s enduring significance lies not in the fact that some small number of direct actions continue under its banner, or that activists have made plans to commemorate “S17” in a series of new protests. Rather, Occupy succeeded in expanding the boundaries of our political conversation, creating new possibilities for the American left.
And despite the efforts to diss it, OWS found an audience in the corridors of power. FT Alphaville chaired a discussion of socially useful banking, and the keynote speaker was Andrew Haldane, the executive director of financial stability for the Bank of England. Haldane is highly respected both among economists, who regard his work as creative and rigorous, and international banking regulators. He has the potential of being the sort of economist who leaves a lasting imprint on the profession. So his positive remarks about Occupy are a particularly powerful endorsement. From the opening of Haldane’s speech (emphasis his):
The theme for tonight is “Socially Useful Banking”. And what better place to discuss it than tonight’s venue – the main meeting hall of The Friend’s House, traditionally the venue for the annual meeting of the Quakers.
The Quaker movement famously gave us two of the UK’s largest banks, Lloyds and Barclays. Between them, these banks have almost 600 years of history. For most of that period, no-one questioned their social usefulness. They extended loans to businesses and helped families buy homes. Nationally and regionally, they were part of the social fabric. Today, that fabric is torn.
As the CEOs of these two institutions have both recently said, these banks need to rediscover their social usefulness. But this is not only a question for the banks. It is a key issue for wider society too, who have after all felt the financial consequences of banks’ failings and failures. What do we want our banking system to do? And how do we create that system?
This is where Occupy enter the picture. It is now over a year since the Occupy movement commenced its journey and entered the collective conscience of the public and policymakers. One year on, what has it achieved?
Some have suggested rather little, that Occupy’s voice has been loud but vague, long on problems, short on solutions. Others have argued that the fault-lines in the global financial system, which chasmed during the crisis, are essentially unaltered, that reform has failed.
I wish to argue tonight that both are wrong – that Occupy’s voice has been both loud and persuasive and that policymakers have listened and are acting in ways which will close those fault-lines. In fact, I want to argue that we are in the early stages of a reformation of finance, a reformation which Occupy has helped stir.
Let me start with the contribution of the Occupy movement itself. Occupy has been successful in its efforts to popularise the problems of the global financial system for one very simple reason: they are right.
By this I do not just mean right in a moral sense. For sure, Occupy have touched a moral nerve in pointing to growing inequities in the allocation of wealth and incomes globally. The 99% certainly agrees. But so, more interestingly, do a high and rising share of the 1%.
Yet it is the analytical, every bit as much as the moral, ground that Occupy has taken. For the hard-headed facts suggest that, at the heart of the global financial crisis, were and are problems of deep and rising inequality.
Haldane’s comment on analytical ground probably refers to (among other things) the Occupy the SEC Volcker Rule comment letter and StrikeDebt’s Debt Resistors’ Operations Manual. When Sheila Bair met with the Alternative Banking Group, she said that the Volcker Rule comment letter galvanized the SEC, that too often the staff wants to take a position opposed to the generally sloppily made lobbyist comments, and gets little sympathy from the top brass if there are no comments from public groups on the other side. OWS has established a brand that regulators will listen to, and I hope it continues it its efforts to make use of its bully pulpit. Occupy Wall Street was at the pinnacle of its power in October 2011, when thousands of people converged at Zuccotti Park and successfully foiled the plans of billionaire Mayor Michael Bloomberg to sweep away the occupation on grounds of public health. From that vantage point, the Occupy movement appears to have tumbled off a cliff, having failed to organise anything like a general strike on May Day – despite months of rumblings of mass walkouts, blockades and shutdowns.

The mainstream media are eager to administer last rites. CNN declared “May Day fizzled”, the New York Post sneered “Goodbye, Occupy” and the New York Times consigned the day’s events to fewer than 400 words, mainly about arrests in New York City.

Historians and organisers counter that the Occupy movement needs to be seen in relative terms. Eminent sociologist Frances Fox Piven, co-author of Poor People’s Movements, says:

“I don’t know of a movement that unfolds in less than a decade. People are impatient, and some of them are too quick to pass judgment. But it’s the beginning, I think, of a great movement. One of a series of movement that has episodically changed history, which is not the way we tell the story of American history.”
Brooke Lehman, a central figure in the anti-corporate globalization movement a decade ago, says:

“Compared to a year ago, the level of activity is amazing today. There is a whole new generation of high school and college students being radicalised.”
Others note that protests did take place in more than 110 cities on May Day in recognition of worker resistance and solidarity, no mean feat given the hostility to labour among the ruling elite i the US. At the same time, only shameless partisans would deny that the Occupy movement is struggling to reclaim the heights it had last year, and many activists admit this in private. Some argue that police and media hostility act as a one-two punch that can knock out movements such as Occupy, and this is all too true, as explained below. But other movements surmount these obstacles. North of the US-Canada border, hundreds of thousands of university students in Quebec have maintained a militant strike for three months against tuition increases in defiance of whip-cracking politicians, pundits and police.

Lack of ‘space’

The real stumbling block for the Occupy movement is also the reason for its success: space, or now, the lack thereof. Understanding the significance of political space and Occupy’s inability to recapture it reveals why the movement is having difficulty re-gaining traction.

In-depth coverage of the global movement
Americans have become so enmeshed in the transience of work, life, housing, play, finance and the proliferation of virtual spaces that it is easy to forget taking collective action in a shared physical space is how social change happens from below. Take the labour movement. The history of industrial workers’ struggle starts with the insight that capitalists are their own undoing, by amassing workers in a common space – the factory – where they become aware of their common interests, as well as their potential power to stop the machinery of capital. The same is true of student movements. The shared educational space can unite students around common grievances and goals. And for the civil rights movement, black churches played a pivotal role.

Now, Occupy Wall Street differs in that it appropriated a private-public park and reconfigured it as a political space. It was a manifestation of the central concept of the Occupy movement: there can be no political democracy without economic democracy. Its potency sprang from the same source as the Arab Spring, Spain’s Indignados and the Wisconsin labour uprising – peacefully liberating public space and governing it through participatory democracy.

Before this social contagion first surfaced in Tunisia in late 2010, the previous moment of a mass global outburst was Feb, 15, 2003, the day of protests against the impending US invasion of Iraq. That was the problem: it was only a day with no bottom-up democratic essence. Not only could Bush shrug it off as a “focus group”, the protests could be twisted as legitimacy for aggressor states – because they allowed space for democratic dissent in contrast to the terror of Saddam Hussein.

Colonised by consumption

Anti-war protest has little impact anymore, because it has devolved into gathering on a weekend in the political capital, marching around empty streets with pre-printed signs, mouthing toothless chants and listening to cliched speeches. It is too predictable and too easy to ignore, by rulers who are insulated from the ruled by dollars and truncheons. On the other hand, occupying space in the heart of a city without end is a challenge to state power.

One activist said of the encampment on Wall Street: “At any moment, you could call for an impromptu march on Goldman Sachs and a hundred people would join you.” The night of October 5, 2011, was a spectacular example of this. After a union-led rally in downtown Manhattan, thousands of people surged through the financial district in breakaway marches for hours. With so many people in the streets feeling the wind of public support at their backs, Wall Street felt fragile and the New York Police Department was under siege.

Keeping a space continually, and using democratic forms of self-governance recreates the commons, which has been colonised over decades by full-spectrum consumption – shopping, eating, drinking, entertainment and paid spectacle. Occupy Wall Street attracted throngs of journalists and the curious because it was a completely different spectacle. It was a miniature society that rejected the private, individualism and capitalism. The scene of hundreds of people exchanging food, art, music, knowledge, politics, healthcare, shelter, anger, ideas, skills and love was unlike anything else in our consumer societies – because not one exchange was lubricated by money (of course the goods were paid for at some point). Within the occupation, thousands shared the experience of having a direct democratic stake in a society they were helping to build from scratch.

These democratic societies, more than 300 of which popped up around the United States by October 2011, propelled Occupy by enticing a huge number of political neophytes to join an organic movement. The real power of a social movement, from the 1960s to the Tea Party, is not to recombine existing activists in a new formation but to bring in the previously non-political. At occupations, experienced organisers marvelled at the ability to have meaningful conversations with people of radically different backgrounds and politics. Having visited nearly 40 occupations across the US, I encountered many self-identified conservatives and Republicans and even a few Tea Party members who said they were part of the 99 per cent.

“Occupy is very odd right now. The people who have stayed are the cream of the crap, and the brilliant. The rank-and-file in between are at home.”

- Ruth Fowler, writer with Occupy LA

It was the Occupy movement that created the people – “the 99 per cent” – not the other way around. The range of politics and issues ran the gamut, but having the space for collective discussion gave occupiers the time to coalesce around the idea that society’s problems stem from the concentration of wealth and power among “the one per cent”. Thus, those who lack healthcare, had homes foreclosed upon, are unemployed, stuck in low-wage jobs, are homeless, subject to repressive immigration laws, burdened with student debt, opposed to destructive energy extraction or angered by corporate personhood and a political system corrupted by money could find common cause and unite against a common enemy.

Media blackout

But it wasn’t just anger. Different visions of society blossomed in the space. As Michael Premo of Occupy Wall Street, puts it: “You don’t know how to dream unless you see it sometimes. The occupation unlocked the creative, radical imagination.” Seeing different ways of organising work and community has kick-started innumerable projects around the country, such as urban farming, community centres, workers cooperatives, free schools and housing reclamation.

That’s all changed. While a few scattered occupations remain in the political hinterlands – cities such as Little Rock and Tallahassee – every other one has been booted out of the collective space over the past six months. In many cities, most prominently New York, the general assemblies have disintegrated, because the democratic practice becomes a floating abstraction without the space to anchor it. The space glued the various tendencies together because the decisions were conducted within and concerned the alternate society growing up around them. In cities where the assemblies continue they often draw perhaps one-tenth of the numbers who attended at the peak. Ruth Fowler, a writer who works with Occupy Los Angeles, says: “Occupy is very odd right now. The people who have stayed are the cream of the crap, and the brilliant. The rank-and-file in between are at home.”

Despite new activists drifting away, Occupy has hardly disappeared. Nationwide, it is defending homeowners from evictions and disrupting auctions of foreclosed homes. There is a national campaign to force the government to break Bank of America into regional banks. Students are fighting against tuition increases and school cuts and for a moratorium on student debt. Occupiers are working with unions to battle corporations cutting wages and benefits. And many Occupy groups have joined movements for single-payer healthcare and against environmentally destructive oil and gas drilling.

David Solnit, who works with Occupy San Francisco, indicates one reason why the Occupy movement appears to have faded away, “Any movement has its mass mobilisation and its in-between times… We need a better measuring tape than numbers and public space and whether it’s amplified through media owned by the one per cent.”

Simply put, corporate media are inclined to dismiss a movement that wants to chop up corporations – if not eliminate them entirely. A study by two sociologists backs this up. Surveying more than 2,200 US newspapers, Jackie Smith and Patrick Rafail found coverage of the Occupy movement has dwindled to a trickle since November, despite hundreds of active Occupy groups, thousands of organising projects and extensive May Day activity. Even more telling, newspaper coverage of inequality has shrunk by nearly 70 per cent since autumn.

State repression

One can debate whether or not Occupy is still effective, but there is no way to deny income and wealth inequalities have reached historical extremes or that two-thirds of all in the US – and 55 per cent of Republicans – say “there are ‘very strong’ or ‘strong’ conflicts between the rich and the poor,” according to the Pew Research Center.

“Coverage of the Occupy movement has dwindled to a trickle… despite hundreds of active Occupy groups… Newspaper coverage of inequality has shrunk by nearly 70 per cent since last fall.”

The media indifference extends to downplaying state repression. Ironically, force is a measure of success because it’s recognition that the movement is a threat:

In Oakland, police rolled out a tank on May Day
Chicago has increased penalties for protests and made it more difficult to secure permits in advance of the anti-NATO protests
University of California officials are pushing for charges against 11 students and one poetry professor that carry 11 years of prison time and million-dollar fines for nonviolent sit-down protests against Bank of America
Most ominously, the FBI, which was forged in the crucible of the post-World War I Red Scare, is up to its old tricks. Relying on the same techniques it uses to ensnare Muslims in “terrorism” plots, the FBI arrested five anarchists in Cleveland for allegedly plotting to blow up a bridge
Most recently, one activist in Salt Lake City claimed three FBI agents showed up at his home, unannounced, asking for names of people planning on attending the anti-NATO protests in Chicago
The repression is aimed at preventing Occupy from reclaiming a space, which novelist Arundhati Roy predicted months ago: “Holding territory may not be something the [Occupy] movement will be allowed to do in a state as powerful and violent as the United States.” Since March, Occupy Wall Street has tried to retake public spaces in Lower Manhattan four times, and four times the police have cracked down. The most recent attempt, the night of May Day, was met by a massive police presence in Wall Street, with cops threatening anyone who looked like a protester with arrest.

Let it marinate

“Cinematic” is the only way to convey the image of public sidewalks and streets blanketed with thousands of riot police, surveillance units, snatch squads, detectives, beat cops, community police, white-shirted commanders, phalanxes of scooter police, four police helicopters overhead and cars, SUVs, buses, trucks and command vehicles flashing emergency lights. All to clear out a few thousand people, mainly youths, who gathered for a democratic assembly and the faint hope they could recreate the magic of Occupy Wall Street.

Even though I spent hours in the area with other journalists, and was threatened with arrest five times, I did not see one mainstream media account describing the opulent display of police force. Nonetheless, despite the unveiled fist of the state that is written out of the media narrative, movements sometimes do find a way to triumph. As shown by Egypt’s democratic uprising, numbers and organisation can force the state not only to back down, it can cause the ruling edifice to fatally crack. This is what happened on October 14, when Occupy Wall Street gathered enough people, allies and media pressure to force Bloomberg and the police to abandon their threat to oust the occupation.

The big question for Occupy is how it can build a dual system of power, as Egyptian activists did over years with revitalised labour organising, a national anti-police brutality movement and politicised youth and women in micro-enterprises that populate urban areas. This requires organisation, but it also gets back to the question of space. Alienation, fragmentation and suspicion is so pervasive in US society that people need secure areas where they can take the time to share stories, to listen and debate, create bonds, forge trust and take action.

The places where Americans can and do gather in large numbers, such as parks, squares, factories, shopping centres, the workplace, stadiums, schools and places of worship are almost all privatised and subject to strict legal and physical regulation. Nonetheless, Occupy’s future success is based on finding forms of space where it can reproduce itself.

Until then, Frances Fox Piven is right that movements take a decade or more to have an effect. It took 22 years from A Phillip Randolph’s aborted 1941 March on Washington to Martin Luther King Jr’s 1963 march that signaled the end of Jim Crow. It was a decade from the first national anti-war march in 1965 to the end of the Vietnam War. It’s taken more than 20 years for the LGBT movement to succeed in getting a sitting president to endorse marriage equality.

And just as it took years of labour organising prior to the 1937 sit-down strikes (another form of occupation) that secured collective bargaining rights for unions, the Occupy movement has barely begun. As ThinkProgress’ Zaid Jilani cataloged earlier this month, the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations have helped shift media coverage away from conservative concerns about the federal debt and deficit to the more progressive (and important) issues of unemployment and unequal income distribution.
Now, the 99 Percent Movement’s influence on the wider political landscape is becoming clear. According to a new poll from the Hill, the majority of likely voters now say “income inequality has become a big problem for the country,” and “majorities across practically all income levels, and all political, philosophical and racial lines agreed that the middle class is being reduced.” Nearly seven in 10 respondents said the current tax system — which a recent Congressional Budget Office report said is partially responsible for income inequality — is “unfair.”
That CBO report showed that average income of the top 1 percent increased 275 percent from 1979 to 2007, while growing by just 18 percent for the bottom 20 percent of earners. The issue has become so salient that even Republican lawmakers are beginning to feel obliged to address it, Politico’s Marin Cogan and Jake Sheman report:
Income inequality, a cause of liberal economists and pundits, is working its way into the discourse of Republicans on Capitol Hill. [...]
So rather than ignore the disparity — and risk looking out of touch — Republicans are acknowledging income inequality. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) is discussing it; House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) has talked about wealth disparity; and rank-and-file Republicans have started to lace the phrase into talks and interviews.
The move is rather remarkable for GOP lawmakers, who have previously tried to completely disqualify the Occupy protests and stamp out any discussion of wealth distribution or equity as “class warfare” or socialistic.
While critics deride the Occupy Wall Street protests for lacking clear policy goals or accomplishments, if the movement accomplishes nothing beyond fundamentally shifting the political discourse away from trumped up fears about the debt to real issues like inequality and jobs, then it has already succeeded.
UPDATE
Speaking at the University of Louisville in Kentucky today, House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) said “I understand” the “frustrations” of Occupy Wall Street protesters. “The economy is not producing jobs like they want.”
So keep showing how igorant you are about Occupy and what it goals are, the fact that we talking about inequality shows one sucess like Robert Rich said This week marks the release of a new book on the Occupy movement – Occupy the Future, from Boston Review/MIT Press – that I had a hand in producing. (Order information: Amazon, Powell’s, MIT Press).
The Occupy movement peaked, it’s fair to say, in the fall of 2011. Occupy Sandy and Occupy Debt notwithstanding, the political force and overall engagement of the Occupy movement have waned. This is not to say Occupy was a failure.
To the contrary, one reason Occupy might have waned is its success in placing massive inequality atop the political agenda and framing the issue in terms of the now well-known 1% – 99% divide.
However one judges its effect, Occupy was never especially clear about identifying, much less pushing, actual policy reforms. Occupy found its strength in the enduring ideals of democracy – equality of opportunity, social mobility, equal political voice – and yet said little about how an open, decentralized social movement might realize these ideals.
In the fall of 2011, I and three colleagues at Stanford (David Grusky, Doug McAdam, and Debra Satz), organized some of our colleagues to write short opinion pieces about Occupy. We asked them to reflect not on Occupy as a movement or on its potential for success. We asked instead that they write about the gap between American ideals and actual practices, a gap we thought Occupy had called welcome attention to.
These opinion pieces were published in an online forum in the magazine Boston Review, and they reflected the varied backgrounds of the scholars by addressing such diverse issues as the institutional sources of rising inequality, the influence of money in politics, the declining access to education, and the role of art in social change.
Stimulated by responses to these short opinion pieces, we asked the contributors to the online forum to expand what they’d written into short chapters, adding empirical detail and supporting argument. Occupy the Future is the result.
While Occupy’s political potency is weaker today than in late 2011, the issue of extreme inequality remains with us. We hope Occupy the Future contributes to continuing conversation about the causes, significance, and when appropriate, remedies of such inequality.
Wow you really are igorant about what is going on, and you just love to embarass yourself in that. Also this has nothing to do with KO or baseball. Get off the blog with your igorance about Occupy and KO and let people talk baseball.

“@Wow:
… OMG, this is so… awesome really (and no, I proudly did not read your “replies” if not entirely out of disrespect mind you, and rather strictly in observance of that ol’ time honored American tradition to always make the best of one’s time, you know?).
I will say this though (assuming this is not just one huge Joaquin Phoenix kind of persona-e stunt being performed on here): any newsman having your brand of dyslexic sheep for an audience, to say nothing of a career so terribly pocked with contentious departures truly oughta feel… concerned, to say the least, with the worth and caliber of his reach: good guy and all don’t get me wrong, more intrinsically comedic than most in his racket and yes, surely his heart in the right place,

but Jesus H. Christ, is ONE lasting work-relationship really so difficult to muster?
-Turk 02/13/13

For BB it is, sir. For BB it is.

Wow
keep showing that V does not know what the term human is, V BB is not KO’s name, that is a made up story and made up name by a guy who thinks that making fun sucide and pain are fun, so you show that KO unlike you knows what being human means.
Here is who Gibson is, I do not listen to anyone about KO when they use that name and story because I know that they care nothing about truth and that they are hypocrites and will not post anything that has truth in it, and if they say different they will be lying,
here again is who Gibson is KO is not BB, thier is no such thing as bath tub boy that is something that was made up by John Gibson because KO was not allowed to call him worst person. Also anyone that uses that name shows that they have zero clue what being human is. John Gibson thought it was funny to make fun of Stewart’s pain on 911, he thought it was funny to make fun of Lugar’s suicude by his I could never quit you quto, UPDATE: John Gibson has “apologized” for his distasteful comments on Heath Ledger’s death. Though he first defended his statements on his radio show yesterday — there is “no point in passing up a good joke,” he said, and repeated his “Brokeback Mountain” joke saying, “I’m not giving that up” — he eventually caved to pressure to apologize and did so on his television show.
Still, his apology seemed forced, and relatively half-hearted:
Those who knew him say he was a good actor and a loving dad. And what happened to him was terrible, but was evidently an accident. Once again, to anyone offended by my comments, I’m sorry. But I’m also sorry that Heath Ledger is no longer alive and with us.
ThinkProgress has the audio of Gibson’s defense of his comments, and MediaMatters has the video of his “apology.”

ORIGINAL ITEM: Fox News’ John Gibson found a way to outdo MSNBC’s Courtney Hazlett for the most inappropriate comment on Heath Ledger’s death. ThinkProgress reports that, on his radio show yesterday (which opened with funeral music), Gibson called Ledger a “weirdo” with a “serious drug problem.” Making fun of the famous “I wish I knew how to quit you” line from “Brokeback Mountain,” Gibson said of his death, “Well, he found out how to quit you.”
This is not Gibson’s first time making inappropriate comments in the wake of tragedy. In July 2005, just one day before the 7/7 terrorist bombings in London, Gibson said that “the International Olympic Committee missed a golden opportunity….If they had picked France instead of London to hold the Olympics, it would have been the one time we could look forward to where we didn’t worry about terrorism. They’d blow up Paris, and who cares?” The next day, after the London bombings, Gibson.
Also only people that live in alterante universes think that this is Obama’s Monica lewsinsky. Excuse me, were was the cover up, were was Obama lying, wow were was Obama having a affair with a intern. You really show that you have no idea what you talk about.
Also I love how you put out a made up Special Comment that KO never gave. Showing that you do not know what pardoy is. This story has nothing to do with KO, so keep showing how igonrant you are on KO and that you have zero clue what make believe aka pardoy sketch and reality are.
KO is not BB that is a made up story and anyone that uses it shows that they have zero idea what being human is.
Wow once again you show that you not KO are the immature one, and do not say different because that would be a lie. Only people that are igorant about who KO is and what immature behavior like you would believe those made up talking points, that again are debunked like everything that you say, and again I am someone who would care crap if Ko was that, that is how I know that KO is opposite of immature and that those talking points describe you to a tee.
Keep showing that you do not know what being human means, only people in alternate unvierses would believe the made up lie by Gibson that get’s debunked.
Keep lying and showing how igorant you are about who KO is, sorry KO is no crybaby that is who you and Gibson are.
Wow keep lying about KO that is all you know how to do, you again show that V is and always will be everything that they want kO to be. You really want me to be more and more of a fan and have more and more respect and show me that Current broke the contract and unjustily fired him. Keep lying about KO and do on the we are igorant about KO blogs, keep shoiwng why KO is this generations Murrow and why he will always be the oppoiste of what you want him to be and that you are everything that you claim that he is. KO keep being yourself and you will always have a fan in me.

Also again that does not describe KO, keep showing how igorant you are about KO’s career, you love to put out talking points that have been debunked over and over again like this oneWow again you show that you are igorant about KO’s career. MSNBC and ESPN KO quit, he ony been fired from Current and Fox and both he was unjstily fired from. Here BY because you are so igorant about KO’s career is what went on there, KO has never been fired from ESPN and MSNBC that has been debunked over and over again. Once again OO you show that you are igorant on the difference between being fired and quiting, OO what part of you do not do last shows and get a salary if you get fired, here again is KO’s job history because you love to get this one wrong. Again OO that is a made up talking point by you and others that have zero clue about who KO is, let me explain, Paul again you seem to love to write the most stupidiest post that I have every heard of. So in our world because a company is small and claim that they are progressive that means that they can treat thier employees like they did with KO like crap and I should just be on thier side because they are suppose to have the same idology. That is beyond the most stupidest crap that I have heard of in me my life. First Paul you cannot refute like Current could not why KO got unjustily fried and abused here it is again I love KO and why his personality had zero to do with what happened at Current, that article even tells about Hyatt and AIDS aka firing someone with AIDS and you want me to believe KO’s the bad guy. Keep making me love and respect KO more and more and show that all you wnat to do is bash him and put up gossip articles that can easily get refuted, you also do not get what I do about KO is that he a professional and someone that is not afraid to stand up for what he believes in which is what mangement hates about him and why he has a hard time with them, it what people love, keep lying about KO that is all you know how to do, you keep showing why I am a fan and always will be. Jack you also show why KO got unjustily fired from Current you have no evidence that KO is unemployable, only a gossip site by mangement that for the first two aka MSNBC and Fox are hypocritical and includes Current, and one with someone who has just as bad a reputation as KO suppose to have, and who wants to still get on KO’s case about something that he apologized for showing that she has zero crediblity and sounds like it just a revenge post. KO keep being yourself again will be pissed if you do not get the justice for being unjusticly fired from Current. Jack why does KO been in this industry for 33 years if he so unemployable that is how BS your argument is. KO keep being yourself and showing off your great personality and showing why KO is this generations Murrow and why he will be around for years to come, keep being yourself KO and you will always have a fan in me, again Current needs to stop lying and tell people the truth that your personality and ego is not why you got fired and that you work fine with others, Hyatt needs to explain why he and Brohem thinks it okay to make thier broadcating stars to work with a throat infection, that jack shows that Current never cared about KO, just like MSNBC who wants to re-write history and is okay with people that speak at partisain events and other employers doanting but KO the bad guy, that he unbelieveable MSNBC is on that topic. All that shows jack is why I do not watch Current and MSNBC and how dishonest those mangements are. You really love to show that KO works fine with others. KO keep being yourself and you will always be perment on my wall, ipod and ipad and life and why you got unjustily fired from Current. jack you just make me love and respect KO more and more with your BS crap about who he is. Jack thier is no and you just showed once again there is no evidence that KO personality was what got him fired. Keep lying about KO and showing that KO has zero clue how to lie and that you Jack have zero clue how to tell the truth about KO and his past employment. KO love you faults and all. Here is KO true oo job history not your made up debunked version Mike thanks for showing me that you are beyond ingorant on KO’s job history. KO Mike was never fired from MSNBC or ESPN, also Mike KO was rehired by both of those companies, wow some bad personality there, Mike do you live in alternte reality, Mike you do not do last shows which KO did at both MSNBC and ESPN if you been fired. KO and even MSNBC have said that KO quit, he even got his salary that also Mike does not happen when you are fired. So no Mike he has no history of being fired by every employer that is pure BS and again has been debunked. He only be fired from Fox and that was for reporting the truth and Current and that was unjutily because they promised him the moon and never delivered. Also MIke he did not leave for the same reasons, you really hate listening to facts. ESPN he left because he and his bosses could not agree on a new contract, he wanted to go to New York, they wanted him to stay in Bristol, the reason he left the second time was that Patrick had quit ESPN and thier was nothing that he really did, so no ESPN had nothing to do with KO working well with others and personality and ego, so wrong there. MSNBC he left first time because he hated doing repaeted news of Monica Lewinsky, they sold him to Fox Sports, Fox is where he got blackmailed and fired for reporting the truth about Murdoch and the Dogers. So wrong there Mike, MSNBC a second time he left because a they scwered him over on campaign crap and he felt that they were taking creavity control away, again had nothing to do with personality and ego. So Mike you just again show how ingorant you are on KO. KO personlity again is not the reason he got fired at Current, again I care crap about that Mike, and I looked at the evidence thier is no proof Mike that KO broke the contract, none, zipo. Keep embarrassing yourself with made up debunked crap. I do not listen to people who are beyon igorant of KO’s job past espically ones that put out that debunked crap that KO was fired from MSNBC and ESPN. Mike I do not have to be a fan to tell you, people that are fired do not get rest of salary and last shows, KO got a salary from both the times that he worked at ESPN and MSNBC and did a last show that he thanked and said goodbye to people, that shows even to people that are not fans and people that unlike you know what commen sense is and uses it that KO was never fired from those networks. Mike sorry but you lie throught your teeth when you put out the debunked crap that KO’s ego and personality are bad they are not. Mike all you do is make me love and respect and show why he this generations Murrow. Sorry only got fired from Current and Fox, quit MSNBC and ESPN both times, that does not show that he hard to work with only that mangers have zero clue how to handle independent, prefetionist like him. I do not oo listen to people about KO who are so igorant when it comes to his work history, those people show that have no idea what facts are. OO you do not do last shows like KO did at MSNBC and ESPN if you were fired, you do not get a salary if you are fired, KO is this generations Murrow, you would not know what Murrow is. You oo are the one that is showing that you are Krusty the clown, you cannot refute anything that I say, so you decide instead to be the grammer and spelling police, people that are like that show that they are everything that they claim KO is. KO has worked in this industry for 33 years, that is the truth. OO I know that people that lie about KO’s career show that they are not to be listened to when it comes to KO, because they show that they do not know what facts are. OO you just showed that you do not have common sense. People that live in the real world not your fantasy world know oo that if someone does a last show and still gets a salary, that means OO that they quit and did not get fired. You show that you are beyond igorant when it comes to KO and you know that you are igorant when it comes to KO, but you are such a gutless coward that you only care about putting up debunked crap, like the lies about KO’s career than listen to the truth. You show with that post that KO is this genertions Murrow and you Oo are Krusty the clown and do not say different because I know like all your other posts that will be a lie and just show how igorant you are on KO. OO keep showing that KO can never lie and that you do not know what facts are and what truth is. OO KO only been fired from two places and they were by bad bosses, one that thinks like you telling the truth is bad aka Murdouch and one that wants to be lazy and not take responsibity for what happened at Current, that is it, the other places he quit out. There is no evidence but in your mind OO that KO was fired from MSNBC and ESPN. You do not even know what being fired is and what quiting is that is how made up your posts are.
OO quiting is when you do a last show and still get a salary like what happened at MSNBC and ESPN, getting fired is no salary and no last show that is what happened at FOX and Current, anyone with a brain that they like to use unlike you know that. You are so igorant on who KO is. YOu show again with this post why KO is this generations Murrow and show that you do not know what facts are. Keep lying about KO’s job history, the facts are and always will be and if you say different you would be lying and showing that you do not know what a fact looks like. KO quit ESPN in 1997 because of contract neogations falling apart, went to MSNBC quit MSNBC the first time because he wanted to do real news not just report on MOnica Lewnsky all the time, went to FOx got blackmailed by a guy that is know been in a scandal for hacking phones showing that he not to be trusted when it comes to honesty about anything, fired for telling the truth about Murdoch selling Dogers. Went to MSNBC, quit again because he did not like the hypocricracy that went on there and thought that he was loosing support and got a offer from Current. Than got unjustily fired and if you say different you be lying and showing how igorant you are on KO. There is no evidence that his personality is why he not there. This shows that he worked pretty steady in his career also
You again show why KO is this generations Murrow and why he will be around for years to come, you Oo are Krusty beacuse your post has no facts and truth in them. You even lie about KO’s career and put up stuff that has been debunked over and over again. Keep making me love and respect him and showing why I am a life long fan.
I do not listen to people on KO who put up that debunked crap about KO’s career because I know that people like you who say that, have no facts and are not wanting to argue facts all you want to do is show and if you say different than that will be a lie beacuse KO has quit MSNBC and ESPN both times. People like you show why we need KO and why KO is this and always will be this generations Murrow. KO keep being yourself and you will always be perment on my wall, ipod and ipad and life. Love you faults and all. So Paul keep putting out a debunked lie. KO has been working in broadcasting business for 33 years at different jobs. Wow I wonder if you worked that long, also KO is not a rich kid. He was raised in a upper middle class family, that is not what a rich child looks like. Paul I watch KO had his prefectly fine mentally, I guess in your world peoeple that tell the truth and show why they are this genrations Murrow are bad. Also Paul the reason why KO cannot drive if you would listen is That Scinece is called a head injury not brain damage, also KO does not have a personal limo driver, that story Science turned out not to be true, the person that was suppose to have drove KO and said this basically came out and said that he had never drove KO. So keep lying, also you claim to read KO on twitter, so please Science if KO has his own Limo driver why are the pictures like last night that he shows are him reading the subway, wow some driver, also him not being able to drive Science does not mean that he has brain damage, I guess you are going say that people that are visaul imparied are also brain damged because they cannot drive, you really are putting up BS posts and showing that you the unintellngent one, not me and not KO. KO had a head injury that is why he cannot drive, head injuries and brain damage are not the same, you can have damage with out hitting your head, and you can have a regualry head injury that has nothing to do with your brain. Keep showing that you the one that has zero inteillgence and that KO is the intelligent one. Love how you believe debunked stoires. Again keep showing how igorant you are on KO. YOu just love to show why he is this generations Murrow and why you have no idea and never will have a an idea about who he is. KO never broke the contract and Current was not able to pay the drivers, which make sense because they never seemed to pay the electrity bill because KO was in the dark or fix his set. Keep proving that KO cannot make crap up and that you cannot tell the truth. You really love to prove that KO is this generations Murrow and you love to embarrass yourself in showing how igorant you are on him.I guess in Paul fantasy world the only people that are fine mentally are people that can drive, wow Paul people have all sorts of reasons for not driving that does not mean they need to see a shirink or that they have metnal problems, it means that like KO they have a injury that pervents them from see right while driving. Also KO is not gay. So Paul explain to me, how do you know a person is gay, because straight people are so spouse to know how to drive, and have children and family by now. Wow Paul that is not remotely what gay and straight look like. KO has dated women before, he even dated igraham, also I do not listen to people when it comes to who show that they are homophobis like you are. This is the most stupidieset thing that I have read all week. KO fine mentally and always has been only people like Paul who do not know what honesty is and love to make stuff up about people’s private lifes says that. KO tells truth to power, and shows why he this generations Murrow and can never lie. Paul hates KO because he suppose to tell him how bad people that are gay are, and he suppose to let the people that Paul wants to critized to critized, Paul do yourself a favor and learn what mentally ill is. KO standing up to bosses like he did at Current and other places is shows that he cares more about vaules and morals than he does issues and do not put that debunked crap about Current because here is what happened there Again because you do not like hearing the truth here is what happened at Current Again you show that you do not listen to truth or facts, that is a made up talking point. again here is the evidence that you love to igonre that shows that KO was unjustily fired. I do not listen to people like you who keep putting made up crap. Current being a ragtime operations is a BS excuse. ragtime operations do not make people who are have a thorat infection that is serious in KO’s industry have work, that shows that they do not care about who they are hiring, they do not get rid of thier co-Ceo that knows what he doing, that is how made up that statement is here is again is the facts and what happenedWow you also seem to want to lie about KO’s career. KO was not fired from ESPN or MSNBC. I want you to explain to me why was KO able to a last show at ESPN, I did not realize Nick that people that were fired could do that. Nick what happened at ESPN is that they could not find a agreement when it came to reneogationating his contract. He wanted to be in New York, because he was single and cannot drive and had family there. ESPN wanted him to stay in Bristol, so they left on mutal agreement. At MSNBC the first time he quit because he did not want to talk other things beside Lewensky scandal. He was then traded to Fox, he got fired from Fox for reporting the truth about Murdouch selling the LA Dodgers. Which at Fox is not allowed. He was than hired back from MSNBC, and when he left in January of 2011 he was again allowed to do a last show and mangement even said that KO left on his own aka mutal agreement and he got paid the rest of his contract, that shows pacfically that KO was not fired from MSNBC just like ESPN. Also KO was rehired by ESPN to work with Dan Patrick before he left ESPN. Nick keep lying about KO’s career history.
Nick also I want you to explain when has a professional responsible business ever put out a letter that is a personal attack on the person that they letting go, so again explain Nick how this ego and KO’s fault. Also KO keeps his fans up to date on twitter about his abences and what is going on and when the subs are going to on and letting the subs like Press tweet when he going to be on. He also saying who on the show and his staff doing twitter saying who on when Shuster is on, while Current will not take responsible for thier mistakes like the tenichal problems which is business which in the couter-suit they claim is thier job. Nick why did Current want KO to do a commerical for a corporation and have a corporate sponser, when they advertised that they were corporate free, also giving corporation his website, wow trying to make KO a hypocrite to his audience and people like me who are fans, and love that he stands on principle. Why did Current leak the primary story to the press, and KO and his lawyer only confirm that lawyers that were involved that Current said were saying, Nick how is that sabtoging them, when they were putting out email and letters and putting out qutos about KO, and all KO does is defend them and confirm that lawyers involved, along with making KO go against his principles and make them go again what they stood for by being corporate free. Wow Nick that shows that Current is sabtoging themselves and unjustily fired KO.
Nick KO was unjustily fired and that is the truth and thier is nothing that going to change that. Also nick explain why when articles about KO come out he or his team aka lawyer and manger always quoted, but with Current it sources, and that Hollywood story says sources and they say that KO was the one responsible why not deny when KO said they had told him it was his manger. Who is it the manger or KO. and they cannot deny that they blackmaiel and threaten to fire staff, all showing that they not KO realeased the salary. They also never reprimended KO for saying that he was on a preplanned vacation to fans on twitter, showing that they had approved it. So again I would be pissed if KO does not get the justice he deserved for being unjustily fired.
Nick keep making me love KO and respecting him more and more and showing why KO will be aroud for year to come. KO keep being yourself and showing why you are this generations Murrow and you will always have a fan in me. Lov eyou faults and all. Again Hyatt is someone that fired some with AIDS and you take what he says seriously. Dude I researched this over and over again and nothing shows that KO personality is why he not at Current. Keep showing how igorant you are on KO. KO again keep being yourself and sorry that you got unjustily fired at Current. OO loves to show why you are this generations Murrow and that OO loves to put out debut, Paul KO quit ESPN because of a contract disagreement, he did a last show and got a salary, Paul people that get fired do not get to do a last show and say goodbye or get there salary, he was hired back and ended up quiting again. He quit MSNBC first beacuse he wanted to do something other than Lewnisky and MSNBC did not, so he left or said he was sold to Fox sports, was blackmailed at Fox and reported on a true story about Murdouch selling the Dogers and was than fired, wow I did not know that telling the truth and being fired for it and being blackmailed there showed that KO had mental problems, oh that is right is shows that KO is mentally and has always been mentally sound. He went to MSNBC a second time and was there for eight years, he was at ESPN first time for five. Wow expect for Current, KO has even been steady working at the same job for a while with five at ESPN and eight at MSNBC, wow that again shows that Paul would not know what a mental illness is if it bit Paul on the head, he quit because MSNBC mangement is beyond hypocritical with the fact that they do not mind aka Geogary and SHultz people being speakers at fundraisers and Scrabough who only got caught a punished when he donated when KO was unustily punished for it. So MSNBC has a dishonest mangement team, they even do not want to see and keep acknowledging that KO was the one that brought them the success that they have. So wow I did not realize again like Fox mangement aka MSNBC dishonesty mangement was showing that people had mental problems, or that is right it does not. Paul also I have been on twitter, you think that trolls that love to bully and name call people should be allowed to say whatever they want and not get called out. Wow you again show that Paul thinks that name calling and lying about people’s careers and saying made up crap, shows that Paul hates facts. Paul those are the people that KO calls out that shows someone that loves to tell the truth and expose real bullying. This is not what mentally ilness looks. Also he talks politcs and baseball and puts out sunsets and answers questions. Paul I want you to explain how is that mental ilenss. Oh that is right it does not because Paul has no idea what a mental ill person looks like. Also Current KO was dealing with imcomptent mangement, which say that they handled the business part of things but did not want to fix set problems only wanted to complain about them and put blame on others, the one owner Hyatt fired someone with AIDS at his other business and was sued, and while at Current, got rid for no reason at all his co-ceo who knew the business, knew how to handle egos and yes KO has a big ego everyone in his business does, but ego is not why he not at Current, he’s is just right for someone in his industry. So that shows that I should not believe Hyatt when he says anything. His president Broham should know that when someone has a thorat infection aka a broadcaster, you do not try to make them work, espically when they are about to do Super Tuesday, the night before Super Tuesday is not important compared to your broadcaster vocal health. The fact that Brohem did this shows that he cared crap about KO and would have rathered worked him until he vocal chorads were so damaged they prevented KO from every working again even at Current. I was beyond pissed when I read that email. Paul I do not have to be a fan to know that KO is mentally sound, I also know that he is not a and never was a rich kid, yes he went to Hackly but going to a prep school or even a private school Paul does not make a person rich. Also going to Ivy League school like Cornell is also not mean that you are a rich child. Also calling out trolls Paul and putting up cool sunset and sundown photos and tweeting baseball and politics and interacting with people, shows that you are mentally stable, having worked in the brodacasting business and worked steadily in it, shows that you are mentally stable. Driving Paul has nothing to do with mental health. Again Paul I do not listen to people that think it okay to make fun of people that are gay when it comes to mental health. You show Paul and do not say different that KO’s mentally and always been mentally fine, you show that Paul loves to show how much of a homophobe that he is, and that KO unlike Paul knows more about tolerance. Paul wants to show that he igorant about who KO is and what his career and job history are. Paul you show why KO is this generations Murrow and make me love and respect him more with this made up BS piece. I know that anyone putting this out shows that they have no idea who KO is and that they would rather make fun of the mentally ill which is pahtic than listen to the truth. KO keep being yourself and you will always be perment on my wall, ipod, ipad and life. Love how you show Paul what tolerance and what mental stableness is. Also how you have no idea how to be mentally ill or how to be homophobe. Wow keep embarrassing yourself Paul with BS posts like this that shows that Paul does not live in the real world and loves to make lies up about people along with showing what a homophobe he is. KO sorry you got unjustily fired at Current, I will differently be pissed if you do not get the justice that you deserve for being unjustily fired there. Again you are the only one that will get me to watch news again. Love you faults and all. also exlpain why Carr says he can work again Paul. Again Paul people have said this about KO since he left ESPN. This Paul has been debunked over and over again. So sorry Current claiming to be progressive does not show Paul that KO can never work again. This shows that you do not get that bad mangement can happen anywhere. Also Paul Current is not progressive, and do not put out the hosts. They think that it okay to lie to viewers about who they are, they say they are corporate independent but than they go and try to get KO to go against his principles and do a commerical for AT&T. This Paul is not what progessives are about. Cenk Paul keeps critizing Obama so wow they are not Obamabots. KO Paul has critized this president. So the fact that you say that shows that you know that KO can easily get a job in broadcasting but you do not want to admit it. Again you show that you are beyond igorant about who KO is. Paul I laugh at people like you who put up that BS lie and try to make it true. Sorry Paul KO can work again if he wants to in his idustry. Keep showing me why KO is this genrations Murrow and that you are beyonf igorant about who KO is.
Oo the he burnt his last bridge has been debunked over and over again, you are showing how igorant your are on KO when you put out that debunk lie. Here is what Patrick said about this, Also Dan Patrick who been a friend of KO since they worked together at ESPN. would be laughing at you when you say KO is unemployable. KO quit MSNBC in 1999 and than was rehired in 2003, he quit ESPN in 1996 and was rehired in I think 2004 because he was regulary with Patrick before he left that is how made up the burnt his last bridges is. Keep lying about what I am, you just make laugh with how dishonest you are when it comes to fans. First you think when I defend KO I and other fans are in a cult and because I call you out again on that lie, you think it obession. I on a KO blog where he writes, that is not a obession. Also if you hate KO so much why are you on a site that writes, I think the truth is you are obessed with lying about KO and making up crap about his past. You already lied about his employment. I know that it will take awhile but just like Carr of the times and Patrick he will be back. Always is, said he would not be and than came the bad deal with CUrrrent. So keep lying about who I am and who KO is. I only and only evey be a fan and as a fan I not afraid to defend the person that I am a fan of. Being a fan is not a obession. Keep lying about me and KO. YOu again just make me love and respect him more. I go by the people that know KO personally like Dan Patrick when it comes to when KO going to back and employment not trolls who cannot get that KO was only fired from two places. and has worked in the same career for 33 years and counting. Again if KO is so toxic why do channels hire him back, that is what I keep telling you up top that is why I laugh when people like you say that, because it always needs up as a lie. It sometimes takes a while but if he wants to a network will take the risk. Again why is that Dan patrick who a friend of KO and worked with him at ESPN says that he would come back to a network, Carr who article was mostly negtive says that network will easily hire him after a certain amount of time and he in the industry. So keep living in your fantasy world on that one. That always turns out to be a lie. So I do not take your garantuee because I know that anyone that says that shows that they do not know who KO is and even how popular he is with people, even to fans that get angry at him when it came to Current want him back on the air somewhere. So sorry but I do not listen to people that say that a network can never hire him and never will because I know from looking at the pattern of his career and the success that he brings aka ESPN and MSNBC, which shows the track record of building channels showing that he already secrued his place in history when it comes to television, shows why networks take the chance on him. Sorry but you show that you do not want to listen to truth, again only insult. Keep making me love and respect KO more and more. Wow even Carr who would agree with you about KO and his bosses says that KO can come back. Wow OO that is how BS that lie is. OO the truth is KO can work anywhere if he wants, so if does not come back that is because he does not want to work. If does come back which probably happen it because he wants to work, and also again like what happened the when he was unjustily fired at Fox, it took a while before he went back and second time, Sorry but KO has burnt nothing that is made up BS and again shows that OO is ingorant on KO’s job history, keep showing that you have zero clue who KO is. Sorry but KO can work again, keep embarrassing yourself with your igorance on who KO is. Sorry but KO did break the contract and was nothing that Current said that he was, and I am someone that cares crap about his personality and how he gets along behind the scences. There is no proof RB that KO broke that contract.
Current came out with something that you have never heard of a attack letter, because they knew that they are everything that they claim KO is and that they broke the contract.
Keep shoiwng how igorant you are on KO and what his career is and do not say different because that would be a lie. Keep showing why KO is nothing that you and Current says he is and that you are everything that you want KO to be.
ALso that takes to web page not the article. Keep making me more of a fan.
Get off the blog and let people talk baseball. All this shows is how igonrat you are about who KO is and always will be.
Wow I should believe a network aka Fox that blackmailed KO and fired him for reporting the truth espically one where the owner is caught in a phone hacking scadal wow here is what happened at Fox On Countdown Tuesday night, Keith Olbermann gave an “inside look” at News Corporation, explaining how his bosses blackmailed him when he worked for Fox Sports.
Olbermann worked as a sports anchor for Fox Sports Net from 1998 to 2001 and was fired after reporting that Murdoch was planning to sell the Los Angeles Dodgers.
On his show Tuesday, he said that while working at Fox Sports he became sick and was advised by his doctor to slow down at work. When he requested to work five days instead of six, Fox Sports immediately pulled him off the air until he received a letter from his doctor guaranteeing he was well enough to work.
They then offered to either have Olbermann work a very busy schedule or receive a 60 percent pay cut.
“Instead of anchoring six days a week in the Los Angeles studio, they were going to have me anchor four days and then fly to and from different interviews, events, and promotions, etc. in other cities two different times per week,” he explained. “In short, they were threatening to work me into illness or into the hospital or both.”
“They were blackmailing me about my health, and Fox blackmail works,” he added. “And that’s the way it works. Lord only knows, if it works so well against someone with resources and a high profile like mine, how often was it used against lesser figures in the company?”
Watch video below:
Wow I sure believe that network,
Here is what MSNBC is MSNBC host Keith Olbermann has been placed on indefinite suspension without pay in the wake of a Politico report (11/5/10) that revealed Olbermann had donated $7,200 to three Democratic candidates, in violation of NBC’s standards barring employees from making political contributions.
A journalist donating money to a political candidate raises obvious conflict of interest questions; at a minimum, such contributions should be disclosed on air. But if supporting politicians with money is a threat to journalistic independence, what are the standards for Olbermann’s bosses at NBC, and at NBC’s parent company General Electric?
According to the Center for Responsive Politics, GE made over $2 million in political contributions in the 2010 election cycle (most coming from the company’s political action committee). The top recipient was Republican Senate candidate Rob Portman from Ohio. The company has also spent $32 million on lobbying this year, and contributed over $1 million to the successful “No on 24″ campaign against a California ballot initiative aimed at eliminating tax loopholes for major corporations (New York Times, 11/1/10).
Comcast, the cable company currently looking to buy NBC, has dramatically increased its political giving, much of it to lawmakers who support the proposed merger (Bloomberg, 10/19/10). And while Fox News parent News Corp’s $1 million donation to the Republican Governors Association caused a stir, GE had “given $245,000 to the Democratic governors and $205,000 to the Republican governors since last year,” reported the Washington Post (8/18/10).
Olbermann’s donations are in some ways comparable to fellow MSNBC host Joe Scarborough’s $4,200 contribution to Republican candidate Derrick Kitts in 2006 (MSNBC.com, 7/15/07). When that was uncovered, though, NBC dismissed this as a problem, since Scarborough “hosts an opinion program and is not a news reporter.” Olbermann, of course, is also an opinion journalist–but MSNBC seems to hold him to a different standard.
Two years earlier, the Washington Post reported (1/18/04):
NBC chief executive Robert Wright has contributed $8,000 since 1999, including $3,500 to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and $1,000 to Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.). Andrew Lack, a former NBC News chief, gave $1,000 to Rep. Billy Tauzin (R-La.) while NBC president, and Wright contributed $1,500–after the House committee Tauzin chairs held hearings on the networks’ election night failures. NBC spokeswoman Allison Gollust said the network allows its executives to make contributions and that Wright “does not make any decisions specific to news coverage.”
Wright, however, was reported in a recent New York magazine piece (10/3/10) to have told then-NBC News chief Neal Shapiro to move to the right of Fox News in response to the September 11 attacks: “We have to be more conservative then they are,” the magazine quoted Wright.
MSNBC’s treatment of Olbermann is also in sharp contrast to Fox News’ handling of Sean Hannity, who was revealed by Salon (9/23/10) to have given $5,000 to the campaign of Rep. Michele Bachmann (R.-Minn.), a Tea Party favorite–without Fox expressing any public disapproval. Hannity has allowed Republican candidates to use his Fox program for fundraising (Mediaite, 10/17/10); as Salon noted, Hannity was this year’s keynote speaker at the National Republican Congressional Committee’s annual fundraising dinner.
If the concern is about how giving money to politicians threatens journalistic independence, then companies like NBC should explain why their parent companies can lavish so much money on political candidates or causes with no concern about conflicts of interest or the need to disclose these donations to viewers. The lesson here would seem to be that some of the workers shouldn’t make political donations, but the bosses are free to give as much as they’d like. Anyone who watches Olbermann’s show knows what his political views are. So what do the far larger contributions from GE tell us?
and here Again you show that you do not listen to truth or facts, that is a made up talking point. again here is the evidence that you love to igonre that shows that KO was unjustily fired. I do not listen to people like you who keep putting made up crap. Current being a ragtime operations is a BS excuse. ragtime operations do not make people who are have a thorat infection that is serious in KO’s industry have work, that shows that they do not care about who they are hiring, they do not get rid of thier co-Ceo that knows what he doing, that is how made up that statement is here is again is the facts and what happenedWow you also seem to want to lie about KO’s career. KO was not fired from ESPN or MSNBC. I want you to explain to me why was KO able to a last show at ESPN, I did not realize Nick that people that were fired could do that. Nick what happened at ESPN is that they could not find a agreement when it came to reneogationating his contract. He wanted to be in New York, because he was single and cannot drive and had family there. ESPN wanted him to stay in Bristol, so they left on mutal agreement. At MSNBC the first time he quit because he did not want to talk other things beside Lewensky scandal. He was then traded to Fox, he got fired from Fox for reporting the truth about Murdouch selling the LA Dodgers. Which at Fox is not allowed. He was than hired back from MSNBC, and when he left in January of 2011 he was again allowed to do a last show and mangement even said that KO left on his own aka mutal agreement and he got paid the rest of his contract, that shows pacfically that KO was not fired from MSNBC just like ESPN. Also KO was rehired by ESPN to work with Dan Patrick before he left ESPN. Nick keep lying about KO’s career history. Here is more about what happened at Fox After retelling the story of how he got fired from Fox Sports for reporting that Rupert was looking to sell the LA Dodgers, Olbermann got to the new details,
The second half of my story I have never told publicly before. It’s time. In June of 2000 after a year and a half of doing two one hour cable shows a night for Murdoch and baseball from 7 AM to 5 PM on Saturdays, I got sick. My doctor told me that if I didn’t among other things slow down at work; he would be treating me for heart disease within the decade. I took him very seriously. I told my employers about cutting back maybe from the six days to 5, and offered to give back to Fox some of my salary in the process because my health was at risk maybe even my heart.
They immediately took me off the air. They refused to put me back on until I had gotten a letter from my doctor guaranteeing them that I was well enough to work. By itself that was hardly an evil thing to do. In fact, I recognized it as a prudent business decision, and I complied because I didn’t know what they intended to do with it. They blackmailed me with it.t comes to how KO is, you really love to show me that KO is easy to work with and that you like Current have zero clue what being hard to work for. MSNBC let’s see they thought that it was okay for Scaurbough to donate also and if KO had not gotten caught would have let Scraubough get away with donating so you show again how hypocritical MSNBC is on that here is MSNBC suspended host Keith Olbermann today, following revelations that he made campaign contributions to three Democrats in the elections — a violation of MSNBC policy.
But a search of OpenSecrets.org reveals that MSNBC host Joe Scarborough and MSNBC contributor Pat Buchanan have also made contributions to political campaigns. Here’s what we found…
In March 2006, Scarborough, who hosts the show Morning Joe, gave $4200 to Derrick Kitts (R-OR). And, as the Daily Kos points out, a month later Kitts was a guest on Scarborough’s show.
Between 2005-2008, Pat Buchanan made five contributions to Republican candidates, totaling $2250.
Chris Hayes, the Washington editor for The Nation, is a frequent contributor to MSNBC shows, and often fills in for Rachel Maddow on her show. The Upshot reports that he gave $250 to Alabama Democratic candidate Josh Segall this year before he signed his contract with MSNBC.
NBC News producer Mary Murray, who also does reporting for NBC News and MSNBC, gave $250 to John Waltz (D-KY) this year. In 2008 she gave the same amount to Barack Obama’s presidential campaign.
Update: New York Times reporter Brian Stelter Tweeted that Hayes, in fact, would not be subbing for Olberman after all.
Later Update: Alex Pareene at Salon notes that CNBC anchor Larry Kudlow donated to former Congressman Christopher Shays (R-CT) in 2009 — one of a number of donations Kudlow made to Republican candidates over the years.
Even later update: Chris Hayes Tweeted that it was his decision to decline to host “Countdown” tonight, and that his donations were all made prior to his MSNBC contract. Also MSNBC has had others like Geogary who spoke at a republican event, hereThe National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), which calls itself “the voice of small business,” is one of the Republican party’s strongest allies. The group spent over $1 million on outside ads in the 2010 campaign — all of it backing Republican House and Senate candidates (and, Bloomberg News reported last month, “another $1.5 million that it kept hidden and said was exempt” from disclosure requirements). The group is the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit against the Obamacare law and bankrolled state governments’ challenges to the law. The NFIB has also taken stances against allowing the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases, opposing regulations on businesses, and supporting curtailing union rights.
Given the group’s obvious Republican alliance, it comes as little surprise that the NFIB’s three-day 2012 Small Business Summit, which begins Monday, will feature headliners Karl Rove and House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH).
But the first name and photo on the invitation for the $150-per-person event — Tuesday’s “keynote address” speaker — is NBC’s Meet the Press host David Gregory. He is marketed by NBC as an anchor and “trusted journalist.”
The Society of Professional Journalists’ Code of Ethics states:
Journalists should:
— Avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived.
— Remain free of associations and activities that may compromise integrity or damage credibility.
— Refuse gifts, favors, fees, free travel and special treatment, and shun secondary employment, political involvement, public office and service in community organizations if they compromise journalistic integrity.
Regardless of whether Gregory is being paid for this event and of what he says in his keynote, allowing the NFIB to raise money for its political mission using his name, reputation, and celebrity appears to be at odds with journalistic ethics.
Gregory did not to respond to a ThinkProgress request for comment. So your article just shows what a hypocrite krutz, where does krutz get on Georgary case for speaking at a even or when ED was suppose to speak at a Wisconsin event, so Krutz has no creadiblity when it comes to KO. Also all those stories have been disaproved, KO never had people put notes outside his box that came from suggestions jack and a disgulted employer made the other stuff up, also dealing with personal problems like his parents death that shows that KO bad and hard to work with, also dude that shows that MSNBC was not watching Countdown because he was not getting angry after his parents died, that shows that MSNBC wants to lie, mangement wants to re-write the history of who put them on the map, that how BS, also this came from gawker I suppose to believe gossip site on how KO cannot get work, maybe you should read Carter when it comes to this and than tell me that KO is unemployableGiven Keith Olbermann’s abrupt removal at Current and his typically temperate response — “Current’s statement are untrue and will be proved so in the legal actions I will be filing against them presently” — it seems as if his next stop will be a puppet show shot from a basement somewhere. He’ll never work in this town, or any other, again, right?
Wrong. Many of his past employers will testify to his unmanageability and unpleasantness, but the fact of the matter is that somewhere, sometime, after some kind of cooling-off period, Mr. Olbermann will be coming to a television near you.
That has less to do with the greater fool theory, which suggests that there will always be someone naïve enough to think that they can accomplish what others have not — that is, make Mr. Olbermann behave like a professional when he is not on the air. (Remember that former Vice President Al Gore and Joel Hyatt — two of the principals at Current — blew through many stop signs to get to Mr. Olbermann. They made very hopeful statements when the deal was cut, which were followed by very frustrated noises thereafter.)
No, the mistake that the executives at Current made was to think that by giving Mr. Olbermann a stake in the enterprise and a title of chief news officer, he would forgo the drama that has characterized his stints at CNN, Fox, ESPN and MSNBC. After all, you can’t rail against the Man when you are the Man.
But Mr. Olbermann is talent, and a big baby to boot — any reporter who has covered him could tell you all about that — so the idea that he would default to the good of the many over the needs of the one is just not in his nature. The title was used as leverage, nothing more, when Mr. Olbermann became dissatisfied and starting communicating with his employers through lawyer letters months ago. Mr. Olbermann is a ferocious fan of team sports, but that’s not how he plays the game.
He is the equivalent of a supremely talented left-handed pitcher with a strong arm — and some obvious control issues — that can give whatever team hires him a lot of quality innings. On the bench and off the field? He will complain about his coach, his teammates, the quality of the field and the stadium lights.
He did not solve the miserable ratings math at Current — as my colleague Brian Stelter pointed out, in his 40 weeks on Current TV, he had an average of 177,000 viewers at 8 p.m., a shadow of his former incarnation at MSNBC where he drew a million-plus people a night.
That’s not all his fault. Anybody who has watched the Keith-less version of Current could understand why they wanted him so badly in the first place. Beset by technical problems that had Mr. Olbermann broadcasting his show with a black backdrop in a kind of hostage/protest motif, Current was not and is not ready for prime time.
The channel’s election coverage has been tendentious and painful to watch, and the depth of its bench can be measured by the fact that it is bringing aboard former Gov. Eliot L. Spitzer of New York to replace him. Current will have to do some renovating to make room for all of the baggage he brings with him, from both his scandal-ridden exit from the governorship and his ratings-challenged turn at CNN.
Which brings us back to Mr. Olbermann. Anchoring a show on television looks easy. Buy a nice suit, get a nice haircut and read the words on the prompter in the right order with some semblance of conviction. But it’s not. As cable stations proliferate, the desperate search for people who can credibly show up every night — or not, as Mr. Olbermann was frequently on strike at Current — and hold an audience’s attention will only become more acute. Mr. Olbermann has a terrible relationship with actual humans, but a very good relationship with the camera.
When I was working on a magazine piece about Mr. Olbermann, we went to a Yankees game and he explained the camera voodoo:
“Mechanically, if you look very carefully in a camera, it has a series of reflections and dimensions to it, you can look past that,” he said. He holds up his hands in the shape of a box. “Here’s the camera, here’s the front of the camera, here’s the lens of the camera, but if you look deeply enough, you can see the inner rings at the far end of the lens and maybe a glimmer of light very deep in the distance. You can always see something that might be an inch or two below the surface. Whenever I can, I try to focus there, not on the prompter or the front of the lens.”
Maybe that’s overexplaining something that is actually innate, but history has shown that even though Mr. Olbermann’s employers do not like him, the camera, and the people at the other end, like him just fine. As Jonathan Wald, the producer for Piers Morgan put it, somewhat more industrially, in a tweet on Saturday night, “Stars star and producers produce.”
And that means he will find work. He is a free agent in a business that is remarkably akin to pro sports, full of divas who are great at hitting the curve or making impossible catches, but baffled by the rest of life. Think Terrell (“I love me some me”) Owens. Or Randy Moss. Or Babe Ruth. Or Ted Williams. Jerks, louts and narcissists, all tolerated because within the four corners of the diamond, the football field and, yes, the television studio, they can do what others cannot.
So some executives will eventually plug their noses and write a check and a contract that they hope will contain Mr. Olbermann’s less attractive aspects. He and they will say that this time it will be different, and it may be. Just don’t expect him to be part of the team.
Wow jack so even Carr who would agree with you about KO’s behavoir says that KO is employable and will come back, that is how made up that statement is. You really love to show me why I love KO and why his personality had zero to do with what happened at Current, that article even tells about Hyatt and AIDS aka firing someone with AIDS and you want me to believe KO’s the bad guy. Keep making me love and respect KO more and more and show that all you wnat to do is bash him and put up gossip articles that can easily get refuted, you also do not get what I do about KO is that he a professional and someone that is not afraid to stand up for what he believes in which is what mangement hates about him and why he has a hard time with them, it what people love, keep lying about KO that is all you know how to do, you keep showing why I am a fan and always will be. Jack you also show why KO got unjustily fired from Current you have no evidence that KO is unemployable, only a gossip site by mangement that for the first two aka MSNBC and Fox are hypocritical and includes Current, and one with someone who has just as bad a reputation as KO suppose to have, and who wants to still get on KO’s case about something that he apologized for showing that she has zero crediblity and sounds like it just a revenge post. KO keep being yourself again will be pissed if you do not get the justice for being unjusticly fired from Current. Jack why does KO been in this industry for 33 years if he so unemployable that is how BS your argument is. KO keep being yourself and showing off your great personality and showing why KO is this generations Murrow and why he will be around for years to come, keep being yourself KO and you will always have a fan in me, again Current needs to stop lying and tell people the truth that your personality and ego is not why you got fired and that you work fine with others, Hyatt needs to explain why he and Brohem thinks it okay to make thier broadcating stars to work with a throat infection, that jack shows that Current never cared about KO, just like MSNBC who wants to re-write history and is okay with people that speak at partisain events and other employers doanting but KO the bad guy, that he unbelieveable MSNBC is on that topic. All that shows jack is why I do not watch Current and MSNBC and how dishonest those mangements are. You really love to show that KO works fine with others. KO keep being yourself and you will always be perment on my wall, ipod and ipad and life and why you got unjustily fired from Current. jack you just make me love and respect KO more and more with your BS crap about who he is. Jack thier is no and you just showed once again there is no evidence that KO personality was what got him fired. Keep lying about KO and showing that KO has zero clue how to lie and that you Jack have zero clue how to tell the truth about KO and his past employment. KO love you faults and all. Here is KO true oo job history not your made up debunked version Mike thanks for showing me that you are beyond ingorant on KO’s job history. KO Mike was never fired from MSNBC or ESPN, also Mike KO was rehired by both of those companies, wow some bad personality there, Mike do you live in alternte reality, Mike you do not do last shows which KO did at both MSNBC and ESPN if you been fired. KO and even MSNBC have said that KO quit, he even got his salary that also Mike does not happen when you are fired. So no Mike he has no history of being fired by every employer that is pure BS and again has been debunked. He only be fired from Fox and that was for reporting the truth and Current and that was unjutily because they promised him the moon and never delivered. Also MIke he did not leave for the same reasons, you really hate listening to facts. ESPN he left because he and his bosses could not agree on a new contract, he wanted to go to New York, they wanted him to stay in Bristol, the reason he left the second time was that Patrick had quit ESPN and thier was nothing that he really did, so no ESPN had nothing to do with KO working well with others and personality and ego, so wrong there. MSNBC he left first time because he hated doing repaeted news of Monica Lewinsky, they sold him to Fox Sports, Fox is where he got blackmailed and fired for reporting the truth about Murdoch and the Dogers. So wrong there Mike, MSNBC a second time he left because a they scwered him over on campaign crap and he felt that they were taking creavity control away, again had nothing to do with personality and ego. So Mike you just again show how ingorant you are on KO. KO personlity again is not the reason he got fired at Current, again I care crap about that Mike, and I looked at the evidence thier is no proof Mike that KO broke the contract, none, zipo. Keep embarrassing yourself with made up debunked crap. I do not listen to people who are beyon igorant of KO’s job past espically ones that put out that debunked crap that KO was fired from MSNBC and ESPN. Mike I do not have to be a fan to tell you, people that are fired do not get rest of salary and last shows, KO got a salary from both the times that he worked at ESPN and MSNBC and did a last show that he thanked and said goodbye to people, that shows even to people that are not fans and people that unlike you know what commen sense is and uses it that KO was never fired from those networks. Mike sorry but you lie throught your teeth when you put out the debunked crap that KO’s ego and personality are bad they are not. Mike all you do is make me love and respect and show why he this generations Murrow. Sorry only got fired from Current and Fox, quit MSNBC and ESPN both times, that does not show that he hard to work with only that mangers have zero clue how to handle independent, prefetionist like him. I do not oo listen to people about KO who are so igorant when it comes to his work history, those people show that have no idea what facts are. OO you do not do last shows like KO did at MSNBC and ESPN if you were fired, you do not get a salary if you are fired, KO is this generations Murrow, you would not know what Murrow is. You oo are the one that is showing that you are Krusty the clown, you cannot refute anything that I say, so you decide instead to be the grammer and spelling police, people that are like that show that they are everything that they claim KO is. KO has worked in this industry for 33 years, that is the truth. OO I know that people that lie about KO’s career show that they are not to be listened to when it comes to KO, because they show that they do not know what facts are. OO you just showed that you do not have common sense. People that live in the real world not your fantasy world know oo that if someone does a last show and still gets a salary, that means OO that they quit and did not get fired. You show that you are beyond igorant when it comes to KO and you know that you are igorant when it comes to KO, but you are such a gutless coward that you only care about putting up debunked crap, like the lies about KO’s career than listen to the truth. You show with that post that KO is this genertions Murrow and you Oo are Krusty the clown and do not say different because I know like all your other posts that will be a lie and just show how igorant you are on KO. OO keep showing that KO can never lie and that you do not know what facts are and what truth is. OO KO only been fired from two places and they were by bad bosses, one that thinks like you telling the truth is bad aka Murdouch and one that wants to be lazy and not take responsibity for what happened at Current, that is it, the other places he quit out. There is no evidence but in your mind OO that KO was fired from MSNBC and ESPN. You do not even know what being fired is and what quiting is that is how made up your posts are.
OO quiting is when you do a last show and still get a salary like what happened at MSNBC and ESPN, getting fired is no salary and no last show that is what happened at FOX and Current, anyone with a brain that they like to use unlike you know that. You are so igorant on who KO is. YOu show again with this post why KO is this generations Murrow and show that you do not know what facts are. Keep lying about KO’s job history, the facts are and always will be and if you say different you would be lying and showing that you do not know what a fact looks like. KO quit ESPN in 1997 because of contract neogations falling apart, went to MSNBC quit MSNBC the first time because he wanted to do real news not just report on MOnica Lewnsky all the time, went to FOx got blackmailed by a guy that is know been in a scandal for hacking phones showing that he not to be trusted when it comes to honesty about anything, fired for telling the truth about Murdoch selling Dogers. Went to MSNBC, quit again because he did not like the hypocricracy that went on there and thought that he was loosing support and got a offer from Current. Than got unjustily fired and if you say different you be lying and showing how igorant you are on KO. There is no evidence that his personality is why he not there. This shows that he worked pretty steady in his career also
You again show why KO is this generations Murrow and why he will be around for years to come, you Oo are Krusty beacuse your post has no facts and truth in them. You even lie about KO’s career and put up stuff that has been debunked over and over again. Keep making me love and respect him and showing why I am a life long fan.
I do not listen to people on KO who put up that debunked crap about KO’s career because I know that people like you who say that, have no facts and are not wanting to argue facts all you want to do is show and if you say different than that will be a lie beacuse KO has quit MSNBC and ESPN both times. People like you show why we need KO and why KO is this and always will be this generations Murrow. KO keep being yourself and you will always be perment on my wall, ipod and ipad and life. Love you faults and all. So Paul keep putting out a debunked lie. KO has been working in broadcasting business for 33 years at different jobs. Wow I wonder if you worked that long, also KO is not a rich kid. He was raised in a upper middle class family, that is not what a rich child looks like. Paul I watch KO had his prefectly fine mentally, I guess in your world peoeple that tell the truth and show why they are this genrations Murrow are bad. Also Paul the reason why KO cannot drive if you would listen is That Scinece is called a head injury not brain damage, also KO does not have a personal limo driver, that story Science turned out not to be true, the person that was suppose to have drove KO and said this basically came out and said that he had never drove KO. So keep lying, also you claim to read KO on twitter, so please Science if KO has his own Limo driver why are the pictures like last night that he shows are him reading the subway, wow some driver, also him not being able to drive Science does not mean that he has brain damage, I guess you are going say that people that are visaul imparied are also brain damged because they cannot drive, you really are putting up BS posts and showing that you the unintellngent one, not me and not KO. KO had a head injury that is why he cannot drive, head injuries and brain damage are not the same, you can have damage with out hitting your head, and you can have a regualry head injury that has nothing to do with your brain. Keep showing that you the one that has zero inteillgence and that KO is the intelligent one. Love how you believe debunked stoires. Again keep showing how igorant you are on KO. YOu just love to show why he is this generations Murrow and why you have no idea and never will have a an idea about who he is. KO never broke the contract and Current was not able to pay the drivers, which make sense because they never seemed to pay the electrity bill because KO was in the dark or fix his set. Keep proving that KO cannot make crap up and that you cannot tell the truth. You really love to prove that KO is this generations Murrow and you love to embarrass yourself in showing how igorant you are on him.I guess in Paul fantasy world the only people that are fine mentally are people that can drive, wow Paul people have all sorts of reasons for not driving that does not mean they need to see a shirink or that they have metnal problems, it means that like KO they have a injury that pervents them from see right while driving. Also KO is not gay. So Paul explain to me, how do you know a person is gay, because straight people are so spouse to know how to drive, and have children and family by now. Wow Paul that is not remotely what gay and straight look like. KO has dated women before, he even dated igraham, also I do not listen to people when it comes to who show that they are homophobis like you are. This is the most stupidieset thing that I have read all week. KO fine mentally and always has been only people like Paul who do not know what honesty is and love to make stuff up about people’s private lifes says that. KO tells truth to power, and shows why he this generations Murrow and can never lie. Paul hates KO because he suppose to tell him how bad people that are gay are, and he suppose to let the people that Paul wants to critized to critized, Paul do yourself a favor and learn what mentally ill is. KO standing up to bosses like he did at Current and other places is shows that he cares more about vaules and morals than he does issues and do not put that debunked crap about Current because here is what happened there Again because you do not like hearing the truth here is what happened at Current Again you show that you do not listen to truth or facts, that is a made up talking point. again here is the evidence that you love to igonre that shows that KO was unjustily fired. I do not listen to people like you who keep putting made up crap. Current being a ragtime operations is a BS excuse. ragtime operations do not make people who are have a thorat infection that is serious in KO’s industry have work, that shows that they do not care about who they are hiring, they do not get rid of thier co-Ceo that knows what he doing, that is how made up that statement is here is again is the facts and what happenedWow you also seem to want to lie about KO’s career. KO was not fired from ESPN or MSNBC. I want you to explain to me why was KO able to a last show at ESPN, I did not realize Nick that people that were fired could do that. Nick what happened at ESPN is that they could not find a agreement when it came to reneogationating his contract. He wanted to be in New York, because he was single and cannot drive and had family there. ESPN wanted him to stay in Bristol, so they left on mutal agreement. At MSNBC the first time he quit because he did not want to talk other things beside Lewensky scandal. He was then traded to Fox, he got fired from Fox for reporting the truth about Murdouch selling the LA Dodgers. Which at Fox is not allowed. He was than hired back from MSNBC, and when he left in January of 2011 he was again allowed to do a last show and mangement even said that KO left on his own aka mutal agreement and he got paid the rest of his contract, that shows pacfically that KO was not fired from MSNBC just like ESPN. Also KO was rehired by ESPN to work with Dan Patrick before he left ESPN. Here is more Du

twitter.com/sunnyright
“How’s your gig at ESPN..er Fox..er MSNBC..er Current…er..well. Huh.”

LMFAO! I know Sunny. There kind of seems to be a pattern with BB. ;-)
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO!!!!!!!!!!

Wow again you show that you are igorant about KO’s career. MSNBC and ESPN KO quit, he ony been fired from Current and Fox and both he was unjstily fired from. Here BY because you are so igorant about KO’s career is what went on there, KO has never been fired from ESPN and MSNBC that has been debunked over and over again. Once again OO you show that you are igorant on the difference between being fired and quiting, OO what part of you do not do last shows and get a salary if you get fired, here again is KO’s job history because you love to get this one wrong. Again OO that is a made up talking point by you and others that have zero clue about who KO is, let me explain, Paul again you seem to love to write the most stupidiest post that I have every heard of. So in our world because a company is small and claim that they are progressive that means that they can treat thier employees like they did with KO like crap and I should just be on thier side because they are suppose to have the same idology. That is beyond the most stupidest crap that I have heard of in me my life. First Paul you cannot refute like Current could not why KO got unjustily fried and abused here it is again I love KO and why his personality had zero to do with what happened at Current, that article even tells about Hyatt and AIDS aka firing someone with AIDS and you want me to believe KO’s the bad guy. Keep making me love and respect KO more and more and show that all you wnat to do is bash him and put up gossip articles that can easily get refuted, you also do not get what I do about KO is that he a professional and someone that is not afraid to stand up for what he believes in which is what mangement hates about him and why he has a hard time with them, it what people love, keep lying about KO that is all you know how to do, you keep showing why I am a fan and always will be. Jack you also show why KO got unjustily fired from Current you have no evidence that KO is unemployable, only a gossip site by mangement that for the first two aka MSNBC and Fox are hypocritical and includes Current, and one with someone who has just as bad a reputation as KO suppose to have, and who wants to still get on KO’s case about something that he apologized for showing that she has zero crediblity and sounds like it just a revenge post. KO keep being yourself again will be pissed if you do not get the justice for being unjusticly fired from Current. Jack why does KO been in this industry for 33 years if he so unemployable that is how BS your argument is. KO keep being yourself and showing off your great personality and showing why KO is this generations Murrow and why he will be around for years to come, keep being yourself KO and you will always have a fan in me, again Current needs to stop lying and tell people the truth that your personality and ego is not why you got fired and that you work fine with others, Hyatt needs to explain why he and Brohem thinks it okay to make thier broadcating stars to work with a throat infection, that jack shows that Current never cared about KO, just like MSNBC who wants to re-write history and is okay with people that speak at partisain events and other employers doanting but KO the bad guy, that he unbelieveable MSNBC is on that topic. All that shows jack is why I do not watch Current and MSNBC and how dishonest those mangements are. You really love to show that KO works fine with others. KO keep being yourself and you will always be perment on my wall, ipod and ipad and life and why you got unjustily fired from Current. jack you just make me love and respect KO more and more with your BS crap about who he is. Jack thier is no and you just showed once again there is no evidence that KO personality was what got him fired. Keep lying about KO and showing that KO has zero clue how to lie and that you Jack have zero clue how to tell the truth about KO and his past employment. KO love you faults and all. Here is KO true oo job history not your made up debunked version Mike thanks for showing me that you are beyond ingorant on KO’s job history. KO Mike was never fired from MSNBC or ESPN, also Mike KO was rehired by both of those companies, wow some bad personality there, Mike do you live in alternte reality, Mike you do not do last shows which KO did at both MSNBC and ESPN if you been fired. KO and even MSNBC have said that KO quit, he even got his salary that also Mike does not happen when you are fired. So no Mike he has no history of being fired by every employer that is pure BS and again has been debunked. He only be fired from Fox and that was for reporting the truth and Current and that was unjutily because they promised him the moon and never delivered. Also MIke he did not leave for the same reasons, you really hate listening to facts. ESPN he left because he and his bosses could not agree on a new contract, he wanted to go to New York, they wanted him to stay in Bristol, the reason he left the second time was that Patrick had quit ESPN and thier was nothing that he really did, so no ESPN had nothing to do with KO working well with others and personality and ego, so wrong there. MSNBC he left first time because he hated doing repaeted news of Monica Lewinsky, they sold him to Fox Sports, Fox is where he got blackmailed and fired for reporting the truth about Murdoch and the Dogers. So wrong there Mike, MSNBC a second time he left because a they scwered him over on campaign crap and he felt that they were taking creavity control away, again had nothing to do with personality and ego. So Mike you just again show how ingorant you are on KO. KO personlity again is not the reason he got fired at Current, again I care crap about that Mike, and I looked at the evidence thier is no proof Mike that KO broke the contract, none, zipo. Keep embarrassing yourself with made up debunked crap. I do not listen to people who are beyon igorant of KO’s job past espically ones that put out that debunked crap that KO was fired from MSNBC and ESPN. Mike I do not have to be a fan to tell you, people that are fired do not get rest of salary and last shows, KO got a salary from both the times that he worked at ESPN and MSNBC and did a last show that he thanked and said goodbye to people, that shows even to people that are not fans and people that unlike you know what commen sense is and uses it that KO was never fired from those networks. Mike sorry but you lie throught your teeth when you put out the debunked crap that KO’s ego and personality are bad they are not. Mike all you do is make me love and respect and show why he this generations Murrow. Sorry only got fired from Current and Fox, quit MSNBC and ESPN both times, that does not show that he hard to work with only that mangers have zero clue how to handle independent, prefetionist like him. I do not oo listen to people about KO who are so igorant when it comes to his work history, those people show that have no idea what facts are. OO you do not do last shows like KO did at MSNBC and ESPN if you were fired, you do not get a salary if you are fired, KO is this generations Murrow, you would not know what Murrow is. You oo are the one that is showing that you are Krusty the clown, you cannot refute anything that I say, so you decide instead to be the grammer and spelling police, people that are like that show that they are everything that they claim KO is. KO has worked in this industry for 33 years, that is the truth. OO I know that people that lie about KO’s career show that they are not to be listened to when it comes to KO, because they show that they do not know what facts are. OO you just showed that you do not have common sense. People that live in the real world not your fantasy world know oo that if someone does a last show and still gets a salary, that means OO that they quit and did not get fired. You show that you are beyond igorant when it comes to KO and you know that you are igorant when it comes to KO, but you are such a gutless coward that you only care about putting up debunked crap, like the lies about KO’s career than listen to the truth. You show with that post that KO is this genertions Murrow and you Oo are Krusty the clown and do not say different because I know like all your other posts that will be a lie and just show how igorant you are on KO. OO keep showing that KO can never lie and that you do not know what facts are and what truth is. OO KO only been fired from two places and they were by bad bosses, one that thinks like you telling the truth is bad aka Murdouch and one that wants to be lazy and not take responsibity for what happened at Current, that is it, the other places he quit out. There is no evidence but in your mind OO that KO was fired from MSNBC and ESPN. You do not even know what being fired is and what quiting is that is how made up your posts are.
OO quiting is when you do a last show and still get a salary like what happened at MSNBC and ESPN, getting fired is no salary and no last show that is what happened at FOX and Current, anyone with a brain that they like to use unlike you know that. You are so igorant on who KO is. YOu show again with this post why KO is this generations Murrow and show that you do not know what facts are. Keep lying about KO’s job history, the facts are and always will be and if you say different you would be lying and showing that you do not know what a fact looks like. KO quit ESPN in 1997 because of contract neogations falling apart, went to MSNBC quit MSNBC the first time because he wanted to do real news not just report on MOnica Lewnsky all the time, went to FOx got blackmailed by a guy that is know been in a scandal for hacking phones showing that he not to be trusted when it comes to honesty about anything, fired for telling the truth about Murdoch selling Dogers. Went to MSNBC, quit again because he did not like the hypocricracy that went on there and thought that he was loosing support and got a offer from Current. Than got unjustily fired and if you say different you be lying and showing how igorant you are on KO. There is no evidence that his personality is why he not there. This shows that he worked pretty steady in his career also
You again show why KO is this generations Murrow and why he will be around for years to come, you Oo are Krusty beacuse your post has no facts and truth in them. You even lie about KO’s career and put up stuff that has been debunked over and over again. Keep making me love and respect him and showing why I am a life long fan.
I do not listen to people on KO who put up that debunked crap about KO’s career because I know that people like you who say that, have no facts and are not wanting to argue facts all you want to do is show and if you say different than that will be a lie beacuse KO has quit MSNBC and ESPN both times. People like you show why we need KO and why KO is this and always will be this generations Murrow. KO keep being yourself and you will always be perment on my wall, ipod and ipad and life. Love you faults and all. So Paul keep putting out a debunked lie. KO has been working in broadcasting business for 33 years at different jobs. Wow I wonder if you worked that long, also KO is not a rich kid. He was raised in a upper middle class family, that is not what a rich child looks like. Paul I watch KO had his prefectly fine mentally, I guess in your world peoeple that tell the truth and show why they are this genrations Murrow are bad. Also Paul the reason why KO cannot drive if you would listen is That Scinece is called a head injury not brain damage, also KO does not have a personal limo driver, that story Science turned out not to be true, the person that was suppose to have drove KO and said this basically came out and said that he had never drove KO. So keep lying, also you claim to read KO on twitter, so please Science if KO has his own Limo driver why are the pictures like last night that he shows are him reading the subway, wow some driver, also him not being able to drive Science does not mean that he has brain damage, I guess you are going say that people that are visaul imparied are also brain damged because they cannot drive, you really are putting up BS posts and showing that you the unintellngent one, not me and not KO. KO had a head injury that is why he cannot drive, head injuries and brain damage are not the same, you can have damage with out hitting your head, and you can have a regualry head injury that has nothing to do with your brain. Keep showing that you the one that has zero inteillgence and that KO is the intelligent one. Love how you believe debunked stoires. Again keep showing how igorant you are on KO. YOu just love to show why he is this generations Murrow and why you have no idea and never will have a an idea about who he is. KO never broke the contract and Current was not able to pay the drivers, which make sense because they never seemed to pay the electrity bill because KO was in the dark or fix his set. Keep proving that KO cannot make crap up and that you cannot tell the truth. You really love to prove that KO is this generations Murrow and you love to embarrass yourself in showing how igorant you are on him.I guess in Paul fantasy world the only people that are fine mentally are people that can drive, wow Paul people have all sorts of reasons for not driving that does not mean they need to see a shirink or that they have metnal problems, it means that like KO they have a injury that pervents them from see right while driving. Also KO is not gay. So Paul explain to me, how do you know a person is gay, because straight people are so spouse to know how to drive, and have children and family by now. Wow Paul that is not remotely what gay and straight look like. KO has dated women before, he even dated igraham, also I do not listen to people when it comes to who show that they are homophobis like you are. This is the most stupidieset thing that I have read all week. KO fine mentally and always has been only people like Paul who do not know what honesty is and love to make stuff up about people’s private lifes says that. KO tells truth to power, and shows why he this generations Murrow and can never lie. Paul hates KO because he suppose to tell him how bad people that are gay are, and he suppose to let the people that Paul wants to critized to critized, Paul do yourself a favor and learn what mentally ill is. KO standing up to bosses like he did at Current and other places is shows that he cares more about vaules and morals than he does issues and do not put that debunked crap about Current because here is what happened there Again because you do not like hearing the truth here is what happened at Current Again you show that you do not listen to truth or facts, that is a made up talking point. again here is the evidence that you love to igonre that shows that KO was unjustily fired. I do not listen to people like you who keep putting made up crap. Current being a ragtime operations is a BS excuse. ragtime operations do not make people who are have a thorat infection that is serious in KO’s industry have work, that shows that they do not care about who they are hiring, they do not get rid of thier co-Ceo that knows what he doing, that is how made up that statement is here is again is the facts and what happenedWow you also seem to want to lie about KO’s career. KO was not fired from ESPN or MSNBC. I want you to explain to me why was KO able to a last show at ESPN, I did not realize Nick that people that were fired could do that. Nick what happened at ESPN is that they could not find a agreement when it came to reneogationating his contract. He wanted to be in New York, because he was single and cannot drive and had family there. ESPN wanted him to stay in Bristol, so they left on mutal agreement. At MSNBC the first time he quit because he did not want to talk other things beside Lewensky scandal. He was then traded to Fox, he got fired from Fox for reporting the truth about Murdouch selling the LA Dodgers. Which at Fox is not allowed. He was than hired back from MSNBC, and when he left in January of 2011 he was again allowed to do a last show and mangement even said that KO left on his own aka mutal agreement and he got paid the rest of his contract, that shows pacfically that KO was not fired from MSNBC just like ESPN. Also KO was rehired by ESPN to work with Dan Patrick before he left ESPN. Nick keep lying about KO’s career history.
Nick also I want you to explain when has a professional responsible business ever put out a letter that is a personal attack on the person that they letting go, so again explain Nick how this ego and KO’s fault. Also KO keeps his fans up to date on twitter about his abences and what is going on and when the subs are going to on and letting the subs like Press tweet when he going to be on. He also saying who on the show and his staff doing twitter saying who on when Shuster is on, while Current will not take responsible for thier mistakes like the tenichal problems which is business which in the couter-suit they claim is thier job. Nick why did Current want KO to do a commerical for a corporation and have a corporate sponser, when they advertised that they were corporate free, also giving corporation his website, wow trying to make KO a hypocrite to his audience and people like me who are fans, and love that he stands on principle. Why did Current leak the primary story to the press, and KO and his lawyer only confirm that lawyers that were involved that Current said were saying, Nick how is that sabtoging them, when they were putting out email and letters and putting out qutos about KO, and all KO does is defend them and confirm that lawyers involved, along with making KO go against his principles and make them go again what they stood for by being corporate free. Wow Nick that shows that Current is sabtoging themselves and unjustily fired KO.
Nick KO was unjustily fired and that is the truth and thier is nothing that going to change that. Also nick explain why when articles about KO come out he or his team aka lawyer and manger always quoted, but with Current it sources, and that Hollywood story says sources and they say that KO was the one responsible why not deny when KO said they had told him it was his manger. Who is it the manger or KO. and they cannot deny that they blackmaiel and threaten to fire staff, all showing that they not KO realeased the salary. They also never reprimended KO for saying that he was on a preplanned vacation to fans on twitter, showing that they had approved it. So again I would be pissed if KO does not get the justice he deserved for being unjustily fired.
Nick keep making me love KO and respecting him more and more and showing why KO will be aroud for year to come. KO keep being yourself and showing why you are this generations Murrow and you will always have a fan in me. Lov eyou faults and all. Again Hyatt is someone that fired some with AIDS and you take what he says seriously. Dude I researched this over and over again and nothing shows that KO personality is why he not at Current. Keep showing how igorant you are on KO. KO again keep being yourself and sorry that you got unjustily fired at Current. OO loves to show why you are this generations Murrow and that OO loves to put out debut, Paul KO quit ESPN because of a contract disagreement, he did a last show and got a salary, Paul people that get fired do not get to do a last show and say goodbye or get there salary, he was hired back and ended up quiting again. He quit MSNBC first beacuse he wanted to do something other than Lewnisky and MSNBC did not, so he left or said he was sold to Fox sports, was blackmailed at Fox and reported on a true story about Murdouch selling the Dogers and was than fired, wow I did not know that telling the truth and being fired for it and being blackmailed there showed that KO had mental problems, oh that is right is shows that KO is mentally and has always been mentally sound. He went to MSNBC a second time and was there for eight years, he was at ESPN first time for five. Wow expect for Current, KO has even been steady working at the same job for a while with five at ESPN and eight at MSNBC, wow that again shows that Paul would not know what a mental illness is if it bit Paul on the head, he quit because MSNBC mangement is beyond hypocritical with the fact that they do not mind aka Geogary and SHultz people being speakers at fundraisers and Scrabough who only got caught a punished when he donated when KO was unustily punished for it. So MSNBC has a dishonest mangement team, they even do not want to see and keep acknowledging that KO was the one that brought them the success that they have. So wow I did not realize again like Fox mangement aka MSNBC dishonesty mangement was showing that people had mental problems, or that is right it does not. Paul also I have been on twitter, you think that trolls that love to bully and name call people should be allowed to say whatever they want and not get called out. Wow you again show that Paul thinks that name calling and lying about people’s careers and saying made up crap, shows that Paul hates facts. Paul those are the people that KO calls out that shows someone that loves to tell the truth and expose real bullying. This is not what mentally ilness looks. Also he talks politcs and baseball and puts out sunsets and answers questions. Paul I want you to explain how is that mental ilenss. Oh that is right it does not because Paul has no idea what a mental ill person looks like. Also Current KO was dealing with imcomptent mangement, which say that they handled the business part of things but did not want to fix set problems only wanted to complain about them and put blame on others, the one owner Hyatt fired someone with AIDS at his other business and was sued, and while at Current, got rid for no reason at all his co-ceo who knew the business, knew how to handle egos and yes KO has a big ego everyone in his business does, but ego is not why he not at Current, he’s is just right for someone in his industry. So that shows that I should not believe Hyatt when he says anything. His president Broham should know that when someone has a thorat infection aka a broadcaster, you do not try to make them work, espically when they are about to do Super Tuesday, the night before Super Tuesday is not important compared to your broadcaster vocal health. The fact that Brohem did this shows that he cared crap about KO and would have rathered worked him until he vocal chorads were so damaged they prevented KO from every working again even at Current. I was beyond pissed when I read that email. Paul I do not have to be a fan to know that KO is mentally sound, I also know that he is not a and never was a rich kid, yes he went to Hackly but going to a prep school or even a private school Paul does not make a person rich. Also going to Ivy League school like Cornell is also not mean that you are a rich child. Also calling out trolls Paul and putting up cool sunset and sundown photos and tweeting baseball and politics and interacting with people, shows that you are mentally stable, having worked in the brodacasting business and worked steadily in it, shows that you are mentally stable. Driving Paul has nothing to do with mental health. Again Paul I do not listen to people that think it okay to make fun of people that are gay when it comes to mental health. You show Paul and do not say different that KO’s mentally and always been mentally fine, you show that Paul loves to show how much of a homophobe that he is, and that KO unlike Paul knows more about tolerance. Paul wants to show that he igorant about who KO is and what his career and job history are. Paul you show why KO is this generations Murrow and make me love and respect him more with this made up BS piece. I know that anyone putting this out shows that they have no idea who KO is and that they would rather make fun of the mentally ill which is pahtic than listen to the truth. KO keep being yourself and you will always be perment on my wall, ipod, ipad and life. Love how you show Paul what tolerance and what mental stableness is. Also how you have no idea how to be mentally ill or how to be homophobe. Wow keep embarrassing yourself Paul with BS posts like this that shows that Paul does not live in the real world and loves to make lies up about people along with showing what a homophobe he is. KO sorry you got unjustily fired at Current, I will differently be pissed if you do not get the justice that you deserve for being unjustily fired there. Again you are the only one that will get me to watch news again. Love you faults and all. also exlpain why Carr says he can work again Paul. Again Paul people have said this about KO since he left ESPN. This Paul has been debunked over and over again. So sorry Current claiming to be progressive does not show Paul that KO can never work again. This shows that you do not get that bad mangement can happen anywhere. Also Paul Current is not progressive, and do not put out the hosts. They think that it okay to lie to viewers about who they are, they say they are corporate independent but than they go and try to get KO to go against his principles and do a commerical for AT&T. This Paul is not what progessives are about. Cenk Paul keeps critizing Obama so wow they are not Obamabots. KO Paul has critized this president. So the fact that you say that shows that you know that KO can easily get a job in broadcasting but you do not want to admit it. Again you show that you are beyond igorant about who KO is. Paul I laugh at people like you who put up that BS lie and try to make it true. Sorry Paul KO can work again if he wants to in his idustry. Keep showing me why KO is this genrations Murrow and that you are beyonf igorant about who KO is.
Oo the he burnt his last bridge has been debunked over and over again, you are showing how igorant your are on KO when you put out that debunk lie. Here is what Patrick said about this, Also Dan Patrick who been a friend of KO since they worked together at ESPN. would be laughing at you when you say KO is unemployable. KO quit MSNBC in 1999 and than was rehired in 2003, he quit ESPN in 1996 and was rehired in I think 2004 because he was regulary with Patrick before he left that is how made up the burnt his last bridges is. Keep lying about what I am, you just make laugh with how dishonest you are when it comes to fans. First you think when I defend KO I and other fans are in a cult and because I call you out again on that lie, you think it obession. I on a KO blog where he writes, that is not a obession. Also if you hate KO so much why are you on a site that writes, I think the truth is you are obessed with lying about KO and making up crap about his past. You already lied about his employment. I know that it will take awhile but just like Carr of the times and Patrick he will be back. Always is, said he would not be and than came the bad deal with CUrrrent. So keep lying about who I am and who KO is. I only and only evey be a fan and as a fan I not afraid to defend the person that I am a fan of. Being a fan is not a obession. Keep lying about me and KO. YOu again just make me love and respect him more. I go by the people that know KO personally like Dan Patrick when it comes to when KO going to back and employment not trolls who cannot get that KO was only fired from two places. and has worked in the same career for 33 years and counting. Again if KO is so toxic why do channels hire him back, that is what I keep telling you up top that is why I laugh when people like you say that, because it always needs up as a lie. It sometimes takes a while but if he wants to a network will take the risk. Again why is that Dan patrick who a friend of KO and worked with him at ESPN says that he would come back to a network, Carr who article was mostly negtive says that network will easily hire him after a certain amount of time and he in the industry. So keep living in your fantasy world on that one. That always turns out to be a lie. So I do not take your garantuee because I know that anyone that says that shows that they do not know who KO is and even how popular he is with people, even to fans that get angry at him when it came to Current want him back on the air somewhere. So sorry but I do not listen to people that say that a network can never hire him and never will because I know from looking at the pattern of his career and the success that he brings aka ESPN and MSNBC, which shows the track record of building channels showing that he already secrued his place in history when it comes to television, shows why networks take the chance on him. Sorry but you show that you do not want to listen to truth, again only insult. Keep making me love and respect KO more and more. Wow even Carr who would agree with you about KO and his bosses says that KO can come back. Wow OO that is how BS that lie is. OO the truth is KO can work anywhere if he wants, so if does not come back that is because he does not want to work. If does come back which probably happen it because he wants to work, and also again like what happened the when he was unjustily fired at Fox, it took a while before he went back and second time, Sorry but KO has burnt nothing that is made up BS and again shows that OO is ingorant on KO’s job history, keep showing that you have zero clue who KO is. Sorry but KO can work again, keep embarrassing yourself with your igorance on who KO is. Sorry but KO did break the contract and was nothing that Current said that he was, and I am someone that cares crap about his personality and how he gets along behind the scences. There is no proof RB that KO broke that contract.
Current came out with something that you have never heard of a attack letter, because they knew that they are everything that they claim KO is and that they broke the contract.
Keep shoiwng how igorant you are on KO and what his career is and do not say different because that would be a lie. Keep showing why KO is nothing that you and Current says he is and that you are everything that you want KO to be.
ALso that takes to web page not the article. Keep making me more of a fan.
Get off the blog and let people talk baseball. All this shows is how igonrat you are about who KO is and always will be.
Wow I should believe a network aka Fox that blackmailed KO and fired him for reporting the truth espically one where the owner is caught in a phone hacking scadal wow here is what happened at Fox On Countdown Tuesday night, Keith Olbermann gave an “inside look” at News Corporation, explaining how his bosses blackmailed him when he worked for Fox Sports.

Olbermann worked as a sports anchor for Fox Sports Net from 1998 to 2001 and was fired after reporting that Murdoch was planning to sell the Los Angeles Dodgers.

On his show Tuesday, he said that while working at Fox Sports he became sick and was advised by his doctor to slow down at work. When he requested to work five days instead of six, Fox Sports immediately pulled him off the air until he received a letter from his doctor guaranteeing he was well enough to work.

They then offered to either have Olbermann work a very busy schedule or receive a 60 percent pay cut.

“Instead of anchoring six days a week in the Los Angeles studio, they were going to have me anchor four days and then fly to and from different interviews, events, and promotions, etc. in other cities two different times per week,” he explained. “In short, they were threatening to work me into illness or into the hospital or both.”

“They were blackmailing me about my health, and Fox blackmail works,” he added. “And that’s the way it works. Lord only knows, if it works so well against someone with resources and a high profile like mine, how often was it used against lesser figures in the company?”

Watch video below:
Wow I sure believe that network,
Here is what MSNBC is MSNBC host Keith Olbermann has been placed on indefinite suspension without pay in the wake of a Politico report (11/5/10) that revealed Olbermann had donated $7,200 to three Democratic candidates, in violation of NBC’s standards barring employees from making political contributions.
A journalist donating money to a political candidate raises obvious conflict of interest questions; at a minimum, such contributions should be disclosed on air. But if supporting politicians with money is a threat to journalistic independence, what are the standards for Olbermann’s bosses at NBC, and at NBC’s parent company General Electric?
According to the Center for Responsive Politics, GE made over $2 million in political contributions in the 2010 election cycle (most coming from the company’s political action committee). The top recipient was Republican Senate candidate Rob Portman from Ohio. The company has also spent $32 million on lobbying this year, and contributed over $1 million to the successful “No on 24″ campaign against a California ballot initiative aimed at eliminating tax loopholes for major corporations (New York Times, 11/1/10).
Comcast, the cable company currently looking to buy NBC, has dramatically increased its political giving, much of it to lawmakers who support the proposed merger (Bloomberg, 10/19/10). And while Fox News parent News Corp’s $1 million donation to the Republican Governors Association caused a stir, GE had “given $245,000 to the Democratic governors and $205,000 to the Republican governors since last year,” reported the Washington Post (8/18/10).
Olbermann’s donations are in some ways comparable to fellow MSNBC host Joe Scarborough’s $4,200 contribution to Republican candidate Derrick Kitts in 2006 (MSNBC.com, 7/15/07). When that was uncovered, though, NBC dismissed this as a problem, since Scarborough “hosts an opinion program and is not a news reporter.” Olbermann, of course, is also an opinion journalist–but MSNBC seems to hold him to a different standard.
Two years earlier, the Washington Post reported (1/18/04):
NBC chief executive Robert Wright has contributed $8,000 since 1999, including $3,500 to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and $1,000 to Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.). Andrew Lack, a former NBC News chief, gave $1,000 to Rep. Billy Tauzin (R-La.) while NBC president, and Wright contributed $1,500–after the House committee Tauzin chairs held hearings on the networks’ election night failures. NBC spokeswoman Allison Gollust said the network allows its executives to make contributions and that Wright “does not make any decisions specific to news coverage.”
Wright, however, was reported in a recent New York magazine piece (10/3/10) to have told then-NBC News chief Neal Shapiro to move to the right of Fox News in response to the September 11 attacks: “We have to be more conservative then they are,” the magazine quoted Wright.
MSNBC’s treatment of Olbermann is also in sharp contrast to Fox News’ handling of Sean Hannity, who was revealed by Salon (9/23/10) to have given $5,000 to the campaign of Rep. Michele Bachmann (R.-Minn.), a Tea Party favorite–without Fox expressing any public disapproval. Hannity has allowed Republican candidates to use his Fox program for fundraising (Mediaite, 10/17/10); as Salon noted, Hannity was this year’s keynote speaker at the National Republican Congressional Committee’s annual fundraising dinner.
If the concern is about how giving money to politicians threatens journalistic independence, then companies like NBC should explain why their parent companies can lavish so much money on political candidates or causes with no concern about conflicts of interest or the need to disclose these donations to viewers. The lesson here would seem to be that some of the workers shouldn’t make political donations, but the bosses are free to give as much as they’d like. Anyone who watches Olbermann’s show knows what his political views are. So what do the far larger contributions from GE tell us?
and here Again you show that you do not listen to truth or facts, that is a made up talking point. again here is the evidence that you love to igonre that shows that KO was unjustily fired. I do not listen to people like you who keep putting made up crap. Current being a ragtime operations is a BS excuse. ragtime operations do not make people who are have a thorat infection that is serious in KO’s industry have work, that shows that they do not care about who they are hiring, they do not get rid of thier co-Ceo that knows what he doing, that is how made up that statement is here is again is the facts and what happenedWow you also seem to want to lie about KO’s career. KO was not fired from ESPN or MSNBC. I want you to explain to me why was KO able to a last show at ESPN, I did not realize Nick that people that were fired could do that. Nick what happened at ESPN is that they could not find a agreement when it came to reneogationating his contract. He wanted to be in New York, because he was single and cannot drive and had family there. ESPN wanted him to stay in Bristol, so they left on mutal agreement. At MSNBC the first time he quit because he did not want to talk other things beside Lewensky scandal. He was then traded to Fox, he got fired from Fox for reporting the truth about Murdouch selling the LA Dodgers. Which at Fox is not allowed. He was than hired back from MSNBC, and when he left in January of 2011 he was again allowed to do a last show and mangement even said that KO left on his own aka mutal agreement and he got paid the rest of his contract, that shows pacfically that KO was not fired from MSNBC just like ESPN. Also KO was rehired by ESPN to work with Dan Patrick before he left ESPN. Nick keep lying about KO’s career history. Here is more about what happened at Fox After retelling the story of how he got fired from Fox Sports for reporting that Rupert was looking to sell the LA Dodgers, Olbermann got to the new details,
The second half of my story I have never told publicly before. It’s time. In June of 2000 after a year and a half of doing two one hour cable shows a night for Murdoch and baseball from 7 AM to 5 PM on Saturdays, I got sick. My doctor told me that if I didn’t among other things slow down at work; he would be treating me for heart disease within the decade. I took him very seriously. I told my employers about cutting back maybe from the six days to 5, and offered to give back to Fox some of my salary in the process because my health was at risk maybe even my heart.
They immediately took me off the air. They refused to put me back on until I had gotten a letter from my doctor guaranteeing them that I was well enough to work. By itself that was hardly an evil thing to do. In fact, I recognized it as a prudent business decision, and I complied because I didn’t know what they intended to do with it. They blackmailed me with it.t comes to how KO is, you really love to show me that KO is easy to work with and that you like Current have zero clue what being hard to work for. MSNBC let’s see they thought that it was okay for Scaurbough to donate also and if KO had not gotten caught would have let Scraubough get away with donating so you show again how hypocritical MSNBC is on that here is MSNBC suspended host Keith Olbermann today, following revelations that he made campaign contributions to three Democrats in the elections — a violation of MSNBC policy.
But a search of OpenSecrets.org reveals that MSNBC host Joe Scarborough and MSNBC contributor Pat Buchanan have also made contributions to political campaigns. Here’s what we found…
In March 2006, Scarborough, who hosts the show Morning Joe, gave $4200 to Derrick Kitts (R-OR). And, as the Daily Kos points out, a month later Kitts was a guest on Scarborough’s show.
Between 2005-2008, Pat Buchanan made five contributions to Republican candidates, totaling $2250.
Chris Hayes, the Washington editor for The Nation, is a frequent contributor to MSNBC shows, and often fills in for Rachel Maddow on her show. The Upshot reports that he gave $250 to Alabama Democratic candidate Josh Segall this year before he signed his contract with MSNBC.
NBC News producer Mary Murray, who also does reporting for NBC News and MSNBC, gave $250 to John Waltz (D-KY) this year. In 2008 she gave the same amount to Barack Obama’s presidential campaign.
Update: New York Times reporter Brian Stelter Tweeted that Hayes, in fact, would not be subbing for Olberman after all.
Later Update: Alex Pareene at Salon notes that CNBC anchor Larry Kudlow donated to former Congressman Christopher Shays (R-CT) in 2009 — one of a number of donations Kudlow made to Republican candidates over the years.
Even later update: Chris Hayes Tweeted that it was his decision to decline to host “Countdown” tonight, and that his donations were all made prior to his MSNBC contract. Also MSNBC has had others like Geogary who spoke at a republican event, hereThe National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), which calls itself “the voice of small business,” is one of the Republican party’s strongest allies. The group spent over $1 million on outside ads in the 2010 campaign — all of it backing Republican House and Senate candidates (and, Bloomberg News reported last month, “another $1.5 million that it kept hidden and said was exempt” from disclosure requirements). The group is the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit against the Obamacare law and bankrolled state governments’ challenges to the law. The NFIB has also taken stances against allowing the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases, opposing regulations on businesses, and supporting curtailing union rights.
Given the group’s obvious Republican alliance, it comes as little surprise that the NFIB’s three-day 2012 Small Business Summit, which begins Monday, will feature headliners Karl Rove and House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH).
But the first name and photo on the invitation for the $150-per-person event — Tuesday’s “keynote address” speaker — is NBC’s Meet the Press host David Gregory. He is marketed by NBC as an anchor and “trusted journalist.”
The Society of Professional Journalists’ Code of Ethics states:
Journalists should:
— Avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived.
— Remain free of associations and activities that may compromise integrity or damage credibility.
— Refuse gifts, favors, fees, free travel and special treatment, and shun secondary employment, political involvement, public office and service in community organizations if they compromise journalistic integrity.
Regardless of whether Gregory is being paid for this event and of what he says in his keynote, allowing the NFIB to raise money for its political mission using his name, reputation, and celebrity appears to be at odds with journalistic ethics.
Gregory did not to respond to a ThinkProgress request for comment. So your article just shows what a hypocrite krutz, where does krutz get on Georgary case for speaking at a even or when ED was suppose to speak at a Wisconsin event, so Krutz has no creadiblity when it comes to KO. Also all those stories have been disaproved, KO never had people put notes outside his box that came from suggestions jack and a disgulted employer made the other stuff up, also dealing with personal problems like his parents death that shows that KO bad and hard to work with, also dude that shows that MSNBC was not watching Countdown because he was not getting angry after his parents died, that shows that MSNBC wants to lie, mangement wants to re-write the history of who put them on the map, that how BS, also this came from gawker I suppose to believe gossip site on how KO cannot get work, maybe you should read Carter when it comes to this and than tell me that KO is unemployableGiven Keith Olbermann’s abrupt removal at Current and his typically temperate response — “Current’s statement are untrue and will be proved so in the legal actions I will be filing against them presently” — it seems as if his next stop will be a puppet show shot from a basement somewhere. He’ll never work in this town, or any other, again, right?
Wrong. Many of his past employers will testify to his unmanageability and unpleasantness, but the fact of the matter is that somewhere, sometime, after some kind of cooling-off period, Mr. Olbermann will be coming to a television near you.
That has less to do with the greater fool theory, which suggests that there will always be someone naïve enough to think that they can accomplish what others have not — that is, make Mr. Olbermann behave like a professional when he is not on the air. (Remember that former Vice President Al Gore and Joel Hyatt — two of the principals at Current — blew through many stop signs to get to Mr. Olbermann. They made very hopeful statements when the deal was cut, which were followed by very frustrated noises thereafter.)
No, the mistake that the executives at Current made was to think that by giving Mr. Olbermann a stake in the enterprise and a title of chief news officer, he would forgo the drama that has characterized his stints at CNN, Fox, ESPN and MSNBC. After all, you can’t rail against the Man when you are the Man.
But Mr. Olbermann is talent, and a big baby to boot — any reporter who has covered him could tell you all about that — so the idea that he would default to the good of the many over the needs of the one is just not in his nature. The title was used as leverage, nothing more, when Mr. Olbermann became dissatisfied and starting communicating with his employers through lawyer letters months ago. Mr. Olbermann is a ferocious fan of team sports, but that’s not how he plays the game.
He is the equivalent of a supremely talented left-handed pitcher with a strong arm — and some obvious control issues — that can give whatever team hires him a lot of quality innings. On the bench and off the field? He will complain about his coach, his teammates, the quality of the field and the stadium lights.
He did not solve the miserable ratings math at Current — as my colleague Brian Stelter pointed out, in his 40 weeks on Current TV, he had an average of 177,000 viewers at 8 p.m., a shadow of his former incarnation at MSNBC where he drew a million-plus people a night.
That’s not all his fault. Anybody who has watched the Keith-less version of Current could understand why they wanted him so badly in the first place. Beset by technical problems that had Mr. Olbermann broadcasting his show with a black backdrop in a kind of hostage/protest motif, Current was not and is not ready for prime time.
The channel’s election coverage has been tendentious and painful to watch, and the depth of its bench can be measured by the fact that it is bringing aboard former Gov. Eliot L. Spitzer of New York to replace him. Current will have to do some renovating to make room for all of the baggage he brings with him, from both his scandal-ridden exit from the governorship and his ratings-challenged turn at CNN.
Which brings us back to Mr. Olbermann. Anchoring a show on television looks easy. Buy a nice suit, get a nice haircut and read the words on the prompter in the right order with some semblance of conviction. But it’s not. As cable stations proliferate, the desperate search for people who can credibly show up every night — or not, as Mr. Olbermann was frequently on strike at Current — and hold an audience’s attention will only become more acute. Mr. Olbermann has a terrible relationship with actual humans, but a very good relationship with the camera.
When I was working on a magazine piece about Mr. Olbermann, we went to a Yankees game and he explained the camera voodoo:
“Mechanically, if you look very carefully in a camera, it has a series of reflections and dimensions to it, you can look past that,” he said. He holds up his hands in the shape of a box. “Here’s the camera, here’s the front of the camera, here’s the lens of the camera, but if you look deeply enough, you can see the inner rings at the far end of the lens and maybe a glimmer of light very deep in the distance. You can always see something that might be an inch or two below the surface. Whenever I can, I try to focus there, not on the prompter or the front of the lens.”
Maybe that’s overexplaining something that is actually innate, but history has shown that even though Mr. Olbermann’s employers do not like him, the camera, and the people at the other end, like him just fine. As Jonathan Wald, the producer for Piers Morgan put it, somewhat more industrially, in a tweet on Saturday night, “Stars star and producers produce.”
And that means he will find work. He is a free agent in a business that is remarkably akin to pro sports, full of divas who are great at hitting the curve or making impossible catches, but baffled by the rest of life. Think Terrell (“I love me some me”) Owens. Or Randy Moss. Or Babe Ruth. Or Ted Williams. Jerks, louts and narcissists, all tolerated because within the four corners of the diamond, the football field and, yes, the television studio, they can do what others cannot.
So some executives will eventually plug their noses and write a check and a contract that they hope will contain Mr. Olbermann’s less attractive aspects. He and they will say that this time it will be different, and it may be. Just don’t expect him to be part of the team.
Wow jack so even Carr who would agree with you about KO’s behavoir says that KO is employable and will come back, that is how made up that statement is. You really love to show me why I love KO and why his personality had zero to do with what happened at Current, that article even tells about Hyatt and AIDS aka firing someone with AIDS and you want me to believe KO’s the bad guy. Keep making me love and respect KO more and more and show that all you wnat to do is bash him and put up gossip articles that can easily get refuted, you also do not get what I do about KO is that he a professional and someone that is not afraid to stand up for what he believes in which is what mangement hates about him and why he has a hard time with them, it what people love, keep lying about KO that is all you know how to do, you keep showing why I am a fan and always will be. Jack you also show why KO got unjustily fired from Current you have no evidence that KO is unemployable, only a gossip site by mangement that for the first two aka MSNBC and Fox are hypocritical and includes Current, and one with someone who has just as bad a reputation as KO suppose to have, and who wants to still get on KO’s case about something that he apologized for showing that she has zero crediblity and sounds like it just a revenge post. KO keep being yourself again will be pissed if you do not get the justice for being unjusticly fired from Current. Jack why does KO been in this industry for 33 years if he so unemployable that is how BS your argument is. KO keep being yourself and showing off your great personality and showing why KO is this generations Murrow and why he will be around for years to come, keep being yourself KO and you will always have a fan in me, again Current needs to stop lying and tell people the truth that your personality and ego is not why you got fired and that you work fine with others, Hyatt needs to explain why he and Brohem thinks it okay to make thier broadcating stars to work with a throat infection, that jack shows that Current never cared about KO, just like MSNBC who wants to re-write history and is okay with people that speak at partisain events and other employers doanting but KO the bad guy, that he unbelieveable MSNBC is on that topic. All that shows jack is why I do not watch Current and MSNBC and how dishonest those mangements are. You really love to show that KO works fine with others. KO keep being yourself and you will always be perment on my wall, ipod and ipad and life and why you got unjustily fired from Current. jack you just make me love and respect KO more and more with your BS crap about who he is. Jack thier is no and you just showed once again there is no evidence that KO personality was what got him fired. Keep lying about KO and showing that KO has zero clue how to lie and that you Jack have zero clue how to tell the truth about KO and his past employment. KO love you faults and all. Here is KO true oo job history not your made up debunked version Mike thanks for showing me that you are beyond ingorant on KO’s job history. KO Mike was never fired from MSNBC or ESPN, also Mike KO was rehired by both of those companies, wow some bad personality there, Mike do you live in alternte reality, Mike you do not do last shows which KO did at both MSNBC and ESPN if you been fired. KO and even MSNBC have said that KO quit, he even got his salary that also Mike does not happen when you are fired. So no Mike he has no history of being fired by every employer that is pure BS and again has been debunked. He only be fired from Fox and that was for reporting the truth and Current and that was unjutily because they promised him the moon and never delivered. Also MIke he did not leave for the same reasons, you really hate listening to facts. ESPN he left because he and his bosses could not agree on a new contract, he wanted to go to New York, they wanted him to stay in Bristol, the reason he left the second time was that Patrick had quit ESPN and thier was nothing that he really did, so no ESPN had nothing to do with KO working well with others and personality and ego, so wrong there. MSNBC he left first time because he hated doing repaeted news of Monica Lewinsky, they sold him to Fox Sports, Fox is where he got blackmailed and fired for reporting the truth about Murdoch and the Dogers. So wrong there Mike, MSNBC a second time he left because a they scwered him over on campaign crap and he felt that they were taking creavity control away, again had nothing to do with personality and ego. So Mike you just again show how ingorant you are on KO. KO personlity again is not the reason he got fired at Current, again I care crap about that Mike, and I looked at the evidence thier is no proof Mike that KO broke the contract, none, zipo. Keep embarrassing yourself with made up debunked crap. I do not listen to people who are beyon igorant of KO’s job past espically ones that put out that debunked crap that KO was fired from MSNBC and ESPN. Mike I do not have to be a fan to tell you, people that are fired do not get rest of salary and last shows, KO got a salary from both the times that he worked at ESPN and MSNBC and did a last show that he thanked and said goodbye to people, that shows even to people that are not fans and people that unlike you know what commen sense is and uses it that KO was never fired from those networks. Mike sorry but you lie throught your teeth when you put out the debunked crap that KO’s ego and personality are bad they are not. Mike all you do is make me love and respect and show why he this generations Murrow. Sorry only got fired from Current and Fox, quit MSNBC and ESPN both times, that does not show that he hard to work with only that mangers have zero clue how to handle independent, prefetionist like him. I do not oo listen to people about KO who are so igorant when it comes to his work history, those people show that have no idea what facts are. OO you do not do last shows like KO did at MSNBC and ESPN if you were fired, you do not get a salary if you are fired, KO is this generations Murrow, you would not know what Murrow is. You oo are the one that is showing that you are Krusty the clown, you cannot refute anything that I say, so you decide instead to be the grammer and spelling police, people that are like that show that they are everything that they claim KO is. KO has worked in this industry for 33 years, that is the truth. OO I know that people that lie about KO’s career show that they are not to be listened to when it comes to KO, because they show that they do not know what facts are. OO you just showed that you do not have common sense. People that live in the real world not your fantasy world know oo that if someone does a last show and still gets a salary, that means OO that they quit and did not get fired. You show that you are beyond igorant when it comes to KO and you know that you are igorant when it comes to KO, but you are such a gutless coward that you only care about putting up debunked crap, like the lies about KO’s career than listen to the truth. You show with that post that KO is this genertions Murrow and you Oo are Krusty the clown and do not say different because I know like all your other posts that will be a lie and just show how igorant you are on KO. OO keep showing that KO can never lie and that you do not know what facts are and what truth is. OO KO only been fired from two places and they were by bad bosses, one that thinks like you telling the truth is bad aka Murdouch and one that wants to be lazy and not take responsibity for what happened at Current, that is it, the other places he quit out. There is no evidence but in your mind OO that KO was fired from MSNBC and ESPN. You do not even know what being fired is and what quiting is that is how made up your posts are.
OO quiting is when you do a last show and still get a salary like what happened at MSNBC and ESPN, getting fired is no salary and no last show that is what happened at FOX and Current, anyone with a brain that they like to use unlike you know that. You are so igorant on who KO is. YOu show again with this post why KO is this generations Murrow and show that you do not know what facts are. Keep lying about KO’s job history, the facts are and always will be and if you say different you would be lying and showing that you do not know what a fact looks like. KO quit ESPN in 1997 because of contract neogations falling apart, went to MSNBC quit MSNBC the first time because he wanted to do real news not just report on MOnica Lewnsky all the time, went to FOx got blackmailed by a guy that is know been in a scandal for hacking phones showing that he not to be trusted when it comes to honesty about anything, fired for telling the truth about Murdoch selling Dogers. Went to MSNBC, quit again because he did not like the hypocricracy that went on there and thought that he was loosing support and got a offer from Current. Than got unjustily fired and if you say different you be lying and showing how igorant you are on KO. There is no evidence that his personality is why he not there. This shows that he worked pretty steady in his career also
You again show why KO is this generations Murrow and why he will be around for years to come, you Oo are Krusty beacuse your post has no facts and truth in them. You even lie about KO’s career and put up stuff that has been debunked over and over again. Keep making me love and respect him and showing why I am a life long fan.
I do not listen to people on KO who put up that debunked crap about KO’s career because I know that people like you who say that, have no facts and are not wanting to argue facts all you want to do is show and if you say different than that will be a lie beacuse KO has quit MSNBC and ESPN both times. People like you show why we need KO and why KO is this and always will be this generations Murrow. KO keep being yourself and you will always be perment on my wall, ipod and ipad and life. Love you faults and all. So Paul keep putting out a debunked lie. KO has been working in broadcasting business for 33 years at different jobs. Wow I wonder if you worked that long, also KO is not a rich kid. He was raised in a upper middle class family, that is not what a rich child looks like. Paul I watch KO had his prefectly fine mentally, I guess in your world peoeple that tell the truth and show why they are this genrations Murrow are bad. Also Paul the reason why KO cannot drive if you would listen is That Scinece is called a head injury not brain damage, also KO does not have a personal limo driver, that story Science turned out not to be true, the person that was suppose to have drove KO and said this basically came out and said that he had never drove KO. So keep lying, also you claim to read KO on twitter, so please Science if KO has his own Limo driver why are the pictures like last night that he shows are him reading the subway, wow some driver, also him not being able to drive Science does not mean that he has brain damage, I guess you are going say that people that are visaul imparied are also brain damged because they cannot drive, you really are putting up BS posts and showing that you the unintellngent one, not me and not KO. KO had a head injury that is why he cannot drive, head injuries and brain damage are not the same, you can have damage with out hitting your head, and you can have a regualry head injury that has nothing to do with your brain. Keep showing that you the one that has zero inteillgence and that KO is the intelligent one. Love how you believe debunked stoires. Again keep showing how igorant you are on KO. YOu just love to show why he is this generations Murrow and why you have no idea and never will have a an idea about who he is. KO never broke the contract and Current was not able to pay the drivers, which make sense because they never seemed to pay the electrity bill because KO was in the dark or fix his set. Keep proving that KO cannot make crap up and that you cannot tell the truth. You really love to prove that KO is this generations Murrow and you love to embarrass yourself in showing how igorant you are on him.I guess in Paul fantasy world the only people that are fine mentally are people that can drive, wow Paul people have all sorts of reasons for not driving that does not mean they need to see a shirink or that they have metnal problems, it means that like KO they have a injury that pervents them from see right while driving. Also KO is not gay. So Paul explain to me, how do you know a person is gay, because straight people are so spouse to know how to drive, and have children and family by now. Wow Paul that is not remotely what gay and straight look like. KO has dated women before, he even dated igraham, also I do not listen to people when it comes to who show that they are homophobis like you are. This is the most stupidieset thing that I have read all week. KO fine mentally and always has been only people like Paul who do not know what honesty is and love to make stuff up about people’s private lifes says that. KO tells truth to power, and shows why he this generations Murrow and can never lie. Paul hates KO because he suppose to tell him how bad people that are gay are, and he suppose to let the people that Paul wants to critized to critized, Paul do yourself a favor and learn what mentally ill is. KO standing up to bosses like he did at Current and other places is shows that he cares more about vaules and morals than he does issues and do not put that debunked crap about Current because here is what happened there Again because you do not like hearing the truth here is what happened at Current Again you show that you do not listen to truth or facts, that is a made up talking point. again here is the evidence that you love to igonre that shows that KO was unjustily fired. I do not listen to people like you who keep putting made up crap. Current being a ragtime operations is a BS excuse. ragtime operations do not make people who are have a thorat infection that is serious in KO’s industry have work, that shows that they do not care about who they are hiring, they do not get rid of thier co-Ceo that knows what he doing, that is how made up that statement is here is again is the facts and what happenedWow you also seem to want to lie about KO’s career. KO was not fired from ESPN or MSNBC. I want you to explain to me why was KO able to a last show at ESPN, I did not realize Nick that people that were fired could do that. Nick what happened at ESPN is that they could not find a agreement when it came to reneogationating his contract. He wanted to be in New York, because he was single and cannot drive and had family there. ESPN wanted him to stay in Bristol, so they left on mutal agreement. At MSNBC the first time he quit because he did not want to talk other things beside Lewensky scandal. He was then traded to Fox, he got fired from Fox for reporting the truth about Murdouch selling the LA Dodgers. Which at Fox is not allowed. He was than hired back from MSNBC, and when he left in January of 2011 he was again allowed to do a last show and mangement even said that KO left on his own aka mutal agreement and he got paid the rest of his contract, that shows pacfically that KO was not fired from MSNBC just like ESPN. Also KO was rehired by ESPN to work with Dan Patrick before he left ESPN. Here is more Dude keep showing that you hate facts here is what went on with that. KO donated his own money to cadidates because he was afraid of thier safety, MSNBC who shows that it hypocritical on this supends him and leaves Scaubough out

“Current was not able to pay the drivers, which make sense because they never seemed to pay the electrity bill because KO was in the dark or fix his set.”

50 FUCKING MILLION DOLLARS

Ya know … it’s fascinating to me how many people have to bring politics to this blog when politics has nothing to do with it, and I’ll prove it to you. If you look up donations, you’ll find that Vin Scully is listed as a donor to numerous Republican candidates. Yet Keith Olbermann thinks–as I do, and my politics are close to Olbermann’s–that The Vin may well walk on the water. So will everybody who brings up politics please do all of us who are baseball fans a favor and kindly shut up and leave?

I completly understand, I would like to keep it out, but again I have a hard time with bullying which the trolls do.

This blog has devolved to the point that there is no point in commenting. You blog-hogs know who you are!

sorry about that, can get over talkite

Andrew Kaczynski‏@BuzzFeedAndrew

Van Jones falls for a photoshop. pic.twitter.com/L61pISUz

Wow again what does this have to with baseball. Also who cares if Van Jones shows up for a photo shoot. you really show how igorant you are about eveything and do not say different because that would be a lie.

Moderators wer have a troll on the loose, please go back to we are igorant about everything blog and put up stuff that has no logic behind it like someone not showing up for a photo shoot.

Get off the blog and stay off you are not and never will be welcomed here, all you do is lie and make crap up about people and do not say different because that would be a lie. Again go to we are igorant about life blogs.

Not important and does not say anything bad about Van Jones, just embarrass you and shows that you only love to bash people, and do not say different because that would be a lie

By get off the blog and stay off you only post made up crap and lie about people, and do not say different bevause it will be another igorant lie.

Wow that is this is the most BS post that I have seen today. By get off this website and let people talk baseball. You need again to go to the we are igorant about life blogs.

Also again this has nothing to do with KO or baseball, you need to post this crap and that By is what and always will be somewhere else. This is about baseball and you need to go away and stay away. I want to listen to the people talk baseball and learn about the game, you want to bash people like KO and put up non-sense videos like this, you can do that somewhere else but not here.

Moderators please take this troll away and let this blog get back to baseball.

Sorry again to Emerson and all the others who try to talk baseball here for this troll and me going after, again I hate bullies and this one needs to get off and stay off.

I also post alot on when this person posts because I do not want to see a recent post at all. Get off the blog to the troll and stay off.


I’m sure the federal gov’t will simply waste this money on the next Solyndra.

Wow who cares this has nothing to do with baseball or KO. Also do yourself a favor and learn what the federal government really does, like regulate corporations that need it. YOu really make me laugh with how igorant you are about your government and always will be. I do not listen to people who want to bash the government and do not say different becaue that would be a lie. Also Solyndera is not a waste Mitt Romney made numerous bogus claims in the Oct. 3 debate about the $90 billion in grants, guaranteed loans and tax breaks for energy projects in the stimulus bill:

Romney falsely claimed “about half” of the clean-energy companies that received U.S.-backed loans “have gone out of business.” But 26 companies received loan guarantees under a loan program cited by Romney, and three of those have filed for bankruptcy. The three firms were approved for about 6 percent of the loan guarantees.
Romney incorrectly claimed the “$90 billion in breaks to the green energy world” was provided “in one year.” It was over several years.
He stated at one point that Obama put $90 billion “into solar and wind.” But only $21 billion went for renewable energy projects, “such as the installation of wind turbines and solar panels,” according to a White House document cited by the Romney campaign. The spending also included $18 billion for transit projects and $10 billion to upgrade the nation’s electrical grid.
He falsely claimed the $90 billion was equal to “about 50 years’ worth of what oil and gas receives” in tax breaks, which he estimated at $2.8 billion. By his own figures, it would have been 32 years’ worth. But it’s even less than that. The administration estimates that eliminating oil and gas tax preferences would raise about $3.9 billion a year (23 years’ worth). The industry itself says the administration would increase its taxes by $8.5 billion a year (10.5 years’ worth).
He falsely claimed Obama “put $90 billion into green jobs … that would have hired 2 million teachers.” But that $90 billion included loans, not just grant money, and the government can’t hire teachers with loans.
Putting $90 Billion ‘Into Wind and Solar’?

The $831 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 — better known as the stimulus — has long been derided by Republicans as wasteful. A favorite target is the clean-energy programs — particularly the $535 million invested in Solyndra, a California solar company that announced in August 2011 that it would file for bankruptcy.

Romney repeatedly made references in the Oct. 3 debate in Colorado to the $90 billion contained in the stimulus for energy projects. He claimed, falsely, at one point that Obama had “put $90 billion … into solar and wind.”

Romney: But don’t forget, you put $90 billion, like 50 years’ worth of breaks, into — into solar and wind, to Solyndra and Fisker and Tesla and Ener1. I mean, I had a friend who said you don’t just pick the winners and losers, you pick the losers, all right?

We asked the Romney campaign about the $90 billion, and it referred us to a July 14, 2010, administration report on the economic impact of the stimulus. But that report said only about $21 billion went “for Renewable Generation, such as the installation of wind turbines and solar panels.”

The seven other sub-categories of “clean-energy” projects identified in the report were:

$29 billion for energy efficiency, including $5 billion for the weatherization of low-income homes;
$10 billion to modernize the nation’s electric grid;
$6 billion for domestic manufacturing of advanced batteries and other components of alternative vehicles and fuel technology;
$18 billion for transit projects, including high-speed rail;
$3 billion for researching and developing clean-coal technology;
$3 billion for job training;
$2 billion in manufacturing tax credits.
So, clearly, the $90 billion wasn’t just for wind and solar projects.

We note, too, that Romney said during the debate that he likes “clean coal,” which got $3 billion from the stimulus.

“And, by the way, I like coal,” Romney said, “I’m going to make sure we can continue to burn clean coal.”

‘Winners and Losers’

As part of his statement we cited above, Romney criticized Obama for wasting money on Solyndra and other wind and solar projects — saying “you don’t just pick the winners and losers, you pick the losers.” He expanded on that by falsely saying that “about half” of the companies that received federal help “have gone out of business.” He also made a bogus claim about how many teachers could have been hired with the $90 billion.

Romney: But you make a very good point, which is that the place you put your money just makes a pretty clear indication of where your heart is. You put $90 billion into — into green jobs. And I — look, I’m all in favor of green energy. $90 billion, that would have — that would have hired 2 million teachers. $90 billion.

And these businesses, many of them have gone out of business, I think about half of them, of the ones have been invested in have gone out of business. A number of them happened to be owned by people who were contributors to your campaigns.

We were surprised by the claim that “about half” of the companies went out of business. As we have written before, an independent review of the Department of Energy loan and loan guarantee programs found that the failure rate was lower than Congress had expected.

When we asked the Romney campaign for information on this claim, we were told that it refers only to companies that received so-called section 1705 loans — a program created by the stimulus. A second program — the so-called section 1703 loan program — was created under the Bush administration, but loans were approved by the current administration. Also, Romney counted only section 1705 loan guarantees approved in the Obama administration’s first two years — ignoring the past two years.

Romney did not say any of that during the debate.

By limiting his scope to just the first two years of the program, Romney arrives at seven companies and three of them — including Solyndra — have filed for bankruptcy protection. The others were Beacon Power, which received a loan guarantee of $43 million, and Abound Solar, which was approved for a $400 million loan but borrowed only $70 million against that. So, combined the three companies were approved for a total of $978 million in U.S.-backed loans and borrowed $648 million of that.

But there were a total of 26 companies that received approval for $16 billion in loan guarantees under the section 1705 program. So, 11.5 percent of the companies — not half — have filed for bankruptcy. And those companies were approved for a little more than 6 percent of the $16 billion in total loan guarantees.

Two other companies were awarded a total of $10.3 billion in loan guarantees by the Obama administration under the section 1703 program. So, if you count them, the bankruptcy rate would fall to under 11 percent, and the money at risk drops to about 4 percent.

The money loaned to Solyndra is largely lost, and it is unclear how much if any the U.S. will recover of the $70 million borrowed by Abound. However, as we wrote before, the government expects to recover as much as 70 percent of the $43 million it guaranteed to Beacon Power.

Also, as part of that same statement above, Romney said that the $90 billion “would have hired 2 million teachers.” (That means the teachers would receive a total compensation of $45,000 — including benefits, and are hired for only one year. The median pay for elementary teachers is about $51,000.)

But here’s the problem with Romney’s math: The $90 billion isn’t all grant money. Some of that money was in the form of loans. It included, for example, $3.25 billion in additional borrowing authority for the Bonneville Power Authority.

You can’t pay teachers in loans.

There is a cost to the government for guaranteeing loans, as the Romney campaign was quick to note. But it is only a fraction of the value of each loan.

Clean Energy vs. Oil and Gas

Romney made three false claims in this single statement:

Romney: And in one year, you provided $90 billion in breaks to the green energy world. Now, I like green energy as well, but that’s about 50 years’ worth of what oil and gas receives. And you say Exxon and Mobil. Actually, this $2.8 billion goes largely to small companies, to drilling operators and so forth.

First, the $90 billion was not given out “in one year.” It was provided over several years to numerous federal agencies. For example, the Department of Energy was authorized to spend $41.7 billion – “$35.2 billion for projects and activities and $6.5 billion in borrowing authority” – but had spent only 36 percent of its stimulus funds as of March 10, 2011, according to a Government Accountability Office report.

Second, he compares the “breaks to the green energy world” ($90 billion) with “what oil and gas receives” (which he put at $2.8 billion). This is problematic on a couple of levels.

Let’s set aside the fact that the “breaks” are not comparable — the clean-energy “breaks” included money for infrastructure projects, such as rail and the electrical grid — and look at his math. Fifty years of $2.8 billion would be $140 billion, not $90 billion (and that’s unadjusted for inflation). It would be more like 32 years. So, he’s wrong by his own accounting.

But also the $2.8 billion is a low estimate for how much the oil and gas industry receives in tax breaks.

The Obama administration in its proposed budget for fiscal year 2013 estimates that eliminating tax preferences for fossil fuels would raise $38.6 billion over 10 years, or about $3.9 billion a year, according to a Congressional Research Service analysis of the administration’s tax proposals for the industry. The industry itself says that the administration’s proposals would cost it $85 billion over 10 years, or $8.5 billion a year.

Clearly, the $90 billion would cover far less than 50 years’ worth of tax breaks by anyone’s account, including Romney’s.

In summary, Romney said a lot about the $90 billion in stimulus spending on clean energy — and very little of it was accurate.

Correction, Oct. 8: An earlier version of this article said the $90 billion in stimulus funding was provided over two years. Actually, it was over several years. The article also was updated to note that the $90 billion cited by Romney included loans that must be repaid. Also here Gottlieb falsely claims Solar Trust of America “was the recipient of the second largest loan ever handed out by the Department of Energy.” The company never took the money.

In April 2011, DOE offered to guarantee a $2.1 billion loan for STA’s Blythe Solar Power Project in California. But that August, STA declined the financing when it decided to use different equipment (see pages 19 and 20).

The terms of the government-backed loan supported the use of mirrors that heated tubes of liquid, which in turn produced steam to drive electricity-generating turbines. STA switched to photovoltaic panels, like those used on rooftops, because they were more profitable to use. The company sought commercial loans instead.

Then, in April, STA filed for bankruptcy. The company struggled financially after Solar Millenium, a German company with a 70 percent stake in STA, filed for court protection in December. Solar Millenium tried to sell its stake to another German company, solarhybrid AG. But that company filed for bankruptcy, too.

AmeriPAC claims STA’s bankruptcy was “bigger than Solyndra” and “virtually unreported.” But the company never borrowed a government-backed dime.

Spending Spin

Gottlieb’s email falsely claims Obama “spent $17.2 billion dollars to create only 3,545 green jobs.”

The jobs figure refers only to permanent jobs created under two Department of Energy loan guarantee programs. And the $17.2 billion wasn’t “spent” by the government. That money was backed by government guarantees.

Gottlieb’s figures are identical to those posted in September 2011 by a conservative blogger who twisted the facts from a Sept. 14, 2011, Washington Post story. The Post arrived at 3,545 jobs based on the DOE website‘s number of new, permanent jobs that renewable energy companies created after receiving government-backed loans, which at the time totaled $17.2 billion. (The jobs tally is now 3,484 — excluding the 14 permanent jobs still listed for the now-bankrupt Beacon Power Corporation. The loan guarantee figure under the two programs is now $26.3 billion, including projects under conditional commitment.)

All told, the DOE’s Loan Programs Office has financed or backed financing totaling $34.7 billion to more than 30 companies.

DOE offers assistance through a trio of programs. Two programs, known as section 1703 and section 1705, have guaranteed loans — totaling $26.3 billion — to companies building wind farms, solar power plants and other renewable energy projects. The third program, known as ATVM, directly loaned $8.4 billion to manufacturers — such as Ford — to build fuel efficient vehicles. The government expects the companies to repay those loans.

As we’ve noted before, DOE hasn’t “spent” taxpayer money on the 30-plus companies, except for two that have filed for bankruptcy. Those companies are Solyndra, which borrowed $535 million, and Beacon Power Co., which borrowed $43 million, according to a March report from the Government Accountability Office. And it looks as if DOE may recover as much as 70 percent of the loans it guaranteed to Beacon.

Still, worst-case scenario, the government is out a total of $578 million on those two deals. That’s less than 2 percent of the financing lent and guaranteed through the DOE Loan Programs Office. (The government could be out another $55 million, since EnerDel, a maker of electric-car batteries, filed for bankruptcy in February after receiving that amount, out of a $118.5 million grant, under a separate federal program.)

Gottlieb’s 3,545 jobs figure also fails to tell the whole story. The number excludes the 15,000-plus construction jobs required to build the renewable energy projects and the nearly 40,000 jobs “created/saved” by the manufacturers that received government loans, although the Post story cast doubt on the number of jobs created or saved.

‘Crack Down’ on Fracking?

Gottlieb claims Obama appointed an aide to “crack down” on natural gas drilling to make prices “skyrocket.” The Obama aide actually leads a task force created to streamline regulation of “fracking,” the process of extracting oil and natural gas from underground shale formations. An industry trade group welcomed the task force.

AmeriPAC email: Barack Obama appointed Heather Zichal to be responsible for crafting the administrations radical green energy policy. She is also in charge of managing and regulating fracking … Obama appointed Zichal to crack down on fracking which would make natural gas prices skyrocket and green energy prices lower.

Zichal is deputy assistant to the president for energy and climate change. She oversees a task force Obama formed to coordinate efforts — and “eliminate redundancy” — among more than a dozen federal government entities, such as the Environmental Protection Agency and DOE, involved in fracking regulation.

The American Petroleum Institute, which represents the natural gas industry, “welcomed” this task force after lamenting the involvement of so many federal agencies and the potential for duplicative regulation. Jack Gerard, API president and CEO, said in a press release in April: “We have called on the White House to rein in these uncoordinated activities to avoid unnecessary and overlapping federal regulatory efforts and are pleased to see forward progress.”

Carlton Carroll, an API spokesman, told us the association’s ”position on the task force hasn’t changed.”

It is true, however, that the Environmental Protection Agency recently imposed new rules on hydraulic fracturing. And the Interior Department has proposed its own set of regulations, which the industry warns will significantly increase costs.

Readers can decide if the rules merit the term “crack down.”

In April, the same month Obama formed the task force, the EPA finalized new rules aimed at curbing air pollution. The regulations, which are required under the Clean Air Act, direct companies to install equipment to capture gas escaping into the atmosphere during the extraction process.

The agency changed its final regulations to address one of the industry’s main concerns – that companies need more time to install the gas-capturing equipment. The EPA gave the companies until 2015 to comply, prompting API to praise the EPA for making “constructive” changes.

The EPA says that companies will be able to offset the cost of compliance by selling the recovered gas.

The Interior Department has proposed updating its fracking regulations on federal lands. They were last revised in 1988, long before the current natural gas boom. The drafted rules require companies to disclose which fracking chemicals they use, and the rules would impose standards relating to well integrity and wastewater disposal.

The Obama administration has altered the proposed rules to address some industry concerns. The original proposal required companies to reveal their fracking chemicals 30 days before starting a well. The current proposal requires the information after drilling.

The Bureau of Land Management estimates the regulations would cost the industry up to $41 million a year but says the expense “is small and will not alter the investment or employment decisions of firms.”

API warns the regulations could duplicate state rules and have a “chilling effect on investment and jobs.” And a study commissioned by the Western Energy Alliance, an industry trade group, claims the new regulations could cost the industry up to $1.6 billion a year. Also here An ad from the Romney campaign strains facts to make its point that federal grants and loans to green-energy companies were improperly steered to Obama’s political backers, and that federal money was wasted on failing companies that are now laying off employees.

It claims the “inspector general said contracts were steered to ‘friends and family.’ ” But that’s not exactly what the inspector general said. And in the year since he said he was investigating such alleged “schemes,” no public charges have been made, at least not yet.
The ad highlights the struggles — company losses, nose-diving stock and layoffs — at several companies that received substantial Department of Energy loans and grants. The ad fails to note, however, that most of the layoffs at those companies were overseas, or that the projects backed by DOE are largely moving along as planned. An independent review of the DOE program says its failure rate has been better than anticipated.
The ad uses an inflated figure from a partisan source to quantify loans and grants that went to Obama donors.
Analysis
In a speech standing in front of Solyndra’s headquarters on May 31, Mitt Romney made clear that he intends to make “crony capitalism” a major theme in his campaign, and a counter-attack to the Obama side’s emphasis on the worst-performing investments of Bain Capital during Romney’s time there.

The Romney ad — which employs an arresting strobe-like effect to create a sinister vibe — says Obama is “spending your tax dollars to create jobs” and asks rhetorically, “How’s he doing?”

⬐ Click to expand/collapse the full transcript ⬏

The opening volley is an attack on Obama with a familiar punching bag, Solyndra. “You’ve heard of Solyndra,” the narrator states. “They took $535 million in taxpayer loan guarantees and went bankrupt.” Solyndra’s downfall is well-documented. The California start-up solar company announced in August it would file for bankruptcy protection — about two-and-a-half years after receiving a $535 million loan guarantee from the Department of Energy. Solyndra remains the subject of a months-long investigation led by House Republicans. Among the revelations so far are that an Energy Department adviser and former Obama fundraiser sent emails pushing for Solyndra loans even though he had pledged to recuse himself because his wife’s law firm represented Solyndra.

But, the ad’s narrator states, “that’s not even half the story.” The ad then highlights a series of federal loans to green-energy companies that have since lost money or stock value, or have slashed employees.

We’ll get to each of those companies, but first let’s deal with the ad’s most explosive claims: “More than $16 billion have gone to companies like Solyndra that are linked to big Obama and Democrat donors. The inspector general said contracts were steered to ‘friends and family.’ Obama is giving taxpayer money to big donors. And then watching them lose it. Good for them. Bad for us.”

We’ve dealt with this $16 billion figure before when it was cited in TV and print ads from the Republican-leaning Crossroad GPS. As Crossroads did, the Romney ad misleadingly cites Newsweek as the source of the figure, but the magazine was just publishing an excerpt from the book “Throw Them All Out,” by conservative writer Peter Schweizer. A former foreign policy adviser for Sarah Palin and speech-writing consultant for the George W. Bush administration, Schweizer is now a fellow at the conservative Hoover Institution.

We found Schweizer’s $16.4 billion claim to be too high by nearly $6 billion. But that still leaves billions of dollars that went to companies run by or primarily owned by Obama financial backers. Payola? One might expect that a healthy percentage of owners of green-energy companies might lean Democratic, so it’s not surprising that some loans and grants went to companies run by Democratic donors. Some went to Republican donors as well. The question is whether those federal dollars were improperly or unfairly steered to donors in a quid pro quo arrangement.

The next line in the ad, “The inspector general said contracts were steered to ‘friends and family’ ” suggests that’s exactly what was going on. But the inspector general’s words have been twisted.

Here’s what Gregory Friedman said before a House subcommittee in March 2011:

Friedman, March 17, 2011: We currently have 64 open investigations associated with the Recovery Act [the stimulus], nearly 25 percent of our current case load. Schemes under investigation include the submission of false information in applications for funding, fraudulent claims for rebates, claims for unallowable or unauthorized expenses, the directing of contracts and grants to friends and family, weatherization fraud to include mischarging, and other attempts to fraudulently obtain Recovery Act funds. To date, our Recovery Act-related investigations have resulted in over $1 million in monetary recoveries and two criminal prosecutions. Further, nearly 20 percent of our other ongoing Recovery Act investigations have been accepted for either criminal or civil prosecutive action. And, Recovery Act funds, in large measure, are just being spent. Thus, we expect that our efforts in this area will continue for some time.

Friedman never said contracts were steered to “friends and family.” He said the office was investigating that kind of thing.

We reached out to the DOE’s inspector general’s office to find out what it has come up with so far. The office cannot comment on open cases, or closed ones in which no wrongdoing was found. But what about convictions? The office released a statement to us that said: “None of the cases that resulted in convictions for Recovery Act fraud related to the directing of contracts or grants to friends or family.”

Perhaps one of the ongoing cases will reveal some instances where money was directed to friends and family, but so far, there’s nothing except a year-old statement that the inspector general was looking into it. The ad suggests cases have already been discovered, and that’s not true.

An independent review of the DOE loan program, headed by former Treasury official Herb Allison, also “failed to turn up the waste and incompetence that critics said riddled the programs,” the Los Angeles Times noted, though it did call for better oversight after companies are awarded contracts. The review also concluded the program could lose as much as $2.7 billion on loans to green-energy companies, but that was actually less than the $10 billion anticipated by Congress. The Allison report was criticized by some Republicans as incomplete, particularly since the panel did not evaluate Solyndra as part of its review.

In addition to that investigation, Politico noted that “investigations launched by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee and the Energy and Commerce Committee have yet to turn up evidence of political favors to Democrats in the loan program.”

A Dec. 25, 2011, Washington Post analysis of thousands of memos, company records and internal emails concluded the green-technology program was “infused with politics at every level.” But the Post story didn’t document any corrupt pay-to-play scheme. Instead, the “politics” described by the Post involved the backing of financially shaky companies to push the administration’s green agenda, not any rewarding of campaign donors. The story said: “The records do not establish that anyone pressured the Energy Department to approve the Solyndra loan to benefit political contributors.”

As we noted in an earlier report, there’s an ongoing criminal investigation of Solyndra’s executives, led by Republican House investigators. So new revelations could emerge in the future. But so far what’s been documented is evidence of questionable business judgments to push the Obama administration’s green-energy platform or wishful thinking about the economic viability of solar energy, not of any outright payola or quid pro quo.

Now about the specific companies featured in the ad …

First Solar

The ad’s first example is First Solar, a global provider of solar modules. Of First Solar, the ad states: “Three billion dollars in taxpayer-backed loan guarantees. Now they’re cutting jobs and their stock is near all-time lows.”

It’s true that First Solar secured federal loan guarantees of more than $3 billion for three major solar projects. (And got them after spending $2.2 million on Washington lobbying since 2007.) After arranging and negotiating financing options, all three projects were promptly sold, to NextEra Energy, NRG Energy and Exelon. So First Solar no longer owns the DOE loan guarantees (though it is building the plants for those companies — so much of the federally guaranteed loan money is certainly flowing its way).

Ted Meyer, a spokesman for First Solar, said that despite the ad’s implication that First Solar was another Solyndra deal, the structure of the loans is very different. The loans for the projects are backed by long-term contracts from major energy companies in California to purchase the power generated by the solar plants.

It’s true that First Solar is cutting jobs, but most of them have been overseas.

Associated Press report, April 17, 2012: First Solar Inc. will lay off 2,000 workers and close its factory in Germany following a collapse in solar panel prices that has erased the industry’s profits and forced some smaller companies into bankruptcy. America’s biggest solar manufacturer said the layoffs amount to 30 percent of its global workforce.

… First Solar will also shutter some production in Malaysia. It plans additional job cuts in Europe and the U.S.

… The price of solar panels, which generate electricity from sunlight, has plummeted recently. An influx of Chinese competitors has led to a rapid buildup in supply. At the same time governments in Europe, the biggest market for solar power, are reducing generous subsidy programs that had fueled demand.

According to Meyer, more than 90 percent of the staff reductions from the April restructuring of the company were outside the U.S. Those layoffs are wholly unrelated to the three projects funded by DOE, Meyer said. Those three solar projects will employ about 1,200 people during the three-year construction phase, Meyer said, and about 12 people per site permanently.

As for U.S. jobs, Greentech Media reported First Solar furloughed 120 of its 240 employees at its DOE-backed Antelope Valley solar project in California. But contrary to a Fox News report that originally ran under the headline “Obama-Funded Solar Firm Lays Off Half Its Workforce” (it was later changed), that’s just one project First Solar is working on. It is unrelated to the company restructuring, Meyer said, and is due to an unresolved code issue with the county. Once that issue is resolved, he said, First Solar plans to expand construction there again.

As for First Solar stock being “near all-time lows,” it’s true that the price is lower than it has been in more than six years. The crude graphic in the ad seems to suggest the stock has dropped to $4 per share, but that’s not accurate. It was trading at $13.40 on May 30, but that is still down precipitously from its high of $311.14 in May 2008.

Meyer released this company statement about the ad: “It’s surprising a candidate that claims to support U.S. economic growth would criticize a great American success story like First Solar. First Solar has proven that an American company can compete and win in renewable energy globally, and our success supports almost 10,000 American jobs, more than $1 billion in U.S. purchasing, tens of millions of dollars in exports, and record-setting innovation that reduces pollution and enhances U.S. energy security.”

ECOtality

The ad states that San Francisco-based ECOtality has “received $126 million in taxpayer money. Lost $45 million, and currently under investigation.”

That’s not quite accurate. In October 2011, ECOtality Inc. was awarded a $26.4 million contract from the Department of Energy to conduct advanced vehicle battery testing and evaluation for DOE. Previously, ECOtality was awarded a $114.8 million grant to install 14,000 electric car chargers in five states. As part of the arrangement, for every dollar spent by ECOtality, the federal government reimburses it 45.8 cents. The remainder of the cost of the project is picked up by private investment money from companies like Nissan and GM. To date, the company has received about $42 million from DOE. So the ad is technically incorrect to say the company has received all of the $126 million. But it will if the project is completed in 2013, as expected. Also, the ad doesn’t mention anything about jobs in relation to ECOtality, but the Recovery Act website reports that the company projected the grant would create 144 jobs.

According to company filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, the company posted net losses of $22.5 million in 2011, and $16.4 million in 2010. But on a positive note, the company reported that the first quarter of 2012 was its first profitable quarter, with net income of $1.2 million.

On a decidedly less positive note, the company confirmed that it has received subpoenas from the SEC as part of a fact-finding inquiry related to the trading of shares between Aug. 1, 2008, and Aug. 31, 2009. The Heritage Foundation obtained and posted a copy of the subpoena sent to the company’s CEO. According to CBS News, the company is under investigation for insider trading.

SunPower

Lastly, the Romney ad targets the solar company SunPower, saying: “More than a billion dollars in loan guarantees. Lost half a billion last year. Laying off workers.”

On Sept. 30, 2011, SunPower got a $1.2 billion loan guarantee to build the California Valley Solar Ranch Project, a 250-megawatt solar plant in San Luis Obispo County, Calif. And SunPower reported an operating loss of $534 million last year. But after that, the ad’s case starts to fall apart.

Before any federal funds were released, SunPower sold the project to NRG Energy. So NRG is the owner of the loan guarantees and the company responsible for repaying them. SunPower is now the lead contractor on the project.

Despite its losses, SunPower is financially solvent, and– as the same KGO-TV report cited in the Romney ad notes — the company’s new majority stockholder is Total, “a French company that ranks among the top oil and energy companies in the world.”

As for SunPower layoffs, according to a public filing with the SEC last November, the company did announce that it would be laying off 85 employees. But as was the case with First Solar, most of those layoffs were overseas, and represented a small fraction of the company’s global workforce. In its public filing, the company stated that it was consolidating or closing facilities in Europe “in response to reductions in European government incentives, primarily in Italy, which have had a significant impact on the global solar market.” The number of layoffs ended up being less, a company spokeswoman told us, and together with newly created jobs, the net reduction was 41 jobs.

More important, the jobs related to the DOE-backed California Valley Solar Ranch are unaffected. According to SunPower, more than 350 workers are currently constructing the solar power plant. The plant, company officials said, will begin generating 25 megawatts of power by September, and when completed will generate enough electricity to power 100,000 California homes (and is already contracted to do so).

According to Bloomberg News, even with the losses from Solyndra, the default rate for the DOE’s loans to solar, wind and bio-energy projects is less than 3.6 percent, less than a third of what the White House anticipated. So Romney is using the same “lemon-picking” strategies that critics of his Bain years use — choosing a few sour specifics to give a misleading picture of the larger reality. And he’s straining facts and misquoting a leading investigator as well.

– by Robert Farley
Also here A TV ad by a conservative group gives some factually challenged answers to its own rhetorical question, “How exactly does President Obama spend your tax dollars?”

It wrongly claims that the boss of the General Services Administration “couldn’t make it to Vegas because she had meetings planned … at Solyndra.” That’s not true. The claim linking the two scandals is based on an inaccurate April 10 report that was quickly corrected — nearly two weeks before the ad first aired.
The ad incorrectly characterizes federal loan guarantees to clean-energy firms as “handouts.” In fact, the low-interest loans are supposed to be repaid and only 2 percent have gone bad.
It displays the flag of China while stating that $2.3 billion in clean-energy stimulus money went for “jobs overseas.” But Chinese firms got a small fraction of that, and it’s not known how many jobs were created in China or any other foreign country. Companies in Spain, Germany, Portugal, Australia, Japan, Italy, France and the United Kingdom received nearly all of that money, and some foreign-based companies have manufacturing facilities in the U.S.
The American Future Fund, a conservative group started by Republican activists in Iowa, announced on April 24 that it would spend $2 million on a TV ad called “On the Hook.”

It opens with a couple working on their taxes and asks the question, “How exactly does President Obama spend your tax dollars?” The answer, of course, is on big-ticket items like Social Security ($735 billion), defense ($700 billion), Medicare ($480 billion) and Medicaid ($480 billion) — which combined accounted for nearly $2.2 trillion of the $3.6 trillion budget in fiscal year 2011, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Instead, though, the ad focuses on a few recent examples of misspent federal money that amount to a minuscule slice of the federal pie.

The ad says the Obama administration gave “billions in handouts to green companies like Solyndra, which went bankrupt.” These are federally guaranteed loans, not free “handouts” — although in Solyndra’s case the company did file for bankruptcy and taxpayers are on the hook for most of the $535 million it borrowed.

There are two loan guarantee programs: section 1703, which was created under the Energy Policy Act of 2005, and section 1705, which was created under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. The Energy Department has committed $34.7 billion to nearly 40 projects under the low-interest loan programs, according to information published on its website. Two of them — Solyndra ($535 million) and Beacon Power Co. ($43 million) — have filed for bankruptcy, according to a March 12 report by the Government Accountability Office. That’s a total of $578 million, or less than 2 percent of the total program. (EnerDel, a maker of electric-car batteries, filed for bankruptcy in February after receiving $55 million of a $118.5 million grant under a separate federal grant program.)

The ad also says the “billions in handouts” went for “jobs overseas.” But the image on the screen is misleading. The ad shows a picture of the Chinese flag and the words “$2.3 billion to jobs in foreign countries.” The statement is largely true, but Chinese companies got little of that $2.3 billion, as we reported when this issue first came up in the 2010 elections.

The ad cites a Sept. 9, 2010, story in the Washington Times, which reported that “as much as 80 percent of some green programs, including $2.3 billion of manufacturing tax credits, went to foreign firms that employed workers primarily in countries including China, South Korea and Spain, rather than in the United States.” That story referenced the reporting of Russ Choma, an investigative reporter then working at American University’s Investigative Reporting Workshop, who wrote that companies based overseas were receiving stimulus money to build wind farms in the U.S. On Sept. 27, 2010, Choma wrote that about $2.38 billion in stimulus money went to foreign developers — but he told us at the time that only $2.6 million went to firms in China. He could not say how many jobs were created in China or any other foreign country.

Choma, Sept. 27, 2010: Some of those foreign-owned turbine manufacturers have factories in the United States and some American-owned turbine manufacturers have factories overseas. We simply don’t know where all of the parts were made. We found several specific examples of major wind farms where we know none of the parts were made in the United States.

But … it should be noted there were no farms that we could find that used turbines entirely built in China, so we can’t say for sure how much of this stimulus money went to create jobs in China. Some money definitely did, but it is safe to say more money went to creating jobs in the U.S. and Europe.

Choma, who now works at the Center for Responsive Politics, told us in an email that he had not updated his figures since September 2010. “They’ve given out a lot more money since then — and I’m sure much of the money, that went to at least the wind companies, continued to go to foreign-owned ones, because that’s who dominates the market.” Regardless, the ad misuses the 2010 figure of $2.3 billion.

The ad accurately portrays the wasteful spending at GSA, which burned more than $800,000 at a conference it held in Las Vegas that included clowns, a mind reader and bicycle building as a team exercise. There were also trips by GSA officials to exotic locales, including one to Hawaii for a brief ribbon-cutting ceremony that prompted the agency’s inspector general to say: “I can’t see how anyone can condone that.”

But the ad strains the facts when seeking to tie together the Solyndra bankruptcy, which likely will cost taxpayers nearly $535 million, and the GSA scandal. The ad says that “in an ironic twist,” the GSA administrator “couldn’t make it to Vegas because she had meetings planned … at Solyndra.” But that was based on an inaccurate April 10 report, which was corrected a day later and nearly two weeks before the ad first aired.

Like the inspector general, we don’t condone government misspending. But neither do we condone stretching the truth. This is one of those cases when sticking to the facts would have better served American Future Fund — and its viewers.

Keep showing how igorant you are about stuff, Here is who Raud Paul is and why I would not believe anything that comes out his mouth. Again you show that you love to embarass yourself with your igorance about the federal government and why we need it. Keep showing that you love to bash things that we need like government. Keep showing why KO is this generations Murrow, now get off and let people talk baseball.

Also we need alternate sources, Obama is doing the right thing by funding it.
Also here is who Paul is There was a fascinating exchange on ABC’s This Week with George Stephanopolous. Rand Paul was on to promote his new book and also Mitt Romney, but Krugman nicely pulled out the problem of Romney as a “weaponized Keynesian,” which forced Rand to distance himself from Romney. Nice job Krug! Something Ron Paul and the rest of us have had a difficult time doing.

Here’s a transcript of the exchange:

KRUGMAN: Right now, Mitt Romney has an ad blitz where he’s accusing Obama of cutting defense spending, which is actually, you know, that’s not really true, but and then he says and the reason this is terrible is it because it will eliminate jobs. So the Romney campaign’s position is government spending can’t create jobs unless it goes to defense contractors in which case it’s the lifeblood of the economy…
PAUL: And that’s an inconsistency. That’s an inconsistency.
KRUGMAN: It’s pretty major.
PAUL: And it’s wrong. They are accepting Keynes with regard to military spending…
KRUGMAN: Weaponized Keynesianism.
So I can applaud him for doing right by Hagel
But again who is here is who is and why I do not listen to anything that he says Outraged over being detained by the TSA when he refused a pat-down after setting off an airport scanner, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) told Fox News host Greta Van Susteren on Monday night that even though he doesn’t want “special treatment,” TSA pat-downs need to be less random, targeting people such as “Middle Eastern students” who “are here visiting our country.”

PAUL: I don’t want special treatment. All Americans should be allowed to choose pat-down, or go back through the scanning machine. The other thing I learned today, and several TSA officials told me off the record that the scanning machine sends a false positive signal so they can randomly pat down people. … And a couple of them off record told me, yes, I probably was being subjected to a random screening. But, they’re kind of tricking the public into thinking, oh, you set off the buzzer so we don’t have a choice in doing this random pat-down.

And I don’t think the random pat-downs are making us any safer. I want to know where the Middle Eastern students are that are here visiting our country. Are they in class, are they going to class, if they get on a plane. If you’ve been to Yemen twice in the last six months, I want to know who you are and know more about your travel. But most American citizens need to go through a relatively easy security process that’s not too invasive and doesn’t take away our dignity.

Watch:

Paul’s suggestion to focus on investigating “Middle Eastern students” and whether they are “going to class” amounts to racial profiling—which doesn’t work. As Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano explained when Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) similarly suggested that TSA pat down more “Arabian” or “Middle Eastern” people, “when we set firm rules about ‘we won’t screen this kind of person or that kind of person,’ our adversaries, they know those rules and they attempt to train and get around them.”

Michael Chertoff, Homeland Security Secretary under George W. Bush, agrees. He told NPR in 2009 that “the danger and the foolishness of profiling,” is that “people’s conception of what a potential terrorist looks like often doesn’t match reality.”

In fact, Sen. Paul’s father, GOP presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul (TX) made a similar statement during CNN’s national security debate in November. When Rick Santorum suggested TSA should target Muslims for screenings, Paul declared, “that’s digging a hole for ourselves. What if they look like Tomothy McVeigh?”

Parroting Rand Paul, Fox claims “federal workers’ average compensation is over twice that of non-government workers.” During the November 8 edition of Fox News’ America Live, host Megyn Kelly aired a clip of Rand Paul stating, “The average federal employee makes $120,000 a year. The average private employee makes $60,000 a year.” Moments later Kelly said “our brain room pulled out some of these statistics … Federal workers made an average pay, benefits of approximately 123,000 back in 2009. And federal workers’ average compensation is over twice that of non-government workers”:

KELLY: Well fresh off their midterm election victories, some Tea Party candidates are already taking aim at the folks who work for the federal government. Senator-elect Rand Paul of Kentucky suggesting one of the ways we can tackle our nation’s ballooning debt is by cutting the federal workforce.

PAUL (video clip): I’m going to look at every program, every program. But I would freeze federal hiring. I would maybe reduce federal employees by 10 percent. I’d probably reduce their wages by 10 percent. The average federal employee makes $120,000 a year. The average private employee makes $60,000 a year. Let’s get them more in line, and let’s find savings. Let’s hire no new federal workers.

[...]

KELLY: OK look, our brain room pulled out some of these statistics. Federal works pay, benefit, etcetera, has grown 36.9 percent since 2000. Guess how much its grown for the private sector – for private workers: 8.8 percent. So 36.9 percent for the federal workers; only 8.8 percent since 2000 for the privates. Federal workers made an average pay, benefits of approximately 123,000 back in 2009. And federal workers’ average compensation is over twice that of non-government workers. It’s twice that of non-government workers. When we say federal workers, we’re talking about people we pay for – taxpayer dollars.

Claim that federal workers make twice as much as private workers is based on false comparison

Fox News’ statistics about federal pay are echo misleading USA Today analysis. Fox News’ statistics appear to come from an August USA Today article which cited data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis and reported that “[f]ederal civil servants earned average pay and benefits of $123,049 in 2009 while private workers made $61,051 in total compensation.” Right-wing media seized on that report to criticize federal workers.

Politifact: Simply comparing federal employees’ compensation with private sector compensation “is not an apples-to-apples comparison.” From a February 3 Politifact article rebutting the claim that “federal employees are making twice as much as their private counterparts”:

[I]t’s important to understand that a big reason for the disparity is the different mix of jobs in the federal work force. It has more higher-paying white-collar jobs, experts told us, while there are more lower-paying, blue-collar jobs in the private sector that bring the average down. So it is not an apples-to-apples comparison.

USA Today article acknowledges that its “analysis did not consider differences in experience and education.” The USA Today analysis compared the average pay and compensation for all federal employees to that of all private employees. The analysis did not attempt to determine if a private sector worker earns more or less than a federal worker with a similar job. USA Today noted that it’s analysis of private and federal pay “did not consider differences in experience and education.”

The average federal salary has grown 33% faster than inflation since 2000. USA TODAY reported in March that the federal government pays an average of 20% more than private firms for comparable occupations. The analysis did not consider differences in experience and education.

Bureau of Economic Analysis: “Skill levels and educational attainment tend to be higher” for federal workers. An August 18 Politifact article on federal pay reported that the Bureau of Economic Analysis — the source for USA Today’s data — says that the numbers used by USA Today “do not tell the complete story,” in part because in recent years, “the federal government is hiring more highly skilled workers who tend to make more money.” From the Politifact article:

The BEA notes that its private-sector data includes employees of all professions. That means everything from minimum-wage jobs to the salaries of chief executive officers. Federal employees typically work in professional occupations that pay more, such as accountants, attorneys and economists, according to Congressional Budget Office research.

The BEA also noted in recent years that the federal government is hiring more highly skilled workers who tend to make more money. Many of the lower-paid positions, the BEA found, have been contracted out to the private sector.

Indeed, the BEA website lists “a number of factors that explain why average compensation for federal government non-postal civilian employees is higher than average compensation for private-sector employees”:

The mix of occupations held by federal government civilian employees is different from that of occupations held by the entire private-sector workforce. The private-sector workforce are in a wider range of jobs than federal government employees — from minimum-wage positions to highly paid CEOs. According to studies conducted by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), jobs in the federal government civilian workforce are concentrated in professional (e.g., lawyers, accountants, and economists), administrative, and technical occupations. In addition, skill levels and educational attainment tend to be higher, on average, for federal government civilian employees than for private-sector employees because of the occupational requirements in the federal government.
Over the past several years, there has been a shift in federal employment toward higher-skilled, higher-paid positions because lower-skilled (and lower-paid) positions have been contracted out to private industries. This trend has contributed to higher average pay for federal government civilian employees than for private-sector employees.
On average, federal government employees receive higher benefits in the form of pensions and health insurance contributions than private-sector employees; some private-sector employees receive no benefits.
Moreover, federal compensation estimates include sizable payments for unfunded liabilities that distort comparisons with private-sector compensation. For 2006, for example, the value of these payments for unfunded liability was $28.6 billion or 10.7 percent of total federal civilian compensation. Also here WASHINGTON — Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) is also raising money off his one-man battle against foreign aid spending that he’s used to stall the Senate’s passage of government funding this week.

A favorite among many libertarians and the tea party, Paul has used procedural rules to prevent the Senate from passing a measure that would fund the government for six months.

Paul argues that the United States has been wasting billions trying to influence foreign nations like Libya, Pakistan and Egypt. He argues it’s time to stop, or at least put tough restrictions on the money.

He predicted Friday that his bill would fail because, he says, the Senate is ignoring the will of Americans.

“I will probably lose this vote, but if you ask your friends. If you go home and ask your friends should we be sending money to countries that disrespect us, that burn our flag, I think you will find 80 percent to 90 percent of the American people wouldn’t send another penny,” Paul said Friday. “That may be why Congress has about a 10 percent approval rating.”

But Paul also appears to hope people will want to send a few pennies his way.

In the email sent Thursday by his political action committee, RANDPAC, and signed “In Liberty, Rand Paul,” the Kentuckian asserted that although he had convinced Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to put his bill to a vote, “some members of my own party are trying to sabotage the whole thing!”

“It looks like some of my Republican colleagues are determined to continue their support for foreign aid — so much so that they are attempting to block a vote from taking place,” Paul wrote.

A vote is scheduled for around midnight Friday.

He went on to recount the recent attacks related to an amateur anti-Muslim film trailer on YouTube, and asked supporters to call GOP senators and voice their support for his bill. He closed by asking for money to help replace the senators who were opposing him.

“If you can afford a generous contribution to help RANDPAC elect more principled constitutional conservatives who will stand with me in critical fights like these, please give right away,” Paul wrote. “Whether it’s $500, $250, $100, $50, $25, — or even $10 — every dollar will help. Please act IMMEDIATELY!”

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who has been one of the lead opponents of Paul’s measure, didn’t seem surprised that the junior senator was using his apparently principled stand as a fundraising gambit.

“I’m shocked,” McCain said sarcastically, although he declined to criticize Paul. “He’s free to do whatever he wants. What other people choose to do is up to them.”

In Senate floor debate over Paul’s legislation, other veteran Republicans sharply criticized his efforts, saying that if America retreated, it would only undermine the nation’s long-term goals and hand a win to enemies.

“I know that Rand Paul is as patriotic as anybody in this body, but the fact of the matter is the crazy, Islamic extremist terrorists who are trying to kill us would love nothing more than for this to pass,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.). “They know they cannot win if we stay engaged in helping people. So they’re trying to drive us out because that’s their best hope of winning the day. So if you want to empower the terrorists that exist in this world, pass this amendment.”

Wow so keep embarrassing yourself by showing that you have no idea what facts are. Now get off the blog and let people talk baseball. You really show why KO is this generations Murrow and that you would not know what facts and never will, also I do not listen to people that bash government. We need always will need government, it not prefect but it needed and always will be.

Neal Bortz is someone that would not know what the truth is if it bit on the head Conservative talk radio host Neal Boortz unleashed an astounding array of attacks on President Obama on Thursday, likening him to figures such as Adolf Hitler and serial killer Ted Bundy, as well as terrorist groups Al Qaeda and Ansar al-Sharia.

Boortz, whose Atlanta radio show is nationally syndicated, was addressing a commentary by Herman Cain, in which the former Republican presidential candidate congratulated Obama on his reelection. Boortz replied: “OK, Herman Cain, that’s BS.” He continued:

BOORTZ: I would like to congratulate Richard Speck. I would — you know, I would like to congratulate Ted Bundy on sneaking into yet another sorority house and killing another coed. I would like to congratulate Adolf Hitler on his invasion of Poland. I would like to congratulate the — Al Qaeda for their successful attack on New York City. I would like to congratulate the Ansar al-Sharia crowd over there in Benghazi for their successful assault on our consulate.

Congratulate Barack Obama? I’m sorry, Herman, love you but you can take that and stick in that phony damn cowboy hat of yours.

He went on to accuse Obama of being “dedicated to the destruction of our economic system” and the “weakening” of America and the U.S. military. Boortz also called Obama a liar and a thief and claimed he gave “away enough to con a bunch of ignorant, stupid voters into giving him the power to carry out his anti-American schemes.”

He concluded by saying, “I fear that man,” adding, “The Bible, according to Barack Obama: Though shalt not steal, except by majority rule.”

Boortz continued to reject Cain’s comments, saying later in the show that congratulating Obama was tantamount to congratulating a thief after his successful theft of your car.

He ended his commentary by saying, “What are they gonna do? Fire me?”

According to Talkers Magazine, Boortz holds a national audience of about 6 million weekly listeners. He was ranked by the magazine as the 13th most influential radio talk host in the nation this year.

News/Talk WSB in Atlanta, Boortz’s flagship station, reported on June 4 that Cain will replace Boortz as the host of his daily show when Boortz retires in January 2013.

Boortz, who has a history of inflammatory attacks against African-Americans, working-class Americans, and immigrants, previously likened Obama to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and said that Obama “is a bigger disaster to this country than 9-11.” That comment drew harsh criticism from 9-11 victims’ families. Here is also something else Last week conservative radio host Neal Boortz issued a challenge via Twitter:

Boortz’s challenge came after Media Matters shone a spotlight on his claim that President Obama’s reelection represented a bigger threat to the United States of America than Al Qaeda and Adolf Hitler.

After Boortz issued his challenge, I replied via Twitter:

Media Matters scheduled an appearance through Neal Boortz’s producer and the debate was set up for today from 10:05 to 10:20 AM – or so we thought.

After Media Matters followed up to confirm the debate, Neal’s producer emailed explaining the debate time that was previously discussed had been booked, and that no future timeframe was available for the debate to take place – a debate based on a challenge Boortz himself issued.

Have a listen to what Boortz did instead of debating Media Matters:

I stand behind my willingness to discuss this issue with Boortz, and Media Matters stands behind its willingness to debate our rhetorical adversaries at any time. In case you were wondering– yes, the “Obama’s going to take your guns!” crowd is having a complete meltdown over perfectly sensible gun safety measures.

How does the slippery slope thing work, anyway? Obama passes, say, mandatory background checks — then a few months later the ATF is raiding Boy Scout camps for .22s?

Anyway, only right-wing extremists like Boortz and the gun lobby oppose these common-sense measures. But when you make millions peddling lethal assault rifles to children, you’re going to fight like hell to protect your profit margins.This is to a tweet that was lying about what Obama wanted to do with gun control like Obama wanting to end gun ownership which is not true and never will be BY, here is more So agian you show that you love to support people that lie and fabercate facts and than bash people like KO who have never been able to lie. You show that By you are igorant and always will be on what facts are. Now get off the blog and go to we are igorant about facts blogs and let people talk baseball.

Moderators get the troll of and let people talk baseball.

Wow again something that has nothing to do with KO or baseball. Keep showing how igorant you are about KO and facts in general, now get off this blog and let people talk baseball.

Also do not complain about your first admendment because you are not protected on private blogs, get off and go to we are igorant about life blogs and let people talk baseball.

Moderators we have a troll on this loose please remove and tell them that they are not to come back.

Also KO loved seeing the pictures of you at Spring Training in Arizona, again keep being yourself and you will always have a fan in me.

Keep being yourself and sorry you got unjustily fired at Current, would not he happy if you do not get the justice that you deserve, love you faults and all. Keep showing why you are this generations Murrow. Again love you faults and all.

Also I hve to laugh with the fact that you seem to think that 50 million which KO would have earned if he had not been unjustily fired is what was put out for a set, wow keep making me laugh with who igorant you are about KO and what happened over there Keith Olbermann has filed a $50 million breach-of-contract lawsuit against former employer Current TV following the writer and political commentator’s highly publicized firing from the cable network last week.
Olbermann filed the suit in Los Angeles on Thursday, which according to The Associated Press seeks a judge’s ruling that he didn’t disparage the network before his termination, while stating that bosses at Current TV violated his contract by disclosing his pay. A bevy of potentially embarrassing technical problems also plagued the fledgling network, according to Olbermann’s suit.
The former ESPN and MSNBC anchor quickly became the star of the new political affairs network launched by Al Gore and businessman Joel Hyatt when he joined in February 2011. Olbermann had signed a five-year, $50 million contract to host the evening news show “Countdown,” which debuted last June. Appearing on “The Late Show with David Letterman,” earlier this week, Olbermann said that he knew “as early as … last July” that he wanted out of Current TV.
The lawsuit repeatedly goes after Hyatt and Current TV President David Borman, blaming the two for the problems Olbermann says he experienced with “Countdown,” which included “terrible sound and filming” and broken or malfunctioning equipment that allegedly wouldn’t work in the rain, The AP reported. The suit largely steers clear of attacks on former Vice President Gore.
Current’s Christopher Lehane fired back at Olbermann, saying the host was fired for missing work, “sabotaging the network” and disparaging his bosses, The AP reported, adding that Lehane’s statement said Current looked forward to airing the “false and malicious” grievances in a courtroom.
Olbermann, who joined Current after a tumultuous eight year relationship with MSNBC ended with a similar high-profile exit, has an ownership stake in the network. He claims he may be owed in excess of $70 million.
“Olbermann deeply regrets his decision to put his trust in Hyatt and Gore,” the lawsuit states. “Current had neither the desire nor the ability to produce a first rate news commentary show. Olbermann did not join Current to ruin his hard-won reputation and appear on a show that was an embarrassment.”
The details of the suit are the latest in a war of words that began with Olbermann’s March 30 firing and a statement from the network saying, “Current was [...] founded on the values of respect, openness, collegiality, and loyalty to our viewers. Unfortunately these values are no longer reflected in our relationship with Keith Olbermann and we have ended it.”
On Tuesday Olbermann told Letterman that it’s now up to the courts to see what happens with the rest of his contract. “The nice judge will decide whether or not I get more of my money,” he said.
Wow keep showing how igorant you are about KO and keep embarrsing yourself that you think it okay to bash someone and to praise a guy who thinks it fun to make fun of pain and sucide, you show that you do not know the term of what a human is.

Also have to laugh that you think that KO cannot have hobbies outside of Countdown and that you think it fun to go a site he put up to talk baseball and bash him, and put out debunk talking points and debunk names, keep embarrassing yourself with your igorance about KO and journalism and honesty. By get off this website and let people talk baseball, go to we love to lie about KO and show how igorant and laugh at others that debunk you time and time again, and do not say different because that would be another lie. You really make me love KO more and show why he this generations Murrow.

I didn’t say it would cost $50 million to fix those “problems”.
I said that a PORTION of $50 million would have covered it all. But BB wanted to keep his whole salary and have MORE money to “fix” the set.

I didn’t say it would cost $50 million to fix those “problems”.
I said that a PORTION of $50 million would have covered it all. But BB wanted to keep his whole salary and have MORE money to “fix” the set.
/

50 FUCKING MILLION DOLLARS

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,815 other followers

%d bloggers like this: