John Fugelsang On The GOP Ronald Reagan Myths (Via The Stephanie Miller Show's Fridays with Fugelsang)

Hypocrisy is a value that I think has been embraced by the Republican Party. We get lectured by people all day long about moral values by people who have their own moral shortcomings ~ Howard Dean (dob 11/17/1948) The 79th Governor of Vermont (1991-2003) and Chairman of DNC (2005-2009).

The following (selected) quotes from the Friday 1/8/2016 airing of The Stephanie Miller Show by John Fugelsang concerning Ronald Reagan (plus one concerning the NRA and one last one concerning Donald Trump).

->[Republicans] are for the things Reagan said he was for. Reagan said he was for smaller government, but grew by 60 odd thousand jobs. Reagan said he was not for negotiating with terrorists, but armed the same Iranians who helped kill our marines in Beirut. They like Reagan the myth, they don't like Reagan the fact.

->Ronald Reagan gave amnesty to every undocumented immigrant in the country, which makes him to the Left [on this issue] of Barack Obama, Harry Reid and Sylvester Stallone.

->They [The NRA] don't care. They want more gun violence. More violence means more profit. How many guns have Obama confiscated? That's right, none. Every time there's a massacre the NRA sends out this mailing list. I encourage all your listeners to subscribe to the NRA mailing lists online and they'll see [what a] racket [this is]. They'll tell you Obama is coming for your guns, and then people go out and buy more guns because the Skeeters believe this. The gun manufacturers make more money the more massacres.

->Between Kim Jong Un, Donald Trump, Rand Paul, Jeb Bush and Jaden Smith, [it's] not a good year for nepotism so far.

->[Sarcastically] Can you believe that Barack Obama has done nothing about this [North Korea testing an H-Bomb]? You know what a man would do? A man would pour billions and billions of dollars into a missile defense system that doesn't work. Obama has even spent 2 billion on a non functional missile defense system [whereas Reagan spend more than 209 billion].

->Whatever they [Republicans] want to throw at you, you just have to throw back Reagan. I'm sure you've seen it - they're trying to smear Hillary Clinton with Bill Cosby. And with Bill Clinton. [The] Juanita Broaddrick [allegation] has been exhumed, and now, of course, Hillary Clinton is a rape apologist. They can't beat her on the issues, so they're going to try to smear a woman... [Sarcastically] By the way, if you're a political party looking to get more female voters, blame women for their husband's cheating [not that rape is cheating... Bill Clinton has been accused of both].

->They're going to come out and say Juanita Broaddrick was raped by Bill Clinton. There's no way to prove it one way or the other. It's he said, she said. But, by this logic, Selene Walters, the woman who claimed that Ronald Reagan raped her when he was president of the Screen Actor's Guild. Kitty Kelly documented it thoroughly in her book, and, at the time, she told several people that Reagan... forced himself on her. So, anyone who says you have to believe Juanita Broaddrick has to believe Selene Walters.

->There is one group that Trump hasn't attacked - that's ignorant White guys with small penises. If he began doing that... [then he'd drop in the polls, given the fact that angry White guys constitute his base].

[End John Fugelsang Quotes Via Stephanie Miller 1/8/2016]

Speaking of Donald Trump, he has also been accused of rape... by his ex-wife ex-wife Ivana Trump, who "once used [the word] rape to describe an incident between them in 1989. She later said she felt violated by the experience" (Ex-Wife: Donald Trump Made Me Feel Violated During Sex.

So, as a Democrat, do I believe that Juanita Broaddrick is a liar, while Selene Walters and Ivana Trump told the truth? I don't know. The point (that John Fugelsang was making) is that Trump (and the other Reagan idolizing GOP potus hopefuls) attacking HRC over what her husband may or may not have done smacks of hypocrisy. (May or may not = rape. WJC definitely cheated with a number of consensual affairs).

And the Reagan idolizers and mythologizers are hypocrites when they attack Barack Obama and/or Hillary Clinton for doing/being guilty of of things Ronald Reagan did/is guilty of (10 Things Conservatives Don't Want You To Know About Ronald Reagan).

Also, let us not forget that when Repubs attack Bill Clinton, they're attack a very popular ex-president (Bill Clinton is incredibly popular. How much will that help Hillary's 2016 campaign?) and (more importantly) Bill Clinton isn't running for anything - it's his wife who is seeking the presidency. Which isn't to say that I believe Bill Clinton's sex life (or, rather his sex life back in the 80s and 90s) should be "off limits". Just keep the hypocrisy in mind. And the fact that Bill isn't running.

And there is also the fact (as evidenced by WJC's popularity) that people don't care too much about rehashing a decades old debate. So I doubt these attacks will have much of an effect on HRC's campaign or the enthusiaism of her voters. (And, for th record here, I don't include myself in this group, as I will be voting for Bernie Sanders in the primary. Provided his name is on the ballot and he hasn't "suspended" his campaign prior to the primary in my state. If he has? Then I will be voting for HRC. And my "enthusiasm" - such as it is - won't be impacted. Not by any attacks on HRC by way of attacking her husband).

Image: Hal Sparks, Stephanie Miller and John Fugelsang arrive at the 10/21/2011 Sexy Liberal Tour.

SWTD #318

The World Of Progressive Punditry Marks The End of An Era With Keith Olbermann's Return To Sports Commentary

If you burn a bridge, you can possibly build a new bridge, but if there's no river any more, that's a lot of trouble ~ Keith Olbermann (dob 1/27/1959) muses on his 1997 departure from ESPN's SportsCenter during a 6/27/2007 appearance on the Late Show with David Letterman.

It was on 5/18/2011 that I announced that I was dedicating a stand alone page on my blog to Keith Olbermann, a man I described as "my hero". Furthermore I noted that he was individual that "I blindly worship". This was (in part) a humorous retort to certain individuals on another blog who chided me with taunts regarding my "man crush" on Mr. Olbermann. Seeing as I am not the kind of person to let the judgments of others stop me from speaking forcefully in regards to idea, causes or people I believe in, I incorporated the "man crush" insult into the commentary that accompanied my shrine.

I didn't take the bait in other words. Instead I said YES in regards to the man crush, going so far as to label it "intense", but adding that it was "strictly platonic"... because I'm straight (although not homophobic). I would admit it if the man crush were something I fantasized about becoming physical.

But now it is official... Keith Olbermann has returned to sports commentary at ESPN2 with a program that will be titled "Olbermann" (and begin broadcasting on 8/26/2013). The first I heard about a possible return to sports announcing concerned Keith asking ESPN prez John Skipper if they'd take him back. The stories implied that Keith's overtures were rebuffed. A 7/16/2013 NYT article says "some ESPN insiders... voiced the opinion that Olbermann was part of the network's past, not its future". Others felt that "his star quality is almost unmatched in the sports television arena" and for that reason "he seems to draw a crowd". So they took him back, but his new contract "explicitly forbids him from discussing political matters".

Also, the job at ESPN is just one of two talking-about-baseball jobs recently landed by Keith. A 7/12/2013 NY Daily News story says, "last month, Turner Sports hired him to host its Major League Baseball postseason studio show on TBS". The Daily News does wonder why TBS allowed Keith to take a job with a competitor (if they did allow it. Could TBS be the next employer to fire Keith?).

Whatever the situation, Keith says "it's tremendous to be back in baseball", and that may be true, but not from my perspective. The world of sports is somewhere I will absolutely not follow Keith, despite my being a huge fan. I am a fan of his punditry. I am not a fan of any kind of sport or commentary on sport, no matter who the commentator is. Although if I were forced to watch one sport, baseball is one that I would find less objectionable.

In a comment on this very blog a notorious Keith-hater and annoying dumbass whose Blogger ID is "Rusty Shackelford" declared that "they are taking bets in Las Vegas when he will be fired". I have no idea if this is for reals or if Rusty is making a joke. Either way I seriously do not care. Given his history I think Keith will probably mind his P's and Q's. That, and how much trouble can you get in talking about sports?

On the other hand Keith does have a history of "feuding" with the ESPN bosses much like he clashed with the management at MSNBC (Phil Griffin) and Current (Joel Hyatt and David Bohrman). If it was any one specific person that Keith had disagreements with at CNN (and if that person or persons still work there) I do not know (nor do I particularly care). Wikipedia says, "his former bosses remarked he had too much backbone". I noted in past commentaries that Griffin and Hyatt are both "corporate Democrats" and guessed that was the reason why Keith got the boot. But it clearly couldn't have been Keith's political views that got him into trouble at ESPN. (Note: ESPN's John Skipper wasn't there when Keith was fired).

So the possibility that he could be fired again can't be dismissed outright. I'd be surprised though. Keith obviously had to make some promises (including no discussing politics) to get back in with ESPN. Who would be dumb enough to blow another second chance? The Keith-haters are convinced Keith is just that dumb. Or that his ego is just too big for him not to piss off the brass. This is the second time a network has welcomed Keith back into the fold (Keith hosted "The Big Show" on MSNBC from 1997–1998 and Countdown from 2003–2011). The second time around Keith lasted 8 years at MSNBC, so I think speculations of a quick firing at ESPN2 are premature.

With ESPN Keith has apparently rebuilt the bridge AND the restored the river. A ThinkProgress article titled "Keith Olbermann's return to ESPN is crazy and probably brilliant" says Keith "played [a big role] in shaping the sports entertainment behemoth we know as ESPN today". So that is TWO networks that owe many thanks to Keith for making them what they are. He has his detractors, but obviously he also has his fans (The sports commentary fans and political punditry fans being largely in two separate categories, I think). This is why he keeps getting hired (and rehired).

At any rate, that there shall be no more political commentary from Keith marks the end of an era. Yes, he has been absent for some time, but this new gig cements the fact that Keith is likely finished punditing forever (or for a number of years, certainly). Keith, as I just pointed out, is responsible for making MSNBC what it is today. I've heard that MSNBC has been experiencing declining ratings ever since Keith left. Instead of firing him Phil Griffin should have gotten down on his knees and kissed Keith's posterior.

Joel Hyatt (Current) should have allowed Keith to run things as he saw fit, as per the agreement Keith was hired under... an agreement that named Keith "Chief News Officer" and gave him an "equity stake". Instead Hyatt butted in and forced out Mark Rosenthal. It was under CEO Mark Rosenthal that Olberman was recruited... and everything was hunky-dory until Current co-founder (along with Al Gore) Hyatt decided he wanted to switch from "hands off" to "hands on". It was after that decision (and Rosenthal's departure) that everything went down hill.

But all that is in the past now. Current TV will soon be transformed into Al Jazeera America due to the sellout Al Gore deciding to take the money and run (Al Jazeera paid 500 million for Current; Al Gore's take is estimated to be 70 million). Perhaps it was a wise decision, as Current wasn't doing that great in the ratings, but who knows what would have happened if they had not foolishly and abruptly canned Keith? Perhaps Keith could have built up Current just like he did ESPN and MSNBC? I like Current and watch it 6 hours every week day (Stephanie Miller for 3 hours, and The Young Turks, Viewpoint with John Fugelsang, and Joy Behar's Say Anything for 1 hour each).

Now, there are reports that Gore was initially opposed to selling his station to a network funded by oil money (oh, the hypocrisy!). A 3/16/2013 HuffPo article says investment banker, spouse of Dianne Feinstein, and Current TV board member/investor Richard Blum was gung-ho for the sale. He worried that the network would go under and his money would be lost. I wondered if the decision to get rid of Keith might in any way be connected to the decision to sell, but it looks like the dates don't line up. Keith was dismissed at the end of March 2012 and the Current deal began to take shape in July of 2012 (3+ months later).

But the sale was (apparently) the reason why Current decided to settle instead of going to court. On 3/14/2013 The New York Times reported that Current and Olbermann "were locked in a legal stalemate that might have lasted years if not for Gore's startling decision last December to sell the money-losing Current to Al Jazeera". Keith was seeking the entire 50 million dollars he was promised when he signed his 5-year deal with Current. The NYT says Keith was awarded 5 million via binding arbitration.

So, not as good a result for Keith as when MSNBC paid him his full salary of 7 million dollars for each of the two years remaining on his contract when they parted ways... and he didn't even have to sue to get it! Maybe that is why the NYT titled their story "Current unfair"? The Conservative NewsBusters story (a re-reporting of what the NYT reported) refers to Keith as the "whiney deranged former MSNBC anchor". Then NewsBusters says the trial might have been fun to watch, but no worries, because there may be another the next time Keith is fired (Ha, ha, ha).

If I had to guess I'd say Keith's new salary is a lot less, but I could be wrong, seeing as the show will be titled "Olbermann". But I really have no idea how much sports commentators are paid. In any case, I think it is time to wrap this post up by saying that even though I shall never watch Keith on the TV so long as sports casting is his gig, I still wish him luck in his return to his former career.

After a 16-year absence Keith is back at ESPN. ESPN says they expect more fans tuning in for Keith than people tuning out due to their not liking him for political reasons. So this might be a gain for fans of baseball but it is surely a loss for the fans of Keith's political punditry (such as myself). We will miss him greatly and mourn the end of Mr. Olbermann's outstanding career as the world's leading progressive commentator. This is, in my strong opinion, a loss for the entire political Left.

Keith Olbermann Career Highlights
[1] Co-Anchor (with Dan Patrick) of ESPN's daily sports newsprogram SportsCenter, 1992–1997. FIRED (1st gig With ESPN).
[2] Anchor of MSNBC's The Big Show, 1997–1998 FIRED (1st gig with MSNBC).
[3] Host of Major League Baseball on Fox, 1999–2000.
[4] Anchor of The Keith Olbermann Evening News... a Fox Sports Net show designed to challenge SportsCenter, 1998–2001. FIRED.
[5] Countdown with Keith Olbermann on MSNBC, 2003–2011. FIRED (2nd MSNBC gig).
[6] Co-host of NBC's Football Night in America, 2007–2010. Stepped down to focus on Countdown.
[7] Countdown with Keith Olbermann on Current TV 2011-2012. FIRED (Total Time doing Countdown: approx 9yrs).
[8] Host of ESPN2's "Olbermann". 8/26/2013-7/24/2015 (2nd ESPN gig: Contract not renewed, although some say he was fired).
[9] Host of TBS Major League Baseball postseason studio show, October 2013.

Update 7/19/2015: On 7/10/2015, two days after ESPN declined to renew his expiring contract, Olbermann announced on air that the series would be coming to an end on July 24. The announcement came after The Hollywood Reporter claimed that ESPN wanted Olbermann to tone down his critical commentary, but the network claimed the move was to cut costs related to Olbermann's salary and the use of the space at Times Square Studios.

SWTD #182, KO #4.

Romney's Tax Plan Would Complete Reagan's Dream of an American Oligarchy

Where some people are very wealthy and others have nothing, the result will be either extreme democracy or absolute oligarchy, or despotism will come from either of those excesses ~ Aristotle (384 BC to 322 BC) a Greek philosopher who was a student of Plato and teacher of Alexander the Great. Together with Plato and Socrates (Plato's teacher), Aristotle is one of the most important founding figures in Western philosophy.

The Walton family owns more wealth than the bottom 40 percent of America. The top 1 percent owns 40 percent of the nation's wealth while the bottom 60 percent own less than 2 percent. Between 2009 and 2010 93 percent of all new income went to the top 1 percent, the other 99 percent shared the remaining 7 percent. The United States has the most unequal distribution of wealth and income of any industrialized nation on earth and it is worse now than since the 1920s. The United States has the highest rate of childhood poverty in the industrialized world. [source: Bernie Sanders on the 8/3/2012 Stephanie Miller Show].

In response John Fugelsang asked: "if 60 percent of the population controls only 2 percent of the wealth, does that mean that the top 40 percent needs to pay 98 percent of the taxes?" [John Fugelsang is a friday regular on the Stephanie Miller Show].

The rigged tax system of the United States has been moving up toward oligarchy for the past 30 years - ever since Ronald Reagan set us on that path. According to a non-partisan analysis conducted by the Brookings Institute and the Tax Policy Center, "...a revenue-neutral individual income tax change that incorporates the features Governor Romney has proposed – including reducing marginal tax rates substantially, eliminating the individual alternative minimum tax (AMT) and maintaining all tax breaks for saving and investment – would provide large tax cuts to high-income households, and increase the tax burdens on middle and/or lower-income taxpayers. This is true even when we bias our assumptions about which and whose tax expenditures are reduced to make the resulting tax system as progressive as possible".

Mitt Romney says he will reduce taxes across the board, but in reality his elimination of deductions would RAISE taxes on middle and lower income taxpayers. The Brookings/Tax Policy analysis says, "[Romney's] tax cuts predominantly favor upper-income taxpayers. Taxpayers with incomes over $1 million would see their after-tax income increased by 8.3 percent (an average tax cut of about $175,000)... while the after-tax income of taxpayers earning less than $30,000 would actually decrease by about 0.9 percent (an average tax increase of about $130)".

In other words: Romney wants YOU to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy! Unless you're rich and greedy, why would you cast your ballot for Mitt Romney? Barack Obama should win re-election in a landslide, but we all know he won't. It's going to be close. Why? I've been declared "arrogant" for saying so, but I'm convinced that a lot of voters are allowing themselves to be tricked into voting for oligarchy.

SWTD #118