Firing Of Ed Schultz Signals The End Of msnbc That Started With The Exit Of Keith Olbermann

We live in a time when much of the corporate media regards politics as a baseball game or a soap opera. Ed Schultz has treated the American people with respect by focusing on the most important issues impacting their lives. He has talked about income and wealth inequality, high unemployment, low wages, our disastrous trade policies and racism in America. I am very disappointed that Comcast chose to remove Ed Schultz from its lineup ~ Bernie Sanders (dob 9/8/1941) the longest-serving independent in US congressional history and a self-described democratic socialist. Sanders is currently running for the 2016 POTUS nomination as a Democrat [1].

What follows is an excerpt from the 7/24/2015 airing of the Thom Hartmann Radio Program, which I edited for brevity and clarity. Thom discusses the idiotic decision by MSNBC to cancel Ed Schultz and give his job to that tool Chuck Todd.

Thom: Bernie Sanders has blasted MSNBC and Comcast for cancelling Ed Schult's show. I wanted to talk a little bit about that. In my opinion, Ed is the last true voice for American working people on MSNBC. He is the only guy on MSNBC willing to talk about our trade policies and how stupid they are. He's literally the only guy. He's the only one who is willing to bring labor on regularly and talk about labor issues. He's the only one who's willing to talk about net neutrality.

These are subjects that, just from watching a lot of MSNBC, I have to conclude that the other hosts are not allowed to talk about these issues, and now they're going to fire Ed. Or lay him off, or he's leaving... whatever. I don't want to represent this. I haven't have any conversation with Ed about this.

I think Roger Ailes is a programming genius and the people at MSNBC are programming idiots. In Washington DC it doesn't matter if you're Left or Right, it doesn't matter if you're Republican or Democrat. The thing that matters, THE thing that is consequential, the thing that determines whether or not you get invited to the White House, whether you get invited to THE cocktail parties, whether you get covered in the press, whether your name shows up, whether you appear on television regularly is... are you an Insider, or are you an Outsider?

Bernie Sanders is an Outsider. Ed Schultz is an Outsider. Schultz wasn't towing the line regarding the Insider's conventional wisdom. The Insider's wisdom is that trade deals are wonderful, corporations should run the world, net neutrality is a silly idea... and I think he's getting bumped for that.

The Insider media, the New York Times - there's a great piece over at Alternet about why is the New York Times ignoring the Sanders surge - it's because the New York Times is the ultimate Insider publication. Sanders is the Outsider.

Roger Ailes made this brilliant programming decision to program as an Outsider to Outsiders. MSNBC is moving in the direction of programming more and more with Insiders (Chuck Todd, Brian Williams) to insiders.

Andy Lack [the new Chairman of NBC News Group] used to be a vice president with NBC and now he's coming in [and trying to fix the problem of] their ratings [being] in the toilet.

I think their rating are in the toilet because they are basically an Insider network. The Progressive base is not interested in the Insider prospective. The Progressive base would like the Outsider perspective... which I think is Ed Schultz.

So they got to get rid of him. What they're going to do is go up against the other Insider network, CNN. They going to go more, quote, "hard news" [Andy Lack sez the new strategy is to focus on breaking news and de-emphasize left-leaning opinion programming].

[End 7/24/2015 Thom Hartmann Rant]

Thom adds that he the thinks "the net neutrality riffs by Rachel Maddow and Chris Hayes were by way of noting the news, not by way of generating activist behavior. At least in my opinion. Ed Schultz has never backed away from encouraging people to be activists".

IMO Thom is absolutely right. Concerning why Ed is getting the boot, as well as msnbc being an Insider media outlet. Regarding Maddow and Hayes not covering net neutrality, I'll take Thom's word for it. I have basically stopped watching msnbc and switched over to Free Speech TV - which Thom's radio program airs on (as a TV program).

As a member of "the Progressive base" I am not interested in the Insider perspective and want the Outsider perspective, which Free Speech TV offers (The network, which operates as a 501c3 non-profit tax-exempt organization, brands itself as "the alternative to television networks owned by billionaires, governments and corporations").

msnbc's ratings ARE in the toilet because of their drift away from Progressivism and toward what Thom calls the "Insider perspective". The beginning of the end for msnbc (IMO) was the exit of Keith Olbermann on 1/21/2011.

When Keith left msnbc Countdown was the network's top-rated program with 1.1 million viewers. In regards to a (pre departure) suspension of Keith, Russell Simmons said "without Olbermann, msnbc can't survive – and the voice of progress will fall to the dark ages, when one unholy church dictated a fictional version of the truth" [2].

And that is exactly what is happening. Although I don't think Simmons was any kind of oracle, he was simply stating the obvious. Keith Olbermann MADE msnbc and the death of the network started the day he left.

Today msnbc, with the firing of Mr. Schultz, is announcing that they have failed as a Leftwing alternative to Fox Nooz.

MSNBC had decided months ago that they would be dumping their liberal hosts in favor of people like Chuck Todd. MSNBC leadership completely mistreated their liberal audience, and when the audience walked away, the network used the declining ratings as an excuse to blame liberals. ... Ed Schultz was a much needed liberal voice in a sea of cable news conservatives. ... MSNBC is making an ideological statement that liberals are out, and pandering to Republicans with Beltway conventional wisdom is in. (MSNBC Is Canceling Ed Schultz And Giving His Show To Chuck Todd by Jason Easley. Politicus USA 7/23/2015).

In total msnbc is cancelling 3 of it's programs.

Hour-long programs hosted by Ed Schultz at 5 pm Eastern and Alex Wagner at 4pm were both axed, as was The Cycle, a roundtable that aired at 3pm with hosts Ari Melber, Toure, Abby Huntsman and Krystal Ball. (Struggling MSNBC cancels 3 daytime shows with liberal slant. AP Story from 7/30/2015).

Other changes announced...

Andrew Lack told staffers of both NBC News and MSNBC that he plans to rebuild MSNBC to focus on breaking news coverage and to be less of a left-leaning talk outlet. Lack also plans a name change for the network since Microsoft hasn't been involved with the cable channel in years. (Talker's Magazine Odds & Sods, 7/27/2015).

I say screw msnbc, or whatever the hell they end up calling themselves. They will limp along for awhile longer, but they're done. Or not. Whatever happens they are never going to be more than a MINOR network. As they move away from catering to their liberal audience their liberal audience will depart. And there is no need for yet another "Insider" network.

As for Keith Olbermann being "fired" from his latest gig as ESPN2, the sports talk show Olbermann, says they "declined to renew his expiring contract [and that] the move was to cut costs related to Olbermann's salary and the use of the space at Times Square Studios". (excerpted from Wikipedia).

Not being a fan of any televised sport, and having never once watched Keith's sports talk show, I would be completely unaware that "Olbermann" was ending... if not for the Conservative blogger Rusty Shackelford who came to my blog to gloat.

According to the comment Rusty left, Olbermann was "fired" and "his next show could be a podcast from his basement". In response I told Rusty "if Olbermann does a podcast from his basement I will seek it out and subscribe". I forgot to add that I'd only do this if the podcast were political in nature. If he were to do a podcast that was sport-centered I would not be interested.

I am not upset about Olbermann's contract not being extended. Which is what happened. He wasn't fired. Anyway, I watched him on msnbc and Current, but never on ESPN. I don't like sports and I don't care about him getting "fired" or deciding not to move his ESPN program knowing his contract not being extended could be a result.

People like Rusty might call Olbermann a "loser" (or other names), but Keith got 14 Million to leave msnbc and 5 Million to leave the no-longer-existing Current TV. This is money Keith got which he did no work to receive... doesn't sound like a loser to me [3].

As for Ed Schultz, I have to admit I did not watch his program. Mostly because it was on too early. When I watched I tuned in for Rachel Maddow and Lawrence O'Donnell. Although I switched to Current TV (and watching their primetime lineup when Keith Olbermann was associated with the now defunct network).

I did switch back when (the global climate change awareness champion) Al Gore sold out and cashed out in exchange for in 70 million (his share of the 500 million price) in House of Thani oil money. Which might have been either hypocritical or wise... given the fact that "Current failed to make much of an impact at all".

Maybe Current failed (was failing) because they fired Keith? Or it might just have been because people were simply unaware that it existed. While msnbc's market share is much less than that of Fox, they still are viable. Although (to me) it looks like this Andy Lack fellow is working hard to deep six the network.

Not that the ratings were great, but that was because they were a Democrat Insider network (Keith and Ed being their most Progressive voices). The Insider perspective/sucking up to and carrying water for Insider Dems isn't what most Democratic voters are interested in. Now they're going to go even more Insider. I do not predict success.

Footnotes
[1] The quote from the top of this blog post is from the article Bernie Sanders Blasts MSNBC and Comcast For Canceling Ed Schultz by Jason Easley. Politicus USA 7/23/2015.
[2] Keith Olbermann out at MSNBC (excerpt from a 1/21/2011 story from RawStory) Countdown, the network's top-rated program, attracted 1.1 million viewers, according to Nielsen. (end excerpt). The Russell Simmons quote is from this article.
[3] According to a 4/20/2012 Dennis Marks comment (this is before Keith was awarded $5 million in binding arbitration re his lawsuit against Al Gore's Current) "Keith's frivolous lawsuit [will get] laughed out of court". Oops, looks like Dennis was wrong... as usual.

Video1: Ed Schultz blasts Clinton for refusing to take a position on Keystone and the TPP (Published on 7/29/2015). According to some website called Canonclast "town crier Ed Schultz receiving the ax with many speculating that it is because he turned on Hillary Clinton. You can watch video of that memorable moment below". Well, of course msnbc is in the bag for Clinton. Is this is what got him fired? Could be (3:04).

Video2: Ed addresses being fired. 7/31/2015 (3:03).

SWTD #305, KO #5.

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.

Current TV Shoots Self in Foot By Dismissing Olbermann (Corporate Democrats Silence Keith Again!)

For now, it is important only to again acknowledge that joining them was a sincere and well-intentioned gesture on my part, but in retrospect a foolish one. That lack of judgment is mine and mine alone, and I apologize again for it ~ Keith Olbermann on his depature from Current TV (via Twitter), 3/30/2012.

Current TV debuted a new program last night hosted by disgraced former NY governor Eliot Spitzer called "Viewpoint". At first I thought, "This is odd, where's Keith?". Then I figured that they were debuting this new program in Keith's time slot so viewers who tuned in specifically to watch Keith (like me), would continue to watch "Viewpoint" when they moved it to it's regular time slot on Monday (following Jennifer Granholm's "The War Room", I presumed).

Given Keith's history of clashing with management wherever he has previously worked, all the news stories are saying it was no surprise that Current decided to dismiss him. And there are also the reports that Keith was upset with technical difficulties on his program (difficulties that led him to start broadcasting from a completely black set). So, perhaps I should have seen this coming. Regardless, I was still shocked when I read the email from Newsmax this morning that announced Keith and Current were parting ways (I'm subscribed to several Rightwing newsletters).

I assumed that Current was aware of Keith's history and planned to avoid his notorious "clashes with management" problem by putting him in charge. When hired by Current Olbermann was named "Current Media's chief news officer" and given an equity stake in the company. In my mind this meant they were committing seriously to Keith... because extraditing themselves from this relationship would be extraordinarily difficult (and quite expensive).

Indeed, I think it could break Current if they paid him to leave like MSNBC did (Keith received his FULL salary for the remaining 2 years on his MSNBC contract). This explains why Current is claiming Keith was in "breach" of his contract... for taking several unscheduled days off. According to Meidaite, "technical problems beset the program, and since then, Olbermann has been hosting his show from what appears to be an endless black void". The no-show days were intended to encourage Current to fix the technical problems.

Keith, in his role as "Chief News Officer" wanted Current to succeed, and viewed these technical difficulties as an impediment to that success. Although, as Chief News Officer, I don't know why he couldn't have just ordered the problems fixed. Certainly I believe he should have been able to. Apparently he didn't have as free a reign as the title "Chief News Officer" implies.

What went wrong, a Politico story explains, is a repeat of the MSNBC situation where Keith clashed with MSNBC president Phil Griffin. Politico reports that, "Olbermann had a particularly tense relationship with David Bohrman, the former CNN executive who was brought in as Current president last summer, following the departure of Mark Rosenthal, an executive with whom Olbermann got along well".

A 7/28/2011 "Deadline New York" article by Executive Editor David Lieberman reveals, "Mark Rosenthal decided to leave because [Current co-founder] Joel Hyatt was crowding him in... [Hyatt] wanted to run Current again after Rosenthal recruited Keith Olbermann to come on board. ... Hyatt's desire to run the operation reached the point where he and Rosenthal agreed a few months ago to be co-CEOs... But the the channel's too small to require two chiefs. What's more, Rosenthal had held bigger jobs by himself when he was CEO of Interpublic Media and COO of MTV Networks. He was a board member at Current when Hyatt asked him to step in and professionalize the programming, marketing, affiliate sales, ad sales, and research efforts..."

My conclusion is that Joel Hyatt stepping in and elbowing out Mark Rosenthal is what lead to Keith's firing. And, yes, perhaps Keith should have known better, given Hyatt's past association with the The Democratic Leadership Council. (Wikipedia notes that "Hyatt was a founding member of the U.S. Senate Democratic Leadership Circle and was a member of that group from 1981 to 1986. He was the Democratic National Committee's assistant treasurer from 1981 to 1983").

Given this information concerning Hyatt (information I was previously unaware of until researching this story), it's no surprise Olbermann and Hyatt would clash. Because, as explained by Wikipedia, the DLC "has become unpopular within many progressive and liberal political circles such as the organizations Center for American Progress, Democracy for America, and [progressive blogs like] the Daily Kos... Some critics claim the strategy of triangulation between the political left and right to gain broad appeal is fundamentally flawed. In the long run, so opponents say, this strategy results in concession after concession to the opposition, while alienating traditionally-allied voters".

Count me in as a Liberal who strongly dislikes the DLC. It's the corporate wing of the Democratic Party. NO WONDER Hyatt, the president Hyatt hired (Bhorman) and Keith didn't get along! IMO Hyatt should have butted out and let Mark Rosenthal do the job they hired him to do. At least Hyatt should have consulted Keith before hiring Bhorman... seeing as Countdown was the lynchpin of the network's new format. What Current needed was a president who allowed Keith to run things as he saw fit. That, or Hyatt should have objected to the hiring of Keith from the get-go. This whole debacle is clearly Hyatt's fault. He's the one who put himself in a position where a confrontation with Keith was virtually a foregone conclusion.

It's my opinion that Current has shot itself in the foot with this boneheaded move... and Tim Goodman, writing for The Hollywood Reporter, agrees. In his Friday article he predicts that we can "bet on Olbermann to be around longer". That is, Current will fail while Olbermann will find employment as a political commentator elsewhere. Goodman explains his conclusion, stating, "now, let's disabuse those who think he's unemployable given his track record of going someplace and then leaving not too long after, burned bridges and accusations littering the highway behind him. That reputation of his hasn't stopped anyone yet. And it won't in the future. Olbermann's delivered ratings wherever he's been - most recently his defining stint at MSNBC and then Current. If you want to equate him to a diva wide receiver in the NFL (or quarterback or whatever), that's fine. If you're a sports fan, you know that those divas always find a home and always get paid".

Keith's response to the firing, via Twitter: Mr. Gore and Mr. Hyatt, instead of abiding by their promises and obligations and investing in a quality news program, finally thought it was more economical to try to get out of my contract. It goes almost without saying that the claims against me in Current's statement are untrue and will be proved so in the legal actions I will be filing against them presently (Huffington Post Keith Olbermann Fired By Current TV; Replaced By Eliot Spitzer by Jack Mirkinson, The Huffington Post 3/30/2012).

My response is... it's back to MSNBC for me. I'm don't think I'm going to watch Eliot Spitzer. He's OK, but Current hiring him to host the lynchpin show for their network is unbelievably stupid. I feel bad for The Young Turks host Cenk Uygur (and gang). Cenk left his gig in the 6pm slot at MSNBC on 7/20/2011 because "he had been told he was too combative towards those in power" and had been instructed to "tone it down".

Cenk's move to Current seemed ideal, because he got to bring along all his friends (from the "Young Turks") and was able to speak his mind (no MSNBC censorship). When I heard about what happened with Cenk Uygur, I thought... that makes sense, given Current's hiring of another individual who speaks his mind (and was let go from his last gig for that reason)... now we've got two strong independent minded Liberals who speak back to power on the same network. "Bravo Current" I thought... AT THE TIME.

The statement released by Current founders Joel Hyatt and Al Gore reads (in part), "Current was also 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". So they're claiming that Keith was uncooperative and disrespectful. Again, didn't they know that working with Olbermann might be difficult when they decided to enter into this relationship?

Dismissing Keith and abruptly replacing him with the inferior (no disrespect intended) Spitzer, especially when Keith was only trying to do what was best for Current, does not, in my opinion, represent loyalty to Current viewers. Difficulties should have been anticipated and they should have been worked out... THAT would have shown loyalty to viewers who followed Keith from MSNBC to Current.

What gives, Al Gore? I thought Current was serious about challenging MSNBC... which is becoming the "establishment" Left channel. Current could have been the REAL progressive channel (instead of another "Liberal" channel run by DLC/Corporate types like MSNBC), but, clearly Current has decided, in letting Olbermann go, that's not the strategy they're going to use to attract viewers any longer.

So, why the heck should people watch Current now? Keith Olbermann provided that reason, and there isn't much of one anymore, in my opinion. I'm disappointed Gore didn't oppose Hyatt's meddling... unless he's in agreement with Hyatt. Then I'm disappointed with him for that reason. Which is probably the case, given the fact that Gore, like Clinton, is also a DLC/Corporate Democrat. At least Gore was hands-off and didn't interfere like Hyatt (although Gore should have said something when Hyatt elbowed out Rosenthal).

I wish Keith luck in his lawsuit against Current, even if that means the destruction of Current and the end of "The Young Turks". The Young Turks was my second (now first) favorite Current program, but if Keith was wronged (and I believe he was) he is due justice. Sorry Cenk, I hope it doesn't come to that. I'll keep watching the "Young Turks" as long as Current remains on the air... unless Hyatt and Bohrman decide to fire him too... for being to outspoken/difficult. In conclusion, I say what we need is a REAL progressive news channel RUN by progressives. I'm sick of the Corporate Democrats being in charge.

Video Description: Cenk Uygur (host of The Young Turks) explains why he turned down a new, significantly larger MSNBC contract after hosting a prime-time show on the network that was beating CNN in the ratings. [It was because he wouldn't play ball with Corporate Democrats].

SWTD #111, KO #3.

Countdown to Keith Olbermann

Stop organizing life around the people who don't get the joke. Fuck them if they don't get a joke ~ Bill Maher (dob 1/20/1956) American stand-up comedian, television host, political commentator, author and actor on the 1/21/2011 episode of his HBO program "Real Time", referring to Keith Olbermann's Worst Person in the World" segment and his departure from MSNBC earlier the same evening.

The detractors of Liberal pundit Keith Olbermann cheered when he announced he was leaving MSNBC on 1/21/2011. Loyal fans such as myself were shocked at the abruptness of his departure. Yes, I was aware of his clashes with management, but I also knew that Countdown was MSNBC's highest rated show, and that Keith still had almost two years left on his contract.

After a few miserable weeks mourning the loss of the awesome progressive pundit word leaked that Mr. Olbermann would be returning to his role as champion of the American people via Al Gore's Current TV. I (metaphorically) jumped for joy upon hearing the news! The only question that remained was HOW LONG would Keith be off the air? MSNBC would probably prohibit Keith from jumping back into the fray for as long as they could; because they knew that the sooner Keith returned the more viewers they would lose; they wanted time to build an audience and acceptance for Keith's replacement, Lawrence O'Donnell. I admit I like Lawrence's show, but I'm going to follow Keith to Current TV.

In case you did not know, Keith makes his triumphant return TODAY (Monday, June 20, 2011) on channel 358 on DirecTV and channels 196 and 406 on Dish Network. The program will still be called "Countdown" and the time slot will also remain the same... 7pm Central time. Be sure not to miss this historic event! I like Lawrence's show OK, but I'll tune into Keith first and catch the repeat of "The Last Word" later.

150 days will have passed since Keith Olbermann announced he was leaving on 1/21/2011 until his return on 6/20/2011. 105 of those days were weekdays on which new episodes of Countdown COULD have aired. Seeing as the name of the program remains the same, I'm assuming that the format will also remain the same. This means fans can look forward to the return of Keith's insightful and passionate "Special Comment" and the intentionally hyperbolic "Worst Person in the World" segment. Regarding the Worst Person segment - his critics seem to not get it. Either intentionally (so they have something to bash Mr. Olbermann for) or because they are just that dense.

Following are some comments regarding the aforementioned segment I pulled from a blog dedicated to hating on Mr. Olbermann, the first from the blog proprietor...

Willis Hart: For years, Keith Olbermann has been doing this idiotic shtick entitled, "Worst Persons in the World". He claims that it was never meant to be taken literally, that it [is] in fact a metaphor. Never mind the fact that the tone of his voice, his self-righteous indignation, etc., made it actually SOUND like he means it... (1/20/2011 AT 4:26pm).

And just recently another commenter on the same blog voiced a similar opinion regarding Keith's Worst Person segment.

Dennis Marks: Olbermann is one of those human cartoons. How can anyone take him seriously at all when he goes on about how someone is the "worst person in the world" for being a talking head on another network who happens to beat him in ratings. [An obvious reference to Bill-O.] (6/18/2011 AT 2:38pm).

The proprietor of Contra O'Reilly, who believes Keith Olbermann to be "a mean-spirited, cowardly, paranoid son of a bitch whose forte is strictly to throw bombs/hyperbole from the comfort of his studio", says Keith Olbermann's Worst Person segment is ad hominem. But Keith Olbermann has made it clear that the title "The Worst Person in the World" is not intended literally and is intentional hyperbole.

Keith Olbermann has explained where the idea came from.

KO: They aren't really the worst persons in the world, of course... The epithet tracks directly to [among others] George Carlin... who startled me decades ago by the simple but irrefutable argument - the astonishing observation hidden inside the safety of a joke - that by the process of ranking, there truly had to be, somewhere, the worst doctor in the world. More terrifying still, he noted, "Somebody has an appointment to see him tomorrow!"...

When I pointed this out to the WTNP Blogger he said, "I have seen many of Mr. Olbermann's worst persons segments and for a lot of them he clearly ISN'T kidding around - he's pissed". This is a prime example of what I was talking about when I suggested that Keith's critics are "just that dense". Only the TITLE of the segment is a "joke", the actual offenses being highlighted are VERY real. The targeted individuals have actually done things which most people (or Liberals, at least) will find objectionable.

The individuals named aren't murders or rapists, so they aren't literally the Worst Persons in the world, but neither are their offenses a "joke". I think anyone who has seen the segment and isn't a idiot should be able to understand what the joke is. But obviously, for whatever reason, the Keith haters still use this against him. I agree with Bill Maher who said, "fuck them if they don't get a joke".

Also, the charge that the Worst Person segment is ad hominem is blatantly false. Wikipedia says that an ad hominem is "an attempt to link the truth of a claim to a negative characteristic or belief of the person advocating it". In the Worst Person segment Keith is highlighting outrageous and despicable things said and done which NEED to be highlighted. has never concluded that anyone is guilty of doing something despicable because, for instance, they're a fat drug-abusing hypocrite (in the case of Rush Limbaugh).

He may have called Rush a fat drug-abusing hypocrite, but that charge was NEVER used to "prove" Rush was the worst person in the world. I think anyone who describes this segment as "ad hominem" doesn't really understand what "ad hominem" means. The Worst Person charges always stand on their own and have never been "proven" with ad hominems.

Finally, there is one additional accusation from Blogger WTNPH that I'd like to address: on 11/23/2010 the Hartster said...

Willis Hart: Edward R. Murrow covered the London blitzkrieg in 1940 - out on those very same London city streets, day after day after day. What, folks, has Mr. Olbermann ever covered (other than his ass, I'm saying)? I mean, seriously here, has he ever even been out of the studio? That, me-buckos, is at least one major distinction between these two news "reporters".

In response I said, "this is, by far, your lamest anti-Olberman argument yet. He hasn't put his life in danger to cover a story, so he isn't a "real" reporter? [Olbermann's program is] a political OPINION show - and a damn fine one at that. Formulating political opinions doesn't require you to put your life in danger. For you to suggest otherwise is completely idiotic".

Also, while Keith is a fan of Edward R. Murrow, he does not consider himself the "reincarnation" of the man (another charge that that has been leveled on the WTNPH blog). Being a fan of someone BUT not emulating their life exactly (even if you happen to work in a similar news-related profession) does not make someone a fraud. When Keith Olbermann started Countdown he said...

KO: Our charge for the immediate future is to stay out of the way of the news.... News is the news. We will not be screwing around with it... As times improve and the war [in Iraq] ends we will begin to introduce more and more elements familiar to my style.

Clearly Keith Olbermann does not view himself as a serious news reporter on par with Edward R. Murrow. He's a pundit who puts forth his opinion regarding the political news of the day. Frankly I believe Mr. Olbermann does a fantastic job in his chosen niche. He does not need to do a damn thing to gain credibility as a serious news reporter because he isn't trying to be a serious news reporter! He's a political pundit, nothing more - not that there is anything wrong with that.

After Keith left MSNBC, Willis claimed that Keith Olbermann's "nightmare has just begun", and that "never again will he ever get a format like this; a show in which he doesn't have to debate people [and can engage in] hit-and-run style journalism". Hey, I acknowledge that Current TV probably has a smaller audience than MSNBC, which has a smaller audience than Fox Nooz. I'm sure the Keith bashers will bring this up frequently following the re-launch of Countdown on the Al Gore (and Joel Hyatt) network. None-the-less WTNPH was dead wrong because KEITH IS BACK - and I'm confident that his presence on the network will boost it's ratings significantly.

My prediction is that hiring Keith Olbermann was a smart move by the Current TV executives that will pay significant dividends.

Note: For the record this post, in tribute to the Worst Person segment, contains some hyperbole. I, for instance, do not truly believe that the re-launch of Countdown is "historic". As to what else is hyperbole versus what I genuinely believe... I'll leave that intentionally ambiguous.

SWTD #83, wDel #5, KO #2.

Welcome to My Shrine to Keith Olbermann

Are we so heartless that we let the rich live and the poor die and everybody in between become wracked with fear - fear not of disease but of Deductibles? ... What, on the eternal list of priorities, precedes health? What more obvious role could government have than the defense of the life of each citizen? ...Government's essential role [should be to] facilitate it, reduce its cost, broaden its availability, improve my health and yours... ~ Keith Olbermann in an program-length special comment, "Health Care Reform: Saving American Lives", Countdown 10/7/2009.

Even if you aren't a huge Keith Olbermann like I am, you may have heard that Keith abruptly parted ways with MSNBC on 1/21/2011, ending his highly rated news-commentary program for unspecified reasons. From what I've heard differences of opinion with management were to blame.

When Keith and MSNBC agreed on 2/16/2007 that Countdown would continue to air through the 2012 presidential election - MSNBC president Phil Griffin proclaimed, "Countdown is our signature program" and that, "Keith Olbermann is at the core of MSNBC's current success". With this statement Phil Griffin appeared to acknowledge the fact that MSNBC would be nothing without Olbermann. Before Countdown MSNBC had settled on the idea that they should try to be another CNN. It wasn't until after Keith's program proved so successful that MSNBC decided they should become a Left-leaning alternative to Fox.

Given the fact that the success and growth of MSNBC can be directly attributed to Keith Olbermann, I think Mr. Griffin exhibited extremely poor judgment and total lack of appreciation for everything Keith has done for the network. According to Nielsen, Countdown was the network's top-rated program (with 1.1 million viewers). But, instead of doing whatever it took to keep his star happy, Mr. Griffin was apparently looking for an excuse to jettison Keith. Things came to a head after Keith was suspended for making campaign contributions to several Democrats. Phil Griffin told Keith's manager that they were "at war".

Personally I didn't have a problem with Olbermann's donations. Mr. Olbermann isn't, nor does he pretend to be, a non-partial facts-sans-opinion political reporter. Countdown was a political-commentary/opinion program. Phil Griffin realized that the success of Countdown was due to Keith's decidedly Left-leaning opinions, which is why MSNBC added Rachel Maddow and Ed Schultz to their lineup. It is also why they replaced Keith with Lawrence O'Donnell - a self-described "practical European socialist" who reportedly said, "I am a socialist. I live to the extreme left, the extreme left of you mere liberals".

One of the rumors regarding Keith's departure was that the "Comcast honchos did not like Keith's defiance and the way he played in the sandbox" (TMZ 1/22/2011). Comcast purchased a controlling share (51%) in NBC/Universal (MSNBC's parent company) on 1/28/2011. An LA Time Business article from 1/21/2011 says, "conspiracy theorists [are] speculating that Olbermann jumped before he was pushed by his new bosses".

The Comcast/NBC-Universal merger needed approval from the FCC due to the huge media monopoly the union created. The lone FCC dissenter, Democrat Michael Copps said he thought the deal was "damaging and potentially dangerous" because it "opens the door to the cable-ization of the open Internet [and creates] the potential for walled gardens, toll booths, content prioritization, [and] access fees to reach end users". His conclusion was that, "a stake in the heart of independent content production is now very real".

Given the fact that the MSNBC lineup is still very much Left-leaning, I'm going to conclude that Keith did not leave MSNBC because the Comcast bigwigs wanted him gone. That said, I oppose monopolies and am very disappointed that the FCC approved this merger. I believe this merger threatens Net Neutrality and that Mr. Copps' fears will prove to be accurate.

Some of the haters have stated that the reason they dislike Olbermann was because he has a "big ego". According to what I've read so does Phil Griffin, which is why they clashed. It's my opinion that Phil Griffin (for this reason) was a poor choice to lead MSNBC. Whether or not Keith has a "big ego" - I frankly do not care. The only thing that mattered to me was that I found his program highly enjoyable. When I watched Countdown I was convinced that Keith is a very principled, moral and humble person.

I based this conclusion on a number of observations, the primary one being his strong advocating for government intervention in making sure all Americans have access to quality health care. Keith shared with his viewers his dismay that the only reason he was able to pay for his father's health care needs was because of his good fortune. He made it clear he is truly concerned that so many Americans go bankrupt or die for purely financial reasons, and how wrong it is that health care insurance is a for-profit industry (when, in every other industrialized nation health care insurance is not-for profit). This is why Keith used his MSNBC platform to raise money for free health clinics.

Keith Olbermann is a man with deeply held convictions regarding right and wrong. Like myself, he has sided with the political party that best represents his worldview. The Republican Party opposed (and continues to oppose) the social safety net programs championed by (a majority of) the Democratic Party. The Republican Party hates Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and any flavor of health care insurance reform (as illustrated by the Paul Ryan budget).

Because these things require that the wealthy elites whom they represent pay slightly more in taxes. European socialism, which has worked so well for our friends across the Atlantic (citizens of those countries don't go bankrupt due to medical bills) is somehow "evil". I categorically reject the notion that a higher standard of living for everybody is "evil". Over the years (of watching Countdown) Keith has made it clear to me that we are on the same team. This is the team that opposes oligarchy and is working to build a "we" society, not a "me" society.

This brings me to the reason why I composed this post and put up my webpage dedicated to all things Keith. The "Moderate Independent" blogger Willis Hart is one of the Olbermann haters I mentioned earlier. It appears as though one of the primary objectives of this blogger is to relentlessly bash Keith Olbermann. According to this individual, "Countdown with Keith Olbermann is the most biased news program in television history". Biased in favor of a government that acts in the interest of a majority of it citizens and not just the wealthy elites, I say. Which, in my mind, is a good thing.

I did a Google site search and counted a total of 32 anti-Olbermann posts on his blog. The first was on 02/14/2008 and the latest (but undoubtedly not the last) was posted on 05/15/2011. Also, after examining the 32 posts Google returned, I counted a total of 26 unique insults Mr. Hart hurled at Mr. Olbermann (see list below). Is it just me, or does anyone else find the shear volume of disparaging posts and insults more than a little odd? Especially given that many of the posts reference events on specific episodes? Clearly Hart is (or was before it stopped airing on MSNBC) a regular viewer. There are a number of Fox News pundits which I do not like - which is why I don't watch them (not very often, in any case). So why is William obsessed with Keith Olbermann?

He watches, and criticizes Fox pundits like Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity, but to nowhere near the extent he criticizes Mr. Olbermann. In fact, early on (back when I did not realize the exact extent to which he loathed Mr. Olbermann) I made some comments defending Keith. That resulted in a post critical of both Keith AND myself (8/27/2010). William accused me of not being a free thinker, and asserted that I was a part of "the problem" due to the fact that I only listened to Olbermann - because he reaffirms what I already believe.

To these accusations I say, baloney! While it is true that like Olbermann because I agree with him (or he agrees with me), I also watch and listen to other commentators who invite guests on their programs who disagree with them. People like Thom Hartmann (who Willis has also bashed). I believe discussion, debate and independent investigation are all valuable methods of arriving at the truth. And I also agree that it is a "big part of our problem these days" that some people only listen to political commentators they agree with - and never consider alternate points of view. Especially given the fact that a lot of these pundits are lying to them (Fox Nooze scumbags).

By the way, the "shrine" to Keith is partially tongue-in-cheek. I don't actually "worship" him. Also, the reference to my "man-crush" comes from a comment made by a rabid Liberal-hating Conservative that frequents Hart's blog (a particularly fulsome individual who calls himself "Rusty S"). He accused me of having a "man-crush" on Keith Olbermann (which I do not). I simply admire Keith (for the previously mentioned reasons) and look forward to his return on Al Gore's Current TV on Monday June 20th 7pm Central time.

After Keith was "fired" I'm sure many on the Right rejoiced. On 1/21/2011 Rusty commented, "Looks like Olbermann Leaned Foward and fell out of the building. Comcast takes over NBC, next day Keithie is gone" (and then he added, "Is fat Ed next?"). Well, now "Keithie" is BACK, so in your face! Not only that, but I heard MSNBC paid him his full salary of 7 million dollars for each of the two years remaining on his contract. If MSNBC had a legitimate reason to "fire" Keith, would they have paid him 14 million to NOT do his show?

Regarding his move to Current TV Mr. Olbermann has said, "I wanted to go to a place where journalistic integrity and analytical honesty would never be compromised by corporate synergy. A place where no one would ever proclaim the ultimate dishonesty: that balancing a lie for every truth was somehow fair. I found that place in Current TV. And even though they told me I'd be in charge, and they gave me a title and an equity stake... I have still been delightfully startled at the free hand I've been given to assemble the finest staff ... in television news".

So, mark your calendars for an event you most surely will not want to miss. You can tape Lawrence O'Donnell's program. The new program will still be called "Countdown with Keith Olbermann". According to Keith the show will "retain it's edge and the pointedness of it's commentary". This sounds like a program that Willis will "love to hate" even more (I suspect he'll be riveted to his set every weeknight at 8pm Eastern time). In the meantime, please enjoy my shrine to Keith Olbermann. Please feel free to share your thoughts regarding this post and my shrine. To return to the shrine in the future please click on the picture of Keith Olbermann on my sidebar.

Insults hurled at Keith Olbermann by Willis Hart
1. Blankety-blank (10/22/2009)
2. Blowhard (10/02/2009)
3. Bush derangement syndrome, sufferer of (01/16/2009)
4. Coward, Flat-out (06/14/2010)
5. Cowardly (08/17/2010)
6. Creep, Total (5/31/2009)
7. Creepy (10/22/2009)
8. Dishonest (08/17/2010)
9. Douche-Bag (9/26/2014)
10. Full of shit (09/13/2010)
11. Guttersnipe (10/18/2010)
12. Ideologue (05/31/2009)
13. Mean-spirited (01/16/2009, 08/17/2010)
14. Nasty (08/17/2010)
15. Numb-nuts (04/17/2009)
16. Paranoid (10/22/2009)
17. Partisan Hack (4/17/2009)
18. Partisan, Over the top (12/28/2010)
19. Partisan Stooge (4/19/2009, 09/26/2010)
20. Sanctimonious (12/28/2010)
21. Self-righteous (12/28/2010)
22. Shameless (11/15/2010)
23. SOB (11/5/2009)
24. Son of a bitch (5/31/2009, 6/13/2009)
25. Stooge (3/06/2009)
26. Thin-skinned, Increasingly (11/15/2010)
27. Thin-skinned lunatic (10/22/2009)

See Also
[1] Keith Olbermann's Special Comment: The Republican Response (a work of satire) by TribeApologist, The Daily Kos 10/8/2009
[2] Health care reform: Saving American lives - An extended special comment by Keith Olbermann, Transcript from the 10/07/2009 airing of "Coundown".
[3] Books authored by Keith Olbermann on Amazon.

Video: Senator Al Franken opposed the NBC/Comcast Merger; warns that the merger will lead to higher bills for consumers.

SWTD #79, wDel #4, KO #1.

Supporters of Socialism Agree That Democrats are Horrible Compromisers

Ours is a government of checks and balances. The Mafia and crooked businessmen make out checks, and the politicians and other compromised officials improve their bank balances ~ Steve Allen (12/26/1921 to 10/30/2000) was an American television personality, musician, actor, comedian, and writer.

I turned the TV on a little early today and caught part of the end of Hardball, even though I usually I don't flip on the boob tube until 7pm when Keith Olbermann starts. Chris Matthews was discussing the Congressional Democrat's betrayal of their constituents, a large majority of whom support a government run insurance option. A Democratic Congresswoman (I forget who) defended the ditching of the public option by mentioning, several times, how this was the best they could do, because the Democrats are a large tent party, with progressive, moderate, and conservative corporate Democrats - and that meant that compromise was necessary.

Allowing people 55 years of age to buy into Medicare is a good idea, but I disagree that adding this provision and dropping the public option is an acceptable trade. Not that the public option was anything to get excited about, after they continually watered it down to the point where it would cover less than 2% of the population. Even with all the caveats that were attached, the insurance companies were still threatened. Corporate Democrats and Independent turncoat Democrats (Joe Lieberman), eager for more bribe money, sold out their constituents and helped kill the public option.

Republicans, on the other hand, stood by their constituents (the insurance cartels) and delivered to them the prospect of even more profits by mandating the public purchase their overpriced product and support multi-million dollar salaries for their CEOs. The anti-trust protection, first out, is now back in. Denial of coverage for preexisting conditions will apparently be disallowed, although the cartels will be allowed to charge these people more.

Unfortunately I'm one of those people. Eventually I assume I'll become one of the 45,000 people who die each year due to lack of insurance. That's a hell of a lot of people, so I am hardly in a unique position. As such, this post is not a plea for sympathy or well wishes. I doubt I have to worry about that in any case, as lately my blog, which I thought had a couple of readers, has gone several posts with scant attention paid. In any case, I probably have at least a couple of years before things really start to go downhill. At least the socialists who live with me hope that is the case.

On a positive note, if people 55 to 64 can buy into Medicare there are other members of my family that will benefit from that provision. And, even if there were a public option I'm sure that Tennessee (the state where I live), would opt out. So I guess there is no reason to be depressed about these developments after all!

SWTD #35

An Arguing Idiot's Perverted Common Sense

Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives ~ John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) English philosopher, political economist and influential liberal thinker of the 19th century.

Program: Countdown with Keith Olbermann 9/24/2009.

Subject: World's worst person.

Winner: Lonesome Rhodes Beck. Referring to The Constitution, Article One, Section 9...

"The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person".

Glenn Beck Says: That's right. The founders actually put a price on coming to this country: $10 a person. Apparently they felt like there was a value to being able to live here. Not anymore. These days we can't ask anything of immigrants - including that they abide by our laws.

Keith Olbermann Responds: A clause requiring the continuation of slavery, he thinks is about immigration. He may be the dumbest man on the planet.

My Commentary: Shouldn't Glenn Beck's new book be titled "Arguing with Myself", instead of "with Idiots"? Or "My Arguments Prove I'm an Idiot"? Is Glenn really this dumb, or does he just think his fans are? How was he even able to write a book, let alone four (since November of 2007). Clearly the guy has problems simply READING. I Googled "Ghostwriter" and "Glenn Beck", but all I found was a headline concerning Sarah Palin hiring a ghostwriter for her memoirs.

Before the self-proclaimed book czar's latest anti-Obama screed he had the gall to write a book "inspired" by Thomas Paine's Common Sense. Apparently Beck was inspired by the title and obvious (to Beck) anti-government polemic contained within. When Mr. Paine writes, "society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness" and concludes that government is a "necessary evil" (because it restrains our vices), this translates for Beck as a warning against the dangers of "big government".

But the government Thomas Paine was railing against was the monarchy of Great Britain, not one of, for, and by the people. When Mr. Paine wrote Common Sense the notion that the people of a nation could govern themselves was unheard of. Which is why fellow founding fathers George Washington and Thomas Jefferson referred to our new representative democracy as a "liberal experiment".

Thomas Paine may have said, "government is best which governs least" (a quote conservatives appreciate), although he certainly wasn't a conservative or a libertarian (as Beck claims to be) by today's standards. Some of Mr. Paine's revolutionary ideas included a progressive income tax targeting the wealthy "to give the poor bootstraps by which they could pull themselves up", a fund to provide housing and food for the poor, a pension for all workers in their old age, public employment and a 90 percent reduction of armaments by all nations to ensure world peace.

Do these sound like ideas that would be championed by the Republican Party of today? Or, would their response to such suggestions be that redistribution of wealth by governmental theft is socialism - and that if we're weak on national defense we may as well surrender to the Socialist Marxist Commies and/or Muslim terrorists (and become atheists and/or Muslim converts, presumably)?

Glenn puts himself forward as a populist, but being a Libertarian makes this claim quite dubious in my opinion. Wikipedia defines (classical) populism as being "derived from the Latin word populus, which means people in English (in the sense of nation, as in: The Roman People (populus Romanus), not in the sense of multiple individual persons".

That we are a nation of individuals and not at all a "we society" - as Michael Moore suggests we should strive to be in his documentary film "Sicko" - is the essence of Libertarianism. (BTW I don't give a damn what the Populist Party of America thinks, Libertarianism and Populism are at odds with one another. Libertarians, the same as Republicans, would be against all of Paine's "revolutionary ideas" detailed above).

According to Beck "The populist sentiment is Common Sense" (a direct quote from Beck's own website), which is correct, but not at all what he is doing (promoting a populist sentiment). What Beck is doing with his "common sense" book is fraudulently recasting Thomas Paine as someone SHARING his anti-"big government socialism" point of view. Which is an out-and-out perversion of Mr. Paine's legacy. The "idiot" book is clearly more of the same nonsense. With Beck what it is really all about is protecting his millions.

In fact, it is fairly easy to discern that Beck is a fraud. Look at who he's attacking - labor unions and ACORN, two populist organizations! American Rights at Work, a union advocacy group truly states that "Unions, by fighting for higher standards for workers, businesses, families, the environment, and public health and safety, have helped to build the middle class and make sure the economy works for everyone". That's populism.

ACORN advocates "for low and moderate-income families by working on neighborhood safety, voter registration, health care, affordable housing, and other social issues". That's populism.

By Beck's own admission populism is common sense. But by Beck's own actions it is obvious he doesn't support populism. Although, it is common sense for him to promote the interests of America's super wealthy, the modern-day equivalent of Great Britain's aristocracy. He has done so successfully (people are buying his books and watching his show) and he has been rewarded handsomely.

A positive review of the "idiot" book declares it to be "chock-a-block with all the facts and data one needs to successfully and authoritatively rebut the Left's preposterous proletarian propaganda". "Proletarian propaganda", is, of course, code for "rhetoric in support of working people", or POPULISM.

Populism is preposterous, and needs to be attacked. That's according to a positive review of the "idiot" book. And Glenn Beck is a fraud and a moron. That's according to ME. Although, as Beck's earnings illustrate, there are quite a few gullible fools eager to buy into his faux populism. In regards to such people, Thomas Paine said, "When men yield up the privilege of thinking, the last shadow of liberty quits the horizon", and "Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it".

I'll leave you with a deft observation regarding Glenn Beck...

Glenn Beck likes arguing, but has a deep-seated hatred for logic ~ Stephen Colbert, 7/29/2009 on the "Colbert Report"

Further Reading
[1] Thomas Paine (1737-1809) A Sort History by Eric Foner.
[2] Thomas Paine and the Promise of America by Harvey J. Kaye, Thom Hartmann's "Independent Thinker" Book of the Month Review, BuzzFlash 2/2/2006.
[3] Senate Votes to Deny Funds To ACORN by Andrew Taylor, Associated Press 9/14/2009 (Reason to Read: ACORN alleges "prostitute & pimp" videos were doctored).

SWTD #23

Will Senator Ted Kennedy's Dream Live On?

...This is the cause of my life - new hope that we will break the old gridlock and guarantee that every American - north, south, east, west, young, old - will have decent, quality healthcare as a fundamental right and not a privilege. We can meet these challenges with Barack Obama. Yes, we can, and finally, yes, we will ~ Senator Edward Kennedy (2/22/1932 - 8/25/2009) at the 2008 Democratic National Convention (8/25/2008).

Keith Olbermann and VT Senator Bernie Sanders discuss the recent passing of MA Senator Ted Kennedy and what it means for the prospect of healthcare reform - an excerpt from the August 26, 2009 broadcast of Countdown: (edited for brevity and clarity)

Keith: Senator Ted Kennedy first devoted himself to reforming healthcare when he discovered Boston public housing residents had to spend 5 hours getting to and waiting for emergency room care. That was in 1966. Two of his three children battled cancer. One, his son Edward Jr., lost a leg to it at the age of 12. In our first story tonight, the future of what Kennedy called the cause of his life - healthcare reform. The health of all Americans, especially those in need, preoccupied this Kennedy even before he entered the Senate.

Last month his committee passed his bill for reform, but Kennedy had been down this road before - lost the battle when the Clinton's tried in '94. Lost when he ran on it in 1980. Lost a battle with President Nixon over it. Last year he played kingmaker, anointing a new standard-bearer for the cause. And so it is reported that when this president has been asked why he pushes healthcare so hard, he responds, "I promised Teddy".

We're joined tonight by Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont. Great, thanks for your time tonight Senator, and our condolences on the loss of your colleague.

Sen. Sanders: Thank you Keith.

Keith: Tell us about the bill that the Kennedy committee passed, and about his concept of healthcare reform and where it stands now in his absence.

Sen. Sanders: Well, as you know, Kennedy's passion was that every single American have healthcare as a right of citizenship. He understood that there was something lacking in our country today, when we remain the only nation in the industrialized world that does not provide healthcare to all people, and yet we end up spending twice as much as any other country.

Where we are right now is, uh, Senator Kennedy's committee, which was led by Chris Dodd in his absence, has passed a pretty strong health care bill which, among other things, has a strong public option, which would substantially increase the number of community health centers in America, so that all Americans, in fact, would have access to a doctor, to dental care, to low cost prescription drugs; a greater emphasis on disease prevention and on quality care, and of course access for all Americans.

That was passed by the Senate Health Committee. But, as you also know, the Senate Finance Committee seems to be going nowhere in a hurry.

My view - and I think a lot of other people in the Senate think "enough is enough" - lets take the Senate health committee bill, if no Republicans are prepared to support it - and I certainly hope that some of them will have a change of heart with Senator Kennedy's death - and go it alone. We have 60 votes within the Senate, and we can defeat a Republican filibuster. We negotiate with the House, and we finally pass healthcare reform that this country has been waiting for for decades.

Keith: To the point you just raised - Senator Kennedy wrote that, "incremental measures won't suffice anymore". Is there any chance that his passing will at least inspire wavering Democrats in the Senate, and the so called "blue dogs" in the House, to stand fast for the kind of reform he was dedicated to?

Sen. Sanders: Well, I certainly hope so. You know, with a Democratic President, with 60 votes in the senate, and a strong vote in the House, it really is embarrassing if the Democrats can't pass strong healthcare reform. And what my view has been from the very beginning, if for whatever reason in the Senate, there are some Senators who don't want to support a public option, don't want strong health care reform - that's fine. At least vote to stop the Republican filibusters, which over and over again are holding up any kind of progress. And if they choose, if the Democrats choose to vote, some of them, against final passage, that's fine - we will have 50 votes, in any case, to pass strong legislation.

Keith: I apologize if this last question seems at all indelicate, but Mr. Obama's reply, "I promised Teddy" - will the President be able to deliver on that promise, or are we just going to end up with some sort of obscene bill, that, even if it is named after Senator Kennedy, just funnels more money to the insurance companies.

Sen. Sanders: Well, I think that all of us - those of us in the Congress and the American people - have got to stand tall right now - we need strong a strong grass roots effort to put steel into the backs of many of the members of Congress to have the guts to stand up to the insurance companies, the drug companies and the people who make billions off of healthcare, and finally say that every person in this country is going to receive quality healthcare and, in the process, save billions of dollars. We can do it, if we have the courage, and now is the time.

My Commentary: I've heard Senator Sanders make the case that we have 60 Democratic votes, and that every Democrat should vote for cloture - and I've agreed with him every time I heard him advocate the Democrats go that route. This time he made the same argument, but without Senator Kennedy we no longer have 60 votes.

In regards to the possibility of appointing an interim Senator until a special election can be held in 5 months, Keith said, "there seems to be reactions from the Boston and other newspapers in MA that Governor Patrick is attending to this and seems to have the support of the state legislature".

Let's hope we can get someone in to fill Senator Kennedy's seat and restore the Democrats 60-seat filibuster proof majority as soon as possible. Or that, to honor Senator Kennedy, some Republicans agree to vote to end the filibuster.

My opinion is that the MA legislature should change the law to allow the Governor to appoint an interim Senator until a special election can be held. If not, it will be at least 145 days (according to current MA law) until another senator can be seated.

I wasn't aware of this provision in MA law before, but, after reading up on the matter, it appears to have been a very bad idea. The law was changed in 2004 to prevent then Governor Mitt Romney from selecting an interim Senator if John Kerry were elected president. If John Kerry had won (which he would have, if not for the Republican theft of Ohio), Governor Romney's selection would have only been temporary. Now this decision could have some serious implications. Certainly some will cry foul if the Democrats, who changed the law only 4 years ago, change it again to benefit themselves.

It may not be good form, but I think we need to do what is necessary to insure health care legislation is passed. The Governor says he will sign a bill. Republicans only hold 10 percent of the MA Congressional seats. A mistake was made, but that shouldn't mean we allow Republican obstructionism to prevail. People are getting sick of Republican obstructionism. According to a recent CBS News/New York Times poll 72 percent of the American people want a public option.

If the Democrats fail to give the American people the change they voted for when they elected Barack Obama there will be consequences in 2010. According to a July 15th Huffington Post article, it is the "blue dog" Democrats in the House that will most likely lose seats if healthcare insurance reform fails - whether "failure" means no bill or a obscene Republican-compromised bill that funnels more money to the insurance companies. That being the case, WHY are the "blue dogs" not on board?

SWTD #14