Tea Party Stupid A Liability for Republicans

President Obama continues to outsmart, out-strategize and out-talk the Republicans in the debt-ceiling standoff ... Vice President Biden spent weeks entertaining discussions of massive spending cuts - as much as 3 trillion dollars in spending - that is now clear that the White House had no intention of ever actually agreeing to in the end - because the White House always knew that the Republicans would never agree to the White House tax revenue proposals ~ Lawrence O'Donnell (b. 11/7/1951) on the 7/13/2011 broadcast of his MSNBC program "The Last Word".

Critics of the president denigrate him by referring to him as a community organizer. For some it's an insult to his intelligence, meant to imply that he is in over his head. He isn't qualified to be president and does not know what he is doing. For others the term "community organizer" is a political dog whistle used to disguise their racism to individuals not hip to the most current code words.

"Community organizer" is code for, according to a 9/13/2011 Daily Kos blog post, "N-Word Lover". A certain individual who posts on a supposed Moderate blog I frequent uses the term quite often. He also refers to the president as "Obie". My guess was that "Obie" is code for "boy" (see the first comment here for an example of what I'm talking about).

The Right-wing Obama-haters also frequently refer to the president's use of teleprompters, even though Reagan and both bushes used them. The blog Pensito Review suggests that "racism is at the heart of rightwing disbelief that a black man would be as stunningly brilliant and yes, articulate, as Barack Obama". That sounds very probable to me.

I have posted on the subject of the teabag racists in the past. I agreed then (and still do now) with President Jimmy Carter who described the bigots as a "radical fringe element". But whether or not any particular Tea Partier is racist or not, there is one thing that is certain, which is Community Organizer smart trumps Tea Party stupid.

In the debt ceiling negotiations President Obama offered a four trillion dollar "grand bargain" which was to consist of 1 trillion in tax revenues and 3 trillion in cuts (including cuts to Social Security and Medicare), but as the president himself pointed out, "nothing is agreed to until everything is agreed to". He was signaling to Congressional Democrats and his base that they should not worry about cuts to our social safety net programs because the Republicans would not agree to everything ("everything being the 25% of the deal that was revenue increases). The purpose of offering so much was to appear reasonable to Moderates and Independents (which he needs to win re-election).

"The president's superior strategic maneuvering" is how Lawrence O'Donnell characterized the president's plan to gain the upper hand by appearing reasonable ("The Last Word" 7/13/2011). The Republican leadership knows they have no choice but to raise the debt ceiling, but are afraid of angering the Tea Party elements within their party which does not.

I propose we call this lack of ability to compromise and general ignorance regarding the workings of government "Tea Party Stupid". Absent the stupid the Republicans COULD have extracted some serious concessions from the President, but instead the question is who is going to capitulate and give the other side exactly what they want (which, in the president's case, would be an increase in the debt with zero other stipulations).

Acknowledging Republican Party leadership had been duped, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell characterized the three options offered by the president as "smoke and mirrors, take hikes, or default". Then he added, "Republicans choose none of the above". So, if they can accept no deal (not the "smoke and mirrors" deal and not the deal they proposed) AND since the debt ceiling MUST be raised - then raising the ceiling with no conditions is the only option left.

"I refuse to help Barack Obama get re-elected by marching Republicans into a position where we have co-ownership of a bad economy" McConnell said when explaining his party's idiotic refusal to accept ANY deal (even the one which handed Republicans virtually everything they want). The truth of the matter, however, is that they are scared of the stupid.

But the Republican leadership still needs to figure out how they can concede and still claim victory, or place all the blame on the president. They also need to convince House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (who, unlike Boehner and McConnell, is still saying "no deal, no way") to get with the program. If they fail to do this they risk bringing down the wrath of the Tea Party on their heads.

Mitch McConnell proposed allowing the President to pass three debt ceiling hikes (through the end of his term) which the Republicans could disapprove of - but then the president could veto (Youtube video). A clueless Boehner voiced his approval for the McConnell plan saying, "frankly I think Mitch has done good work".

McConnell and Boehner were hoping that, given Tea Party Stupid was the reason they were in this quandary, Tea Party Stupid could get them out of it. Unfortunately even the Tea Party was not quite dumb enough to fall for McConnell's copout. They knew McConnell was looking for a way to give the President exactly what he wants and still be able to claim the Republicans voted against it.

Conservative commentators were not fooled either. Michael Medved, writing for The Daily Beast on 7/14/2011, called the McConnell proposal "cowardly", although his article also uses the word "cunning" (cowardly but cunning). Personally I fail to see how such a transparent deceit could possibly be called "cunning".

This is a victory for Barack Obama no matter what happens next. In addition to using the Tea Party Stupid against the Republicans, he used the stupid to APPEAR reasonable and fool Moderates and Independents. Can the blog of a certain so-called Moderate be taken as proof that the President's ploy was successful? "I try and call it down the middle as often as possible... [and] I've totally got the scars to prove it" the self-described Moderate claims. These Blue Dog dopes praised Obama for placing entitlement cuts on the table. A 1/11/2011 blog post says "he's the one who's being serious and taking on his base".

But the offer was never genuine. If you recall these same types of rumors were flying around just prior to the President's 2011 State of the Union address. A 1/21/2011 CBS News article says "voters have approved of the president's recent moderate moves" and, as a result, "Obama's job approval rating stands at 49 percent, up from 45 percent in October". So, again, the president said things to appear Moderate, but didn't actually follow through. The takeaway lesson is that "nothing is agreed to until everything is agreed to".

In conclusion... I'm happy the President is kicking Republican ass in the negotiations, and that the 3 trillion in cuts, and the placing of entitlement reform on the table is all just a bluff. The good news is that the Tea Party loses and the Moderates are fooled (which will help the president get re-elected). The bad news is that AT BEST the only the only thing the Democrats will get will be a clean bill raising the debt ceiling. Maybe we'll get some tax revenues through the elimination of loophole and subsidies. If possible I'd really, really like to see the subsidies for the oil industry go. But I still think the President should have pushed for the elimination of the bush tax cuts the MINUTE he assumed office, and should have NEVER agreed to extend them. I pray that the next time they expire that this is it, and THEY ARE GONE FOR GOOD.

Republican Congresspersons Who Are Reconsidering Their Stance Re the Debt Ceiling

Maybe the debt ceiling was the wrong place to pick a fight, as it related to trying to get our country's house in order ~ Senator Bob Corker of Tennessee speaking on the Senate floor, 7/14/2011

Our problem is, we made a big deal about this for three months. How many Republicans have been on TV saying, "I am not going to raise the debt limit". We have no one to blame but ourselves ~ Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, as quoted in a 7/13/2011 New York Times article.

SWTD #85

The Idiocy of Moderation

Tell a man whose house is on fire to give a moderate alarm; tell the mother to gradually extricate her babe from the fire into which it has fallen; but urge me not to use moderation ~ William Lyon Phelps (2/2/1865 to 8/21/1943) An American author, critic and scholar who taught the first American university course on the modern novel. In addition to a radio show, he wrote a daily syndicated newspaper column, lectured frequently, and published numerous popular books and articles.

This rant came about in response to a post from so-called Moderate Willis Hart attacking, yet again, what he calls the "extreme Left". This post from the so-called Moderate was deceptively titled The Indecency of Extremism. I say "deceptive" because, one might think that, given the title, this individual would cite examples of arguments from both the "far Left" and the "radical right" that he finds "indecent". This isn't the case. Instead he whines exclusively about visiting a Left-leaning message board and being attacked when he defended John McCain against charges that he was "a North Vietnamese collaborator" (Which, as far as I can tell, may or may not be true).

The blogger says he pointed out that, while he is no McCain supporter (this was during his bid for the presidency), he felt he needed to point out the inaccuracies of this (supposed) extreme Leftist's argument. When I read Mr. Hart's post I was, naturally, insulted. After I laid out some of my issues with what Willis wrote another moderate chimed in to agree with Willis. I had suggested I might write a post for my blog, and title it "The Idiocy of Moderation". In response the OTHER Moderate repeated Willis' baloney about the problem being, "extremists on BOTH sides of the aisle who absolutely refuse to budge [from] their ideologically entrenched positions".

This, I say, is complete nonsense. I will get to my reasons why, but first I'm going to relate what my issues with the Moderate blogger's post are. to being with (and as I already said), the title of the post implies that the Hartster is going to clue his readers into the reasons why "extremists" on both sides are "indecent" - but that turns out to be a lie since the entire post is a whine about how Liberals attack him whenever he visits their message boards (a frequent complaint of his). This is a tad ironic given the fact that he often accuses a certain left-leaning pundit of having "thin skin".

Secondly, this accusation that John McCain is guilty of collaborationism that Willis implies originated with the extreme Left isn't true. When McCain ran for the Republican presidential nomination in 2000 the group Vietnam Veterans Against John McCain made "controversial allegations against Senator John McCain concerning his time as a prisoner of war in Vietnam". A video (see below) put out by the group features allegations from ex-Senator Bob Smith (a REPUBLICAN from New Hampshire) and Rep Robert Dornan (a REPUBLICAN from California). The group is not a Left-wing version of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (who made slanderous allegations regarding John Kerry's service in Vietnam).

In wrapping up his post Hart asks, "don't these people realize that you can defend somebody simply because it's the right thing to do and NOT because of political considerations?". He concludes, "it really doesn't seem that they do". The "these people" and the "they" that Hart refers to are Progressives. These are the "extremists" that Hart is indicting for the (supposed) ill treatment he was subjected to. As one of "these people" who Hart regularly slanders I take exception. I do realize you can defend someone for the reasons Hart gives.

During the video Congressional staffer Tracy Ursy says, "Certainly you do what you need to do to stay alive. Nobody would fault anybody for that", and I agree with that statement. I would not go so far as to say McCain is guilty of collaborationism. But I think it's pretty clear that he did all he could to keep all the facts from coming out. And I think it is legitimate reason to criticize him for these actions (in keeping the facts hidden).

Now, in regards to the allegations implied by Hart on numerous occasions and echoed by this other Moderate that I referenced earlier; that is, that "extremists" on both sides are responsible for the current budget crisis - I categorically reject this notion. It's part and parcel to the BIG LIE perpetrated by the Republicans - which is that the American people should blame both sides equally for the 14.32 trillion dollar national debt. Democrats and Republicans do NOT share equal responsibility for the 14.32 trillion dollar national debt. That debt is MOSTLY Reagan's and W's. Obama is adding to it now, but (1) he's doing it to prevent a depression, and (2) the wars on the books now, unlike with bush who ran them off budget.

Also, while the other previously mentioned Moderate believes "we are where we are because of extremists on BOTH sides of the aisle who absolutely refuse to budge on their ideologically entrenched positions", the fact is he's dead wrong (and is playing right into the Republicans hands by propagating this misinformation). Progressives are not being allowed to participate in the negotiations. They are being totally SHUT OUT (as usual). The negotiating parties are the radically-right Republicans and the Moderate and Conservative Democrats. Nobody on either side has suggested that the middle ground lies somewhere between Paul Ryan's Path to Prosperity and the Progressive People's budget.

The progressives ALWAYS budge. Did we get the public option? No. Was the ridiculous and totally unnecessary Stupak–Pitts Amendment excluded from the Affordable Care Act? Yes, but the president "compromised" by issuing an equally ridiculous and unnecessary executive order "preventing" government funds from being used for abortions (even though the Hyde Amendment already accomplishes this).

The conservative position regarding Social Security is that it should be abolished and replaced with a voucher system (shifting much more of the costs onto the backs of future seniors). The Democratic position appears to be that raising the retirement age and decreasing benefits should be examined. Neither is the Progressive position, I can assure you of that. And on it goes - the Progressives state their position and are ignored by both sides. How the hell can we be part of the problem when nobody gives a damn what we have to say? We can refuse to budge, but no one will care.

This is the idiocy of the Moderates - they really believe the solution to all our problems lie in the middle. What they fail to realize is that the middle has shifted significantly to the Right. The radicals on the Right are the only extremists we should be blaming, because only they are threatening to not raise the debt ceiling if they don't get their way. Even though they voted to raise it multiple times when bush was president. But with a Democratic president they hold the middle class tax cuts hostage until he caves, and they get exactly what they want.

What are the Democrats threatening to do? Wait until the last moment before they cave again? According to this other Moderate "we gotta start talking WITH each other not AT each other". Then he says "if we don't come to our senses soon, its all gonna go down the toilet". In response I have to ask - what's with the "we"? Everyone knows President Obama is willing to compromise (by giving the Republicans a large chunk of what they want). With the Democrats things that shouldn't be on the table are, and with Republicans nothing is on the table. Even tax loopholes for corporate jets are sacrosanct. Democrats aren't the ones who are refusing to negotiate in good faith.

The other Moderate says, "I am a Blue Dog Democrat and I gather from your past post you don't think much of me". Yes, you are correct. Moderates are part of the problem. If you truly "sympathize with a lot of progressive issues" then why not STAND WITH US? We need to send a message to the Republicans, which is that their threats aren't going to work this time. But no, standing with the Democrats and the American people would involve standing against the Republicans. Which is something you are apparently unwilling to do. Because you refuse to admit one side is to blame while the other is not.

SWTD #84, wDel #6.

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.

Right-Wingers Don't Understand the First Amendment

[Corporations] are not the same as us. They do not have the same rights as all of us. And that decision is wrong on the law, and wrong for America, and an enormous danger for the political process as we go forward ~ Russ Feingold (b. 3/2/1953) an American politician from Wisconsin who served as a Democratic party member of the U.S. Senate from 1993 to 2011, in a speech on the Citizens United Case delivered at the Fighting Bob Fest on 9/10/2010.

The First Amendment says: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Move to Amend says: On 1/21/2010, with its ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court ruled that corporations are persons, entitled by the U.S. Constitution to buy elections and run our government. Human beings are people; corporations are legal fictions. The Supreme Court is misguided in principle, and wrong on the law. In a democracy, the people rule.

Dervish Sanders says: I agree with the folks at "Move to Amend". Clearly the Founders did not intended for corporations to be considered people. Just as Thomas Jefferson warned us that inherited wealth is incompatible with democracy, he also warned us of the dangers of allowing corporations to become too powerful. Now I'd wager that most people believe one of the functions of the The Supreme Court is to determine if laws are Constitutional (if there is a question). It's one of the checks and balances set up by the Founders, right?

Actually the power to rule laws passed by Congress and signed into law by the president "unconstitutional" is NOT a power granted to the Supreme Court by the Constitution. The SCOTUS granted itself this power with the 1803 Marbury v. Madison decision. A horrified Thomas Jefferson declared that the ruling by the Marshall court paved the way for Judicial tyranny. Specifically Jefferson said...

If ... the judiciary is the last resort in relation to the other departments of the government ... then indeed is our Constitution a complete felo de so (suicide pact). ...The Constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they may please. (Letter to Judge Spencer Roane, Nov. 1819).

This is exactly what the Roberts Court did on 1/21/2010 when they ruled in favor of "Citizens United" (a conservative political organization). The Conservatives on the court molded the First Amendment - exactly as if it were a mere thing of wax - changing it's meaning so that it pleased them (and the corporations they serve). This act, as predicted by Jefferson, edged our nation closer to plutocracy. It seems conservatives have no problem what-so-ever with judicial activism when the Conservative judges rule to further empower the wealthy elites.

What the Supreme Court did, specifically, was to strike down "a provision of the McCain–Feingold Act that prohibited all corporations, both for-profit and not-for-profit, and unions from broadcasting electioneering communications". McCain–Feingold said that "broadcast ads mentioning a candidate within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election" are prohibited. Citizens United thought they could bypass McCain–Feingold with a "documentary" trashing Hillary Clinton. Hillary the Movie was set to air on cable TV as an on-demand movie when the FEC objected and filed a lawsuit. The airing of the documentary was stopped when a lower court ruled that, under McCain–Feingold, Citizens United could not broadcast their film 30 days before a primary election.

But the douches at Citizens United insisted that their film wasn't electioneering (and thus exempt from McCain-Feingold) because, "the movie did not say explicitly that people should vote for or against Clinton". When the CU a-holes decided to petition the SCOTUS - Judge Roberts and his Right-wing buddies agreed to hear the case (instead of laughing and turning them down as they should have). Not only that, but Judge Roberts said, "I'll do you one better". Instead of ruling on whether or not the Hillary-bashing movie was OK to air whenever (because it didn't tell people who to vote for and was thus not a political ad), Roberts decided the court should decide if corporations should be able to air any political ad, anytime, and spend as much money as they liked on them.

What Roberts proposed what that his court should overturn decades of settled case law, something he specifically promised he would not do during his confirmation hearings. Former "Law & Order" actor, TN Senator, and failed 2008 presidential contender Fred Thompson thinks Roberts, "was very forthright in explaining that he would not tell the senators how he was going to vote but that he would follow the law and the intent of the framers". Fred believes Roberts has done just that, but Fred is wrong. Roberts lied in his Senate confirmation hearings and should be impeached.

Justice Scalia, another corporate fascist like his buddy Roberts, authored a concurrence in which he states that the First Amendment, "never shows why the freedom of speech that was the right of Englishmen did not include the freedom to speak in association with other individuals, including association in the corporate form". Scalia also "argued that the first amendment was written in terms of speech, not speakers", and that "it's text offers no foothold for excluding any category of speaker".

Both Roberts and Scalia are members of the Federalist Society, which is "an organization of conservatives and libertarians seeking reform of the current American legal system in accordance with a textualist and/or originalist interpretation of the U.S. Constitution". The stated goals of this organization are, of course, total bullshit. Their real goal is to reinterpret the Constitution so that the law favors the wealthy elites (even more so than it currently does).

Justice Thomas also concurred, even though the hypocrite supposedly believes "America was founded on a philosophy of individual rights, not group rights". But he was talking about his opposition to Affirmative action. So, when the government grants additional rights of groups of individuals it is WRONG if the purpose is to promote equal opportunity and address existing discrimination, but when it does the same in regard to groups of individuals who get together to form a corporation - it's the bee's knees?

Conservatives claim that the considerations afforded by Affirmative action amount to special privileges, while people who get together to form a corporation are not asking for anything special, only that they not be stripped of their first amendment rights. But the fact is, they are not. These people retain their individual right to free speech, but do not gain the special privilege of a free speech group right. Clarence Thomas may be a hypocritical dipsh*t, but he's right (even if he conveniently forgot when he wrote his Citizens United concurrence), that the Bill of the Bill of Rights affirms individual rights, not group rights. There is ONLY ONE group that the First Amendment mentions, and that is The Press. All other groups can suck it.

Individuals have the right to associate with other individuals, but they do not then gain additional rights to speak as a group under the First Amendment. Only the Press does, which is why the Founders specifically mention it. Seeing as any specific press organization is also a corporation, why would the Framers single out the press if they were already covered (by virtue of being a corporation)? Clearly the Bill of Rights was intended to apply to individuals and not groups. Neither did the Framers intend for corporations to be able to spend unlimited amounts of money influencing elections or buying off politicians. Congress is within it's rights to pass laws restricting campaign spending by these entities.

I agree that "judges are like umpires. Umpires don't make the rules. They apply them". John Roberts said this during his confirmation hearing. Then he did the exact opposite when he ruled in favor of Citizens United, changing the meaning and intent of the First Amendment. Both of the justices appointed by President doofus made similar statements before Congress, and because fibbing to Congress is illegal, both should be impeached. Alito, in his confirmation hearing said, "courts should respect the judgments and the wisdom that are embodied in prior judicial decisions", but when Roberts said prior judicial decisions (regarding this issue) were a "mistake" and that he was obligated not to repeat them, Alito concurred.

In elections whichever candidate outspends the other generally wins. This is according to the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP), a non-profit, nonpartisan research group that tracks money in politics and their effect on elections. In a 11/5/2008 article examining the 2008 election, CRP reports that "Money Wins Presidency and 9 of 10 Congressional Races in Priciest U.S. Election Ever". Their research shows that "in 93 percent of House of Representatives races and 94 percent of Senate races... the candidate who spent the most money ended up winning".

According to the 2/17/2011 broadcast of the Rachel Maddow Show, "In 2010, post-Citizens United, 7 of the 10 top outside spending groups in the election were all Right-wing. The Chamber of Commerce, both the Karl Rove groups, the American Future Fund, Americans for Job Security - all of these Right-wing groups. The only non-conservative groups that cracked the top 10 were the public employees union, the SEIU, and the teachers union. That's it".

The Sunlight Foundation confirms that spending on the Republican side outpaces spending on the Democratic side. Their 2010 report says, "the big change... is that independent groups are now spending more money on influencing the election than political parties", pointing out that "the outside groups are supplanting traditional party spending largely on the Republican side of the aisle. There are currently eight outside groups that have each spent at least $2 million exclusively on aiding Republican candidates. These groups are American Crossroads, American Crossroads GPS, American Future Fund, The 60 Plus Association, Americans for Job Security, Club for Growth Action Fund, Club for Growth and Tea Party Express".

I say you are naive in the extreme if you think this ruling will not allow corporations to get the politicians THEY WANT elected. Corporations will run adds FOR the politicians who dance to their tune and AGAINST those who do not. Obviously Righties believe that "free speech" is dependant on how much money you have. The more money you have, the more FREE speech you can buy. Those of us who don't adhere to corporatism recognize that this ruling is straight up fascism. Most people don't even bother voting. Of those that do vote, some of them will vote for the politicians the ads tell them to vote for. Outside groups wouldn't be spending these huge sums of money if this were not true.

My conclusion is that money is corrosive to the political process. We need to reduce the amount of money spent on elections, not increase it. Money is not speech, corporations are not people, and the first amendment only applies to individuals (and the press). For this reason we must re-elect Barack Obama so that he can appoint the next one or two Supreme Court Judges and move the court away from the radical Right. Hopefully then this very bad ruling can be overturned.

Conservative Q&A Re: The Citizens United Decision

The following questions and assertions were made during a heated debate I engaged in with a Conservative on another blog. This debate was what prompted me to compose this blog post. I've written on the topic before, but this commentary greatly expands on my prior posts...

Conservative position: A law requiring shareholders in a corporation be allowed to vote before any corporate money is spent supporting a political candidate would be wrong because shareholders all CHOOSE to invest on a corporation. Their choice to invest means they approve of the company's policies (including it's political support).

My response: This claim is utter nonsense. The primary reason people invest in corporations is to make money, not political statements. In deciding whether or not to invest an individual usually looks into past performance of the corporation, they usually do not investigate the political positions of the corporation, which are not a part of the company's prospectus. A law requiring a vote by stockholders (the OWNERS of the corporation) before any money is spend for political reasons is completely reasonable. If everyone who buys stock is assumed to agree with the CEO politically, then what is the harm in holding a vote? The only reason anyone would oppose such a law is because they want corporate CEOs to be able to spend corporate money for political reasons - even if such expenditures would be OPPOSED by their stockholders.

Conservative position: The New York Times is a corporation. Putting in the censorship regime you favor would gag any political opinions from being expressed in it.

My response: The First Amendment says that no laws shall be passed abridging the freedom of the press. the New York Times is a press organization and thus political opinions expressed in it can not legally be gagged. Furthermore, I do not favor a "censorship regime"; I favor adherence to the First Amendment as written. The First Amendment guarantees individual rights. It does not guarantee group rights for corporations or any other entity (with the exception of the press).

Conservative position: Do you honestly support the idea that caused the court decision in the first place... the government gag on a film [Hillary: the movie] people made that was critical of a US senator?

My response: I fully support reasonable laws governing how our elections are conducted. Citizens United was not "gagged" in regards to Hillary: The Movie. They were only prohibited from airing their "documentary" during a certain period of time. The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (also known as McCain-Feingold) said that "broadcast ads mentioning a candidate within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election" are prohibited. They were free to air their "documentary" any other time.

Conservative position: What ever happened to, if you don't like what someone says, ignore it? We need to stop looking for excuses to censor and to bar people from the political process.

My response: I am not looking to censor or bar any individual person from the political process. I simply believe we should follow the First Amendment as written. The First Amendment protects individual rights, not group rights. Corporations (aside from press corporations) do not have rights under the First Amendment.

As for your argument that political ads can be ignored... this clearly does not happen. Why else would politicians spend so damn much to get elected? Why do they hire slick PR firms to carefully craft their message? Money has a HUGE impact on elections. This is a FACT that cannot be denied. Politically informed individuals may ignore political commercials they know are pure spin, but the average citizen is most often not informed enough to be able to identify what is true and what is spin (or an outright lie).

If you agree with the Citizens United decision it is my opinion that you do not believe in democracy. Only a supporter of plutocracy would say our election results should be determined by who spends the most.

SWTD #82

United States Fails to Nab Top Honors in International Competition. Disappointed Republicans Blame President Obama

I have some very strong feelings, the most important of which at the moment is campaign finance reform because its tentacles reach into every other issue. I fear we're getting closer to a plutocracy than we want to, and I believe that deep down the people want to do something about that -- Warren Beatty (b. 3/30/1937).

On 4/12/2011 the Paris-based Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) announced the winners in an international economic competition. Shocked Republican politicians could not believe that the United States had not only not won top honors, but actually came in fourth behind Chile, Mexico and Turkey!

According to the OECD's report, titled Society at a Glance 2011: OECD Social Indicators, income inequality is greater in those three countries. Disappointed Republicans vowed to work harder to ensure that next time we come in first place.

"This is really embarrassing", a dismayed Paul Ryan was reported to have said. "The most powerful nation in the world was bested by Chile", an incredulous Ryan continued. "Ayn Rand must be rolling over in her grave". The crestfallen Ryan further remarked that, "this is another reason why we need to adopt my budget. The USA can and should be number one!"

Other Republican suggestions for propelling the US into the number one position included abolishing the minimum wage and the passage of a national right to work law. When asked what he thought about the minimum wage Kentucky Senator Randal Paul said, "I think the question you have to ask is -- does the minimum wage, in the long run, have negative social effects? Do we want a higher standard of living for the working poor and middle class at the expense of higher profits for the employers?". Mr. Paul was adamant that the answer to that question is "no".

South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint said, "I wholeheartedly agree with my colleague, the esteemed Mr. Paul. The lower classes have had a free ride for far too long. Their wages are out of step with what workers in other countries receive. This is why I've introduced a bill designed to neuter the unions and thus cut wages. Lower wages for workers means more profit for the owners".

"We pretend to revere the Founders for the benefit of the rabble", Texas Representative Kevin Brady revealed in a moment of unusual Republican honesty. "Is inherited wealth incompatible with Democracy as Jefferson claimed? I would say yes. But we're a Republic, not a Democracy", Brady explained.

"This is why my party -- with the help of a few conservative Democrats -- introduced the Bipartisan Bill to Permanently Repeal Federal Estate Tax on March 30th of this year".

Speaker of the House John Boehner blamed President Obama for America's failure to win the OECD prize, remarking, "You can thank the Republicans lying about pursuing a jobs agenda for our coming in 4th. If we had actually done something about jobs like we promised we may have come in 5th place".

Postscript: Congress was recently evacuated due to what was first believed to be a gas leak. It was later discovered that the gas that was leaking was actually an aerosolized version of a truth serum drug. It is unknown at this time how the gas was released into the ventilation system. The Capitol Police are investigating.

These quotations were obtained by staff researcher Janeane Garner of the Progressive Ideology Foundation (PIF) in on-the-street interviews with the members of Congress following the evacuation. Representatives of the Congresspersons interviewed have since disavowed the quotations. PIF is a US-based Progressive think tank which is also known as Liberal Headquarters.

A power to dispose of estates for ever is manifestly absurd. The earth and the fullness of it belongs to every generation, and the preceding one can have no right to bind it up from posterity. Such extension of property is quite unnatural -- Thomas Jefferson (4/13/1743 to 7/4/1826) 3rd President of the United States (3/4/1801 to 3/4/1809), founding father, and principal author of the Declaration of Independence.

[The estate tax] is a tenet of Marxism -- Christine O'Donnell (b. 8/27/1969) perennial candidate who lost the November 2010 U.S. Senate election in Delaware to Democrat Chris Coons by a margin of 57% to 40%; as quoted in a 10/13/2010 debate with her opponent.

 swtd-81. polfi-6.  Previous. Next.

Throwing A Liberal Pundit Under the Bus to Bash The Gipper

Washington couldn't tell a lie, Nixon couldn't tell the truth, and Reagan couldn't tell the difference ~ Mort Sahl (b. 5/11/1927) a Canadian-born American comedian and actor who occasionally wrote jokes for speeches delivered by President John F. Kennedy.

I'm a diehard Liberal who loves to worship partisan Liberal pundits who reaffirm what I already believe. Which is why I like Rachel Maddow, despite the fact that she's a partisan stooge, liar, and dumbass to boot. But I'm willing to overlook all that because she hates Ronald Reagan as much as I do. On the 5/12/2011 TRMS, Rachel impugned the Gipper's reputation with disgusting innuendo suggesting that (in the late 40's and early 50's) Ronald Reagan was a red baiter sympathetic to McCarthyism.

How do we know this? Because Rachel Maddow said Reagan testified as a "friendly witness" before The House Un-American Activities Committee (HCUA) on 10/23/1947. In her set up to her uncalled for Gipper bash, Rachel Maddow said...

RM: ...you may remember the House on American Activities Committee. Part of that was Senator Joe McCarthy red baiting the living heck out of the entertainment industry, dragging in writers and actors and anyone he thought might have a whiff of communism on them. Remember those hearings? All the people who turned in their friends who then got blacklisted as communists and some of them got sent to prison. A bunch of them never worked again.

The problem with this statement is that Joseph McCarthy had nothing to do with HUAC, which was a House committee. McCarthy had his own Commie witch hunt committee in the Senate: The Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations (PSI). That committee was looking into imaginary Commie infiltration in Washington, not Hollywood. It also didn't begin this task until 1950, two years after the House began ruining the careers of Hollywood types for no good reason - other than to scare the public into voting Republican.

Needless to say, the Maddow haters pounced. David Zurawik of the Baltimore Sun described Maddow's words as "ignorant snark". According to Zuarwik, MSNBC is the "most biased and propagandist television news outlet in America", so it's no surprise that he gleefully tore into Maddow, declaring that she was "guilty and then some" of re-writing history, and that she's a dummy because this was something she should have learned in sixth grade civics. Willis Hart of the blog "Contra O'Reilly" suggested that Rachel Maddow and Michele Bachmann both need to stay after school (and then he added an "LOL").

Willis Hart is probably going to be muy surprised (if he reads this), but I'm going to concede that Rachel Maddow was historically inaccurate in her description of the relationship between HUAC and Joe McCarthy. I am, however, inclined to believe that she misspoke, and that what she said isn't what she meant. I certainly do not believe that she is an ignoramus on par with Michelle Bachmann (who believes the "Founding fathers worked tirelessly to end slavery"), which is why I defended her on Willis' blog.

Later, in preparation for my own post on the topic, I re-read the quote and realized my previous interpretation of it was wrong. Which is a little embarrassing, considering how I posted numerous times explaining that when Rachel said McCarthy was a "part of that" she meant that he and HUAC were both a part of the Congressional communist witch hunts that were in vogue at the time. But then she goes on to suggest that it was McCarthy who was dragging in the Hollywood types.

This is why I've decided I'm going to throw Rachel Maddow under the bush and blame her for this. If she hadn't misspoke then I wouldn't have been placed in the position where I felt I needed to defend her. I usually watch the program every night, although I don't recall if I missed any programs since her "gaffe" (and therefore missed her issue a clarification or correction). A Google search and careful examination of The Maddow Blog did not result in my finding any clarifications or corrections. But, according to The Maddow Blog, "We read our mail", so I shot them at email at the address provided (see below).

I'll also blame the haters on the Right and in the Middle (like Willis Hart and David Zurawik) who were so quick to take out the knives and have at Ms. Maddow. Although, of the two, I think Willis was the worst offender. Because in addition to pointing out that Rachel misspoke (which isn't at all how he worded it) he also claimed that when Rachel said Reagan testified as a "friendly witness" before HUAC, she was implying that Reagan was down with McCarthyism - and he turned in his colleagues and gave up names to save his own skin. Willis insists there is ZERO evidence that Reagan did anything of the sort.

The truth of the matter is that Reagan did names names and he did use the HUAC hearings to slime SAG (and other Hollywood) union members who wanted better pay and benefits. It is also a FACT that Reagan testified at those hearings as a "friendly witness". As I pointed out on the Mr. Hart's blog, I believe Reagan was a crap president who deserves to be pissed on (metaphorically speaking). But I'm going to hold off revealing the details until my next post because I want that information to take center stage - instead of being revealed secondary to this unflattering account of the "Rachel Maddow gaffe".

"Reagan... is the devil in the minds of most progressives and the ends ALWAYS justify the means", says the Hartster. No Willis, Reagan isn't "the Devil", but he is the absolute worst POTUS ever. Of that there is no doubt in my mind. Aside from getting the relationship between McCarthy and HUAC wrong, the rest of Rachel Maddow's story was absolutely correct. Ronald Reagan didn't fight Communism in Hollywood, he implied certain elements within SAG (and other unions) were pinko Commies because they advocated striking for higher pay and benefits, an act I find utterly despicable.

My Message to TRMS

Subject: 5/12/2011 TRMS Huckabee/Reagan Story
email sent to: Rachel@msnbc.com on 5/22/2011 at 3:36pm CT

Hello. The purpose of this email is to inquire about a story TRMS covered on 5/12/2011. First, I'd like to let you know that I am contacting you because, as a loyal fan and regular viewer of the Rachel Maddow program - the integrity of the show is something I feel is very important.

The story I'm inquiring about is the Mike Huckabee cartoons that re-write Ronald Reagan's history of "fighting Communism" in Hollywood. While Rachel was entirely correct that Reagan did appear as a friendly witness before the House Un-American Activities Committee, I believe she mischaracterized Senator Joseph McCarthy's relationship with that committee.

On the program Rachel said (quoting from the transcript), "Part of that was Senator Joe McCarthy red baiting the living heck out of the entertainment industry, dragging in writers and actors and anyone he thought might have a whiff of communism on them". Senator McCarthy couldn't have dragged anyone into those hearings, because he was a Senator and not a member of that House committee.

Senator McCarthy, as chairman of the The Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, red baited the living heck out of Washington (not Hollywood). He accused federal employees of being communist infiltrators or of being sympathetic to communism. As far as I know he didn't have anything to do with the Hollywood red baiting.

Can you tell me if Rachel will be issuing either a clarification or a correction to counter the criticisms of David Zurawik of the Baltimore Sun (there are probably others, but his is the article that was brought to my attention)? Mr. Zurawik questioned Rachel's integrity (and her intelligence) in a 5/13/2011 article titled, "Rachel Maddow: American history as ignorant snark". It is my feeling that these allegations need to be answered.

If a clarification or correction has already been made I haven't been able to find it (I've looked).

Thank you, a loyal (and concerned) fan.

See also: Not Even a Hedgehog: The stupidity of Ronald Reagan by Christopher Hitchens, 6/7/2004.

SWTD #80

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.

The Bald Wig-Wearing Frog Receives a Caller

One word sums up probably the responsibility of any vice president, and that one word is "to be prepared" -- Dan Quayle (b. 2/4/1947) 44th Vice President of the United States (1/20/1989 to 1/20/1993). A comment made on 12/6/1989, as confirmed by Snopes.

Even though the bald wig-wearing frog had not expected to awaken the next morning, he did. The frog's eyes opened to the sound of a loud thumping at his door. Unable to rise, he laid there until whoever was knocking gave up and went away. Most likely someone come to make fun of him and his wig. He would not have answered the door even if he could have.

That evening the frog thought, "this is it, tomorrow will not come, thank goodness. My miserable life will be over at last". What lays beyond this life the bald wig-wearing frog did not know, but he was convinced it had to be better than his current existence.

"Wake up!" he heard someone shout. He bolted upright.

Surprised, the wig-wearing frog thought, "I must be dead, because there is no way I could possibly have had the strength to do that".

The room was dark. And empty. There was no one there that could have yelled at him. But he was sure he had heard someone scream.

"Open up, it's your uncle Kermit!" the voice on the other side of the door shouted.

I must be hallucinating, the bald wig-wearing frog thought. I do have an uncle Kermit, but he went to Hollywood more than 30 years ago and hasn't been seen in these parts since. But the pounding continued, and it appeared as though this time whoever it was wasn't going to give up.

The wig-wearing frog weakly rose from his bed and shuffled in the direction of the front entrance. The knocking was still in progress when he got there -- so he opened the door a crack. Standing in front of him, visible due to the brightly shining moon, was an amphibian wearing a dark gray suit and carring a piece of luggage. As well as a rollaboard suitcase. Was this his uncle Kermit? There was no way he could be sure, seeing as he had never actually met him.

"You must be my nephew Larry", croaked the strange amphibian standing before him.

"Yes, my name is Larry", answered the wig-wearing frog. "Are you my uncle Kermit?" Larry the frog asked suspiciously.

"Trust me, Kid. I am your uncle Kermit", the strange amphibian said, pushing the door open. "In any case, what happened to you? I've never seen a frog in such an emaciated state!"

"I'm sorry, but you have the wrong frog", Larry said. "I have an uncle Kermit but he went to Hollywood decades ago. Frogs don't live decades, so there is no possibility that you could be him".

Larry attempted to shut the door but the false Kermit prevented him from doing so.

"You have a point", Kermit admitted. "Listen, Larry. I can prove to you that I'm your uncle Kermit".

After proving they were indeed related Larry invited his uncle in.

"I heard you were wearing a ridiculous-looking wig, and there it is", Kermit remarked, starring at Larry's head. "I also heard that you haven't been seen around the pond in weeks. Your friends are very worried about you, Larry".

"I don't see how that could possibly be the case, since I do not have any friends", Larry replied.

"Well, the frogs I talked to said they were friends of yours, although they did have quite a few very derogatory things to say about you. I can see why you'd disown them if they were your friends. Something I don't understand, however, is why you look the way you do. There didn't appear to be any kind of fly shortage down at the pond. So why do you look so undernourished?"

"I was very sick for quite some time", Larry lied. "I couldn't eat anything that I wouldn't immediately throw up. I only started feeling better this morning".

"I'm glad to hear that you're feeling better", Kermit commented, looking concerned. "Shall we go down to the pond and get you something to eat?"

"I guess so", Larry answered. And so they did. Luckily there were no other frogs in the vicinity, even though he could hear them croaking in the distance. Larry did not feel like enduring any ridicule at the moment. After choking down some much-needed sustenance he felt much better.

"So, what brings you back to the pond after all these years", Larry queried his uncle.

"I've decided to retire from acting and get into politics", Kermit responded. "I'm going to run for pond president".

"I didn't even know the pond had a president", Larry replied.

"Indeed it does, Larry. Not only that, but you're going to be my Vice President".

"Huh? Isn't being elected to public office something like winning a popularity contest?" a bewildered Larry retorted. "Since you've talked to them, you already know that my former friends do not like me".

"I'm the one that needs to win the popularity contest Larry. I need you to be my Joe Biden".

"Who's he?" Larry asked.

"He's the Vice President in the human world", Kermit explained. "The news media covers him with stories suggesting he is a high-functioning doofus".

"So that's why you believe I'm the right frog for the position?" Larry replied, clearly insulted.

"Indeed. But there is no need to be insulted, nephew. This is the way it works in politics. When two people (or frogs) run for president and vice president, one of them is treated by the media as if he were functionally retarded, which may or may not be true. In Joe Biden's case it's not. He is actually a very intelligent man. In any case, the purpose of this is to put the public at ease. Most of them, being morons themselves, won't vote for a politician they believe is smarter than they are. If you are then they call you an elitist. When you give a speech they may refer to you as professorial, or believe they are being lectured to. If there is one thing the voter can't tolerate it's an effete elitist snob".

"I don't know", said Larry. "To be honest with you, all the frogs around here view me and my wig as some kind of joke. Even after I restyled it into the magnificent do you see now. I doubt they'd vote for me to be their leader".

"Larry, I'm the one who would be the leader. The VP does little more than provide occasional comic relief. Besides, I doubt ALL the frogs think you're a joke. I suspect most of them have never heard of you".

"I'll have to think about it", Larry said finally. "In the meantime you are welcome to stay with me. It's been quite lonely living all by myself".

Image: Larry hears a knock at the door. Opening it he sees a frog that claims to be his uncle Kermit. "Let me take that for you" Larry said, rolling Kermit's suitcase over the threshold and into his home.

 swtd-78. ant-2.  Previous. Next.

The Bald Frog And The Ugly Smelly Wig

I start to think there really is no cure for depression, that happiness is an ongoing battle, and I wonder if it isn't one I'll have to fight for as long as I live. I wonder if it's worth it -- Elizabeth Wurtzel (b. 7/31/1967) an American writer and journalist, known for her best-selling memoir Prozac Nation which chronicles her battle with depression while a college undergraduate and how she was eventually rescued by Prozac after a history of therapy and multiple suicide attempts.

One day the random question feature of Blogger told me, "the children are waiting!" Then Blogger asked me to "please tell them the story about the bald frog with the wig". I decided to take Blogger up on it's suggestion. The result is the following narrative.

The bald frog did not know that all frogs were bald, and so, to cover his embarrassment, wore a wig. The other frogs laughed at the wig-wearing frog, causing him even greater embarrassment than being bald did. Even so, he decided to continue wearing the wig, because his head was cold, and he didn't have a hat. Frogs have no money, so a trip to the hat store was out of the question. The wig-wearing frog cried himself to sleep every night, cursing his baldness and lack of a hat. Why me? he often wondered, sometimes thinking that he should just end it all.

One day, after a particularly nasty group of young punk frogs surrounded him and jeered him relentlessly, he decided to do just that. He considered leaving a note for anyone who might find his lifeless body to read, but realized that most likely nobody would be interested in why, but that they would, if they cared in the least, probably be glad that the world was minus one loser.

The next thing to consider was how to do it. That is, how would he put an end to his miserable existence? The wig wearing frog considered hopping onto the nearest freeway and allowing a fast moving vehicle to squish him flat, but decided that was far too horrific to even think about.

Guts squirted everywhere, and vile flies landing, and pooping on his pancaked road kill corpse was a vision that haunted him for several days. He couldn't come up with another method to off himself; he couldn't even think seriously about it. Because so much of his time was taken up with thoughts about how awful being road kill would be, or how awful the moment just prior to becoming road kill might be. Avoiding other frogs and their taunts regarding his wig was also time-consuming.

A visit to the location where the most delicious flying insects were meant the possibility of an encounter with another frog. And so he just lay in bed and did nothing all day. Not going out meant not encountering any other frogs who might make fun of his bald head or wig. The wig-wearing frog was more miserable than he had ever been in his life. He didn't have the nerve to seek the sweet relief he craved, although he was completely convinced that there was no other answer.

Every day he grew continually weaker, due to a lack of food and exercise to keep his muscles from wasting away. He wasn't even sure he wanted to eat any more of those insects, realizing now that eating them whole meant that he was also eating their feces. This was an idea that entered his head when he first imagined the nasty bugs defecating on his flattened carcass, and decided then and there he would never consume another.

After that decision it did not take long before the wig-wearing frog was so weak from hunger that he could no longer rise from his bed. The end is near now, the wig-wearing frog reflected one evening. A long time ago he had some supposed friends over for a visit, but that ended when the so-called friends criticized his (then) newly found wig. It was a casual get-together during which he had expected them all to be impressed with his now covered head. Instead they laughed, at first thinking he was pranking them. When they realized he was not, they laughed and called him names.

Looking back now, that was when the trouble began. If he could go back and do it all over? He would never have picked the wig out of the muck where he found it. But, as much as he hated the wig, he hated his bald head more. The wig-wearing frog drifted off, dreaming of the life that might have been if only he had found a stylish hat instead of the ugly smelly wig.

 swtd-77. ant-1.  Previous. Next.