Keith Olbermann for President

[BJMoose]

@Gukumatz

Does he use the “Good night . . . and good luck” phrase intentionally to mirror Edward Murrow? I somehow doubt it is incidental. It seemed kind of jarring with the rest of his plausibly upfront and earnest show, this little manipulation of association.

No doubt he does. Before one of his early “special comments” (it may well have been the first) he prefaced it with remarks on Murrow’s taking on of Sen. Joseph McCarthy. Seems like he’s made other references to Murrow over the years.

And I fear that soon his opinions will give some exec at NBC the same bellyache that Murrow’s comments gave Bill Paley, with similar results.

So mebbe Olbermann should run for Prez. Obama’s too green, and Rodham Clinton carries too much baggage.

And Bill O’Reilly would shit economy-size bricks.

[Guinastasia]

@BJMoose

And Bill O’Reilly would shit economy-size bricks.

Oh dear sweet zombie Jesus, now O’Reilly’s reaction to Keith running for president would probably be justification enough.

He needs a runningmate-hmmmm…Stephen Colbert?

[Tuckerfan]

@Loopydude

OK, that’s just gross. Take off the kneepads.

I dunno, I’ve seen pics of Guin and she’s pretty hot. If she struck the right pose (say, naked to avoid any incriminating evidence stains) whilst serving her country, as it were, I wouldn’t mind a bit.

As for Olbermann, it’s a shame his show isn’t more widely viewed. I have to think that it would be better for all, if NBC moved it to their broadcast arm rather than keeping it on cable, though I imagine that if he were on something like HBO, his special commentaries would be really entertaining for the vicious level of smackage in them.

(Somebody really needs to get Olbermann hooked on the SDMB. He’s got a rapier wit, he once responded to a number of critics who attacked him for calling out Limbaugh, IIRC, by saying, “Hey guys! Save the oxygen for people who need it!” )

[elucidator]

Back in my day, nice girls didn’t do things like that. Or so I’ve heard, never actually knew any…

[Guinastasia]

@elucidator

Back in my day, nice girls didn’t do things like that. Or so I’ve heard, never actually knew any…

Who the hell said I was nice?
At any rate, I don’t think I’d want to see Olbermann on mainstream NBC-he’d probably be too muzzled there.

I’d also love it if Letterman would have him waiting in the wings the next time he has O’Reilly on.

[David_Simmons]

@Guinastasia

Oh dear sweet zombie Jesus, now O’Reilly’s reaction to Keith running for president would probably be justification enough.

He needs a runningmate-hmmmm…Stephen Colbert?

Colbert would be a good choice. He could get votes from righties even as he mocks them. Irony is so hard to detect.

[RedFury]

All I’ve to say is I admire the guy. Only mainline journalist out there that has the gumption to call it like it is.

Would that they’d (any of the Big Three) at least give him a Sunday spot where he could go head-to-head with all these a-holes.

[Moirai]

The imitation of Murrow is calculated.

And it works.

I agree that him not voting is stupid, but I have heard much more stupid reasons as to why people don’t vote…

[Moirai]

ACK! I meant to add to the “imitation of Murrow” thought. It is everywhere- his manner, his word usage (you, sir…). All he needs is a cigarette in one hand…

[elucidator]

@Guinastasia

Who the hell said I was nice?..

Well, I didn’t mean to suggest…ah, that is…didn’t mean to imply anything…ah, uh…I mean, it was never my intention…

[elucidator]

Hell, I can see it now. “'Luc disses the troops!”

[EddyTeddyFreddy]

@elucidator

Well, I didn’t mean to suggest…ah, that is…didn’t mean to imply anything…ah, uh…I mean, it was never my intention…

:: rips shovel from 'luci’s hands ::

Now climb out of that hole and slink away like a man!

[elucidator]

Yes, dear.

[Martin_Hyde]

@David Simmons

Colbert would be a good choice. He could get votes from righties even as he mocks them. Irony is so hard to detect.

I wouldn’t vote for Colbert, but as a conservative it’s no secret to me Colbert is mocking my party, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t funny. It’s a bad form of egotism that prevents you from laughing at yourself.

[Guinastasia]

@Martin Hyde

I wouldn’t vote for Colbert, but as a conservative it’s no secret to me Colbert is mocking my party, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t funny. It’s a bad form of egotism that prevents you from laughing at yourself.

Or perhaps it hits just a little too close to home?

[Martin_Hyde]

@Guinastasia

Or perhaps it hits just a little too close to home?

Hm, no, not at all. The views that Colbert ascribes to Republicans and conservatives in general are so extremist that almost no mainstream Republicans actually hold them. But the fact is he’s a very funny guy and his political points are so far from being remotely true or accurate that it just serves as a good form of entertainment.

I barely even think of the Colbert Report as even making any political statements that have any relevance to the current politics of real politicians or people. For example this little excerpt is pretty funny, regardless of your party affiliation.

Why would I need to be defensive about that? Mark Foley isn’t my Congressman and I don’t support what he did, nor is Dennis Hastert and I don’t support what he did, either. I don’t understand this attitude from Democrats that Republicans should have this deep-seated shame for anything a GOP political leader does that is questionable or down right corrupt/despicable. How many Democrats feel guilt about Dem politicians who have been forced out of office because of scandals?

The GOP is a big-tent party just like the Democratic party, and there’s a lot of people and ideas floating around that don’t entirely go along with one another. I accept that for what it is and it certainly isn’t going to bother me when comedians make fun of ludicrous situations involving politicians. Especially when the politicians are persons I’ve never voted for and whom do not represent me or what I believe in.

I think most Republicans are unhappy about many of the political scandals involving members of the party. But what is our response to that supposed to be? Start voting against our ideology simply because of a few bad eggs in the party? Should I start voting for people who will as a matter of course strive to achieve political goals that are completely anathema to my personal politics? All because of a handful of politicians I’ve never even had the opportunity to vote for or against? I think not.

[Martin_Hyde]

As for Olbermann, I tend to like him because of his style. His points are well thought out and well spoken. I’ve never seen any indication that he doesn’t believe passionately in the things he advocates.

Sometimes I disagree with his analysis, especially in regards to the motivations and attributes of Republican political leaders.

Sometimes I think he’s a bit too overboard, but overall for a liberal political commentator I find him much more digestible than most.

[Scotticher]

@Martin Hyde

<snip>

I think most Republicans are unhappy about many of the political scandals involving members of the party. But what is our response to that supposed to be? Start voting against our ideology simply because of a few bad eggs in the party? Should I start voting for people who will as a matter of course strive to achieve political goals that are completely anathema to my personal politics? All because of a handful of politicians I’ve never even had the opportunity to vote for or against? I think not.

No, I don’t think you should do that. What I DO think is that it is long past time for the PTB in BOTH parties to stand up and DO something about it when a political heavyweight in their party does something egregious. Like, maybe when Foley’s transgressions were brought to Dennis Hastert’s attention, he should have initiated some kind of investigation into whether or not the allegations were true, and then when they WERE proved to be true, he should have held a press conference and TOLD THE TRUTH and stated, unequivocally that the Republican Party was distressed and disgusted that one of their representatives had done what Foley had done…and that they no longer supported him? Instead of covering it up?

I mean, what Bill Clinton did, he did with a consenting adult person. I don’t have a problem with that when it comes to his politics, or his decisions as President. I DO have a problem with it on a personal level…it was a stupid thing to do and it demonstrated bad judgment. As well as hurting his wife and child beyond understanding. It had nothing to do with his Presidency, from my perspective…it had to do with his personal life. But Foley was NOT doing this with consenting adult persons. He was soliciting underage people who were under his direct supervision. What he did was what he did…he is obviously in need of help. I have a problem with that, obviously. But I have WAY more of a problem with that than I have with two consenting adults doing something I don’t think they should have done. Yes, Foley is obviously sick. It didn’t necessarily affect his office, although it might have. I don’t know. BUT…covering it up? The Speaker of the House covering up one of his party’s Representatives soliciting sex from underage persons under his direct supervision? Now, THAT is a whole different thing. The problem with Foley was brought to the attention of the leader of Foley’s party. Who either failed to investigate it, or DID investigate it and found it to be true…and chose to ignore it. THAT isn’t a “personal” matter, it is a POLITICAL matter. As in, a matter of national importance. I mean, what if the man had murdered someone. Would Hastert have been willing to go far enough to cover THAT up too, because it would be an embarrassment to the Republican Party?

It’s time for the PTB in BOTH parties to stop covering up the behavior of the people who represent their party when those people have committed criminal acts…just because it will or might embarrass the party. The fact that the Speaker of the House chose to cover this one up makes me very uneasy.

Bill Clinton had an affair with an adult woman. Stupid, bad judgment. Foley committed a criminal act. Something for which he could, and should, be indicted. To me, those two things are like a blueberry (Clinton) as opposed to a watermelon (Foley).

Oh, and to get back on topic? I have only seen one of Olbermann’s commentaries, [sub]I’m on dial-up and the one I DID see took forever to load and it was difficult to hear. It kept “buffering” and I finally went and read a book for awhile until it was over, after which I was able to actually hear it in totality[/sub] and…I think he ROCKS. It’s about time someone told the truth around here. [sub]In the country, not on the SDMB.[/sub] And I DO think he was telling truth.

[Martin_Hyde]

@Scotticher

No, I don’t think you should do that. What I DO think is that it is long past time for the PTB in BOTH parties to stand up and DO something about it when a political heavyweight in their party does something egregious. Like, maybe when Foley’s transgressions were brought to Dennis Hastert’s attention, he should have initiated some kind of investigation into whether or not the allegations were true, and then when they WERE proved to be true, he should have held a press conference and TOLD THE TRUTH and stated, unequivocally that the Republican Party was distressed and disgusted that one of their representatives had done what Foley had done…and that they no longer supported him? Instead of covering it up?

That doesn’t make political sense. The scandal is there either way. The correct answer is for Hastert to try and pressure Foley to retire.

I mean, what Bill Clinton did, he did with a consenting adult person. I don’t have a problem with that when it comes to his politics, or his decisions as President. I DO have a problem with it on a personal level…it was a stupid thing to do and it demonstrated bad judgment. As well as hurting his wife and child beyond understanding. It had nothing to do with his Presidency, from my perspective…it had to do with his personal life.

This is hard to say, in most jurisdictions 16/17 year old persons are considered consenting legal adults. I find it interesting that in general it is often liberals who feel age of consent laws are too high in many parts of the United States, and don’t think sex with 16 and 17 year olds should be criminal; however these same liberals seem so ready to describe Foley’s acts as criminal.

But Foley was NOT doing this with consenting adult persons. He was soliciting underage people who were under his direct supervision. What he did was what he did…he is obviously in need of help. I have a problem with that, obviously. But I have WAY more of a problem with that than I have with two consenting adults doing something I don’t think they should have done. Yes, Foley is obviously sick.

Sick? Why, because he was gay? It’s pretty common for heterosexual males of all ages to think 16 and 17 year old females are attractive. There have been “countdowns to 18” for many famous attractive young females, most people don’t call these heterosexuals “sick.”

“Consenting adult person” is something many people don’t agree on. In Canada there’s little chance what Foley did would be consider illegal, the age of consent is 14 and Foley specifically (at least tried) to limit his open requests for sexual favors until after the pages were out of the program. From what I understand of the Foley scandal only two persons from the page program have said that they did sexual acts with Foley and both of them did it after they were pages.

It didn’t necessarily affect his office, although it might have. I don’t know. BUT…covering it up? The Speaker of the House covering up one of his party’s Representatives soliciting sex from underage persons under his direct supervision? Now, THAT is a whole different thing. The problem with Foley was brought to the attention of the leader of Foley’s party. Who either failed to investigate it, or DID investigate it and found it to be true…and chose to ignore it. THAT isn’t a “personal” matter, it is a POLITICAL matter. As in, a matter of national importance. I mean, what if the man had murdered someone. Would Hastert have been willing to go far enough to cover THAT up too, because it would be an embarrassment to the Republican Party?

I’m going to come out and genuinely say Foley hitting on boys aged 16-17 isn’t a matter of national important by any means.

It’s time for the PTB in BOTH parties to stop covering up the behavior of the people who represent their party when those people have committed criminal acts…just because it will or might embarrass the party. The fact that the Speaker of the House chose to cover this one up makes me very uneasy.

I’m not sure why Hastert should report something to the media and the public which 1) very well may not be criminal and 2) could be dealt with effectively privately. It’s unfortunate that Hastert doesn’t appear to have even tried to deal with it privately, I’ll agree not dealing with it at all is a problem; I disagree that the only proper way to deal with an issue like this is a full public disclosure.

Bill Clinton had an affair with an adult woman. Stupid, bad judgment. Foley committed a criminal act. Something for which he could, and should, be indicted. To me, those two things are like a blueberry (Clinton) as opposed to a watermelon (Foley)…

I’m not entirely certain Foley committed any criminal acts.

Foley was considered an expert on laws concerning sex with minors, he’s responsible for some of the legislation behind these very laws.

The age of consent in the District of Columbia is 16.

Foley DID have communications with some pages who were under the age of consent in their respective states, but there’s no evidence that he ever engaged in any sexual acts with pages until they reached the age of consent in their jurisdictions. Furthermore Foley demonstrated a pattern of courting pages when they were 17 or so but not trying to engage in sex until after they were 18.

The FBI has interviewed 40 former pages involved in the case and has concluded they have not found any evidence that Foley has committed any crimes.

[elucidator]

I’m much reassured to hear that. Before, I was thinking of Mr Foley as corrupt and sleazy, but now that I realise that he kept himself just within the law, I think of him as corrupt, sleazy and prudent. Kind of thing you scrape off your shoes but don’t feel obliged to burn them.