Um hum. And no doubt you’d say the same if someone was proposing to play a Rush Limbaugh monologue.
If he was giving another, equally forceful argument to the contrary, he’d be challenging them to think. By just showing one view – especially on the first day of class – the de facto result is that many students are going to draw the conclusion (rightly or wrongly) that the prof is an ideologue, and accordingly keep their dissenting opinions to themselves.
If I were in a class dealing with politics, I’d rather not hear a rant, of any stripe. Rants, to me, imply a lot of anger, a lot of personal feeling being put in it. All they do is rouse people, both those who agree and disagree. They don’t do anything to advance discourse, nor do they add anything new. I already know what the reactions will be: those who agree won’t mind the anger, because hey, it’s the truth. Those that disagree will zero in on any flaw, rightly or wrongly, and be convinced that this is all their opposition has to offer: blind anger and hatred.
Rants are cathartic, but that’s it. They make folks feel better. They don’t do anything else useful. That may be great in most settings, but not in a classroom.
My two cents.
Let me leave aside the rather pittable notion that only an anti-academic student could object to Olbermann’s presence in a US Gov. classroom. Allow me to avoid a deeper investigation of the irony in your belief that Olbermann’s ideological “rant” (from the OP) is a conduit for deeper thinking. Let us even ignore the assertion that the quote, “I didn’t vote for him, but he’s my president, and I hope he does a good job” is the “essence of democracy.” Instead, I will assert that Olbermann’s rant is unrelated to American government (the class), noting that the question of tone is separate and the basis of my greater objection. (IOW, we were having a nice old bashfest when a debate suddenly sprung up!)
I’m not a Republican, nor especially conservative (by American standards; I am in fact a foreigner with a green card.) I certainly don’t object to dislike of George Bush per se, though I am troubled by how little self-reflection and solution-finding comes from people like Olbermann (let’s face it; “Bush, Cheney should resign” isn’t a solution when it is eminently obvious that they will not do so, regardless of what the public thinks.) No, the trouble here is that Olbermann’s argument isn’t really about American government. Consider his statement:
Olbermann follows with an argument whose thesis is essentially:
The Constitution of the United States does not include any recourse for someone who chooses to be partisan instead of presidential. Our mode of government places no value on why members of government do what they do. Instead, we have a balance of power, based on action and response, from the veto and overruling to conviction and pardon. Olbermann does not cite any manner in which Bush has overstepped his bounds of power or even damaging the structure, a charge which could have merit; he merely charges him with having bad motives. While that charge is entirely valid, it is also entirely ethical in nature. [I would flesh out this point a bit more, were it not 3:30am. Sorry.]
Indeed, Olbermann’s link to Nixon underscores the purely ethical nature of his “rant”.
But of course, the president was not impeached for firing an investigator; that was completely legal and well within his Constitutional powers. It merely prompted a deeper investigation of theactual crime that he committed. In much the same way, Bush used a power granted absolutely by the Constitution; if he did something bad, it was bad only ethically. Congress could no more touch Nixon or Bush for being unethical than they could for being ugly; if Nixon resigned over the firing of an investigator (he didn’t, but let’s pretend he did), his resignation resolved an ethical, not Constitutional, crisis; the complaint that “he was the law” does not imply the overthrowal of the judiciary so much as it implies the ethical misuse of power. Olbermann can only protest that there is a right thing to do, not that there is any Constitutional recourse for shitheadedness.
The moral nature of Olbermann’s argument is important simply because an understanding of American government is distinct from an understanding of morality in the same way that an understanding of Christian theology is distinct from actually believing Christian theology. That is to say: we can (and Olbermann does) discuss whether Bush’s actions were despicable all day without ever really talking about the American governmental systems within which these actions occurred. Inasmuch as American Government (the class) has nothing
(Why I would write a complaint to the principal really does have to wait until silenus has answered my two questions; it is entirely possible that he had some unstated intent that I missed entirely, in which case he deserves an apology. I try to take topics one at a time.)
What do your teach-- Politics for Democrats?
The constitution places no limits on a president’s power to pardon, and what Bush has done in commuting Libby’s sentence is no worse than what other presidents have done. It’s nothing but partisan hackery to pretend otherwise.
If you want to teach your students something about this process, you would be wise to show how this constitutional authority is routinely used to grant personal favors. If all you want to do is bash Bush, there are much better ways than using that video.
No, not really . . . but that’s another discussion . . .
Olbermann’s rant deserves special commendation.
At least you called it for what it was-- a rant.
Bush and Cheney should resign. Give me a fucking break. I’d roll my eyes if a 5 year old said that.
Actually, I think they threw that in just because showing “mercy” was a traditional executive prerogative. The kings and queens of Europe had always had it.
Stunning. Marvelous. If every Democrat in Congress — and Republican, for that matter — had a fraction of Olberman’s courage and passion, this nation’s future would be bright indeed.
On the other hand, if he wants to bash Bush, there are few better ways than to force his thoughts on a captive audience of schoolkids.
See Reply #8 for the first use of “partisan hack” in this thread. I believe it was pre-emptive.
Much like your choice of Font.
That’s pretty darn readable!
Yep. 
That’s why I like it.
Yes, he (like you) certainly is just a partisan hack. Unlike you, Olbermann is actually usually pretty refined and at least intellectually honest.
If they intended it to be a limited power, they would have crafted it as such. As it is, the Presidential pardon is more or less unlimited in scope, he can pardon any Federal crime he wants with the only limitation being he can’t pardon himself (or others, maybe?) out of an impeachment.
The very idea that the pardon can be abused is ludicrous. It specifically cannot be abused.
No, she wouldn’t. I find it telling that you confuse a political opinion’s validity with that of a simple mathematic equation, though. It points to a great deal of inner-stupidity.
Again, the idea that your opinion is absolute is as stupid as BrainGlutton’s. Last I checked Bugs Bunny couldn’t be President, nor in fact, is he a real person. Bush on the other hand has implemented a lot of great policies and laws. He’s taken the Taliban to task in Afghanistan, he’s put some very qualified individuals on the Supreme Court who will role back the liberal leftist bullshit we’d been subjected to from the SCOTUS for decades, he’s given billions of dollars in aid to fighting AIDS in Africa, and he has overseen an incredibly strong resurgence in the American economy after the dotcom burst. Most liberals ignore all of that when they point to the stupidity of the Bush tax cuts, because they can’t see any link whatsoever in lower taxes on capital gains and an incredibly strong economy. Bush also reorganized Federal law enforcement in such a way that will help insure greater cooperation and sharing of information, something that had been a huge problem on the Federal level pretty much since the first Federal law enforcement agencies were created.
No, why would they tell him that? Nixon was actually under imminent impeachment, Congress had already started literally moving to impeach him. Nixon wasn’t just suffering bad poll numbers, he was faced with an actual impeachment coming his way that would have all but certainly lead to an actual conviction in the Senate and an actual forced removal.
Bush is in no such danger whatsoever. No matter what he does nothing is as damaging as resigning office, there’s no way Congressional Republicans have even suggested he resign.
But what about that bit about not pardoning an accomplice?
You should probably actually look at opinion polling before you make unsubstantiated, stupid statements. Truman I believe holds the record for the lowest Presidential approval rating and I think he was a great President and a great man, great men aren’t always popular, because being right is often not popular. Doing things that are hard but necessary are never popular.
As it is, Bush supporters at most (at least if we’re talking people who actually voted for him, not just people who gave him a thumbs up in opinion polling) represented around 50-52% of the voting population in the United States. His opinion polls have fluctuated from the high 20% to the low 30% for awhile now, so more than half of his supporters still support him, so your claim that “most Bush supporters” no longer support him is unfounded. No more than roughly half of the people ever supported him (at least in the ballot box), and more than 25% support him today.
In case you’re curious his approval rating has never gotten as low as 18%. And the most current opinion polls have him at 27% (CBS), 31% (Fox/Opinion Dynamics) and 32% (CNN) respectively.