More commentary on Chris matthews & MSNBC in regards to the offensive comments made by John Kerry

AGAIN, I ASK CHRIS MATTHEWS & MSNBC:

WHY DIDN'T YOU SHOW THE VIDEO OF KERRY'S ORIGINAL COMMENTS SO THAT WE COULD SEE EXACTLY WHAT KERRY SAID & IN WHAT CONTEXT HE SAID THE WORDS???

Why deceive the viewers by reporting an biased viewpoint that is more an EDITORIAL than an objective reporting of the FACTS???


Tucker Carlson had access to the video, why didn't Chris Matthews?

Why was Matthews allowed to present his OPINION as if it were FACT?

Chris Matthews was censoring a Republican commentator, while helping a Democratic commentator continue to lie about what Kerry actually said!!

IF Chris Matthews wanted to offer an OPINION, why didn't he say so - rather than say that only his way of looking at Kerry's comments is the RIGHT one, and to disagree with him is to be WRONG???

Why was Matthews allowed to keep someone with an opposing view from expressing that view? Chris Matthews was practically berating the Republican commentator, implying that he must be stupid if he couldn't understand what Kerry MEANT TO SAY rather than accepting at face value WHAT KERRY ACTUALLY SAID???

Why was the Democratic commentator allowed to speak freely while his Republican opponent was being prevented from speaking freely by Matthews (who was talking over him, bullying him, implying he was either wrong or stupid) and allowing the Democratic commentator, who was acting as a "tag team" partner for matthews in the censoring attack on the opposing view???


It is said that the first casualty in any war is the TRUTH... and that's what Matthews was allowed to do in his "report" on what John Kerry said yesterday.

It's a terrible shame for a network that is supposedly about objective journalism to allow such biased opinions to taint a report and to actually lie about the factual events of the incident being reported on.

I keep coming back to my question of "why didn't he show the tape?", but I also want to know why he didn't at least admit that it is POSSIBLE that he is WRONG and that Kerry actually DID what he's being asked to apologize for???



Here's what matters in this situation:


It's isn't what Kerry MEANT to say, it's that he said things that people took as him insulting the Troops!

There is NO WAY POSSIBLE that Chris Matthews can say that the comments were totally misunderstood - because EVEN THE PEOPLE THAT WERE AT THE EVENT where Kerry said the comment in question took Kerry's words in a bad way!!!

You can CLEARLY hear the crowd make "boo" sounds and otherwise making a negative opinion sound to what Kerry had said. So... to THEM it sure sounded like Kerry had just insulted the intelligence of our Troops - why can't Chris Matthews at least remain OBJECTIVE when reporting the news & allow room for an opposing view to what he believes?


Sure, once you EXAMINE Kerry's words for a long time... you can see what he actually MEANT to say - but didn't say properly. It's the REASONABLE conclusion that Kerry was INTENDING for people to see the subject of the comment as being the President - AFTER YOU TAKE ENOUGH TIME TO GO OVER THE WORDS MORE THAN A FEW TIMES - but if you just take the words at face value by listening to them 1 time, you get another impression than the one Kerry (and Mathews) wants people to believe.


And it's dishonest for Matthews to say that the people can get the correct interpretation of the comment SOLELY from Matthews reading what the A.P. reported that Kerry said!!! If Matthews didn't see the video (which I KNOW he did, but didn't allow his viewers to see) then he couldn't POSSIBLY put the comment in the proper context or emotional mood.

Instead, what Matthews did by reading it in the tone he BELIEVES Kerry had MEANT them to be taken... he has altered the context of the factual nature of the event, which by definition makes his report to be an UNTRUE account of the event in question.

So, if he presented a erroneous account of the event, Matthews can't tell anyone who disagrees with him that they are wrong.


ANOTHER IMPORTANT THING TO CONSIDER ON THE TOPIC:

It doesn't matter what John Kerry had MEANT to say, or even what Chris Matthews BELIEVES that Kerry MEANT to say... what matters is how people received the words THAT WERE ACTUALLY SAID.

If someone is offended by Kerry's comment, then NOBODY can say that the offended person is wrong!!

And if Republicans (like the President) consider those words to be an insult to the Troops, then it MUST be considered that Kerry DID make offensive comments!!

BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY:

If the people who were present when Kerry made the comments in question made sounds that expressed a negative reception of his comments - then someone like Chris Matthews who are so removed from the actual context of the event because they didn't witness it firsthand, or even see the video of the event - it becomes IMPOSSIBLE for a person like Chris matthews to be able to tell another person that their opposing OPINION is absolutely WRONG because Matthews has the CORRECT opinion!

News reporters are supposed to be NEUTRAL, UNBIASED, and REMOVED from expressing their opinion when they report the news. You can't be objective when you tell someone who disagrees with you on what someone else MEANT TO SAY in a speech that neither person witnessed!!





I challenge MSNBC to denounce the biased opinions of Chris matthews when he reported his viewpoint as fact without allowing any consideration for an oposing view!

I challenge MSNBC to call for Chris Matthews to apologize for abandoning his duties as a reporter when he allowed his opinion to taint what should have been an objective unbiased reporting of what actually happened!!!

If MSNBC & Matthews refuse to accept this challenge, then I call for you to post a disclaimer at the beginning of Hardball and repeat the disclaimer when returning from commercial - the disclaimer should state that the program is NOT a news program, but an hour long EDITORIAL of Matthew's OPINIONS and it should also state whether MSNBC shares the views of Matthews, or not!!!

To not do so would show the world that MSNBC is no better than FOX News when they forward the conservative Republican viewpoint every chance they can!!!

This is "gut check time" for Matthews & MSNBC. We will see if either Matthews or MSNBC has even 1 ounce of INTEGRITY left at all.

A sad day in the history of Journalism

Why didn't Chris Matthews show the actual video footage of Senator John Kerry's recent remarks that insult the intelligence of U.S. Troops in Iraq?

Matthews showed Kerry's angry response to calls by Republicans for Kerry to apologize to the Troops, as well as Senator McCain - but when it came to showing the video of Kerry's original comment (which is very much available because MSNBC has shown it several times on other shows) Matthews chose to read Kerry's words.

This is a VERY dishonest way of Matthews (and by MSNBC???) to try and spin the offensive incident by Kerry in a way that makes Kerry to be misquoted by the Republicans & conservative commentators.

BUT, if the actual video had been shown, there would be no way that Matthews could pull off this inaccurate portrayal of Kerry's comment - because the video CLEARLY shows Kerry to have said exactly what Republicans say he should apologize for!!

I can't quote Kerry verbatum, BUT, the comment by Kerry clearly said that if you can't get a good education, then you'll get stuck in Iraq.


Kerry tried to excuse this comment by saying that he MUST have rushed his comment, because what he MEANT to do was include the word "us" between the words "get" and "stuck" so that the phrase states "get US stuck in Iraq" and not "get stuck in Iraq".

This is a shameless attempt to cover up what he said, by deflecting the actual topic of that comment from the Troops to that of the President & the current Administration.

Chris Matthews (and MSNBC as well???) has made himself an accomplice to Kerry's offense by the way he has mislead the viewers. Kerry's comments speak for themself, there was only one reason to READ his words rather than SHOW THE VIDEO of Kerry's comment - and that is to FALSELY report what actually was said.

This is just one more example in an ocean of examples how Matthews in specific, and MSNBC in general, have tried to sway public opinion (and by extension the way people vote on election day) by forwarding the liberal Democrat agenda.

BUT, this is going too far, because now Matthews (with the permission of MSNBC one must ask???) is engaging in deceptive behavior with the intended result of making people believe Kerry's lie that he didn't say what he actually said.

Kerry is lying about what he said, and who the subject of his comment was. Matthews is trying to make people believe this LIE by reporting something as fact, that can be proven as the lie it is.

Well, it WOULD have be proven as a lie, IF Matthews had shown the VIDEO of the event in question, rather than choose to READ an A.P. reporting of what Kerry says that he said.


It would be different if the video wasn't freely available so that Matthews could show what Kerry said in his own words. BUT, when Matthews chose to READ the words that some other source REPORTED that Kerry said... then it leaves room for an altering of the actual words, and it gives a FALSE report of the events, by putting a biased SPIN on the words Kerry said.

It is widely known that Matthews is biased to the liberal Democrat point of view. He freely admits to working for one of the most partisan Democrats to ever be Speaker of the House of Representatives. He has a biased opinion deep within him, and it is so obvious that even the blind can "see" that he is willing to forward the liberal Democrat agenda every chance he can.

So... again I ask:

Why didn't Chris Matthews show the VIDEO of the original event where John Kerry made comments that people say are offensive to the Troops? Why did he choose to READ what the A.P. reported as being Kerry's words? Why wasn't the viewers of Hardball allowed to see the ACTUAL EVENT on video that is freely available on MSNBC - so that the people could make their own decision as to what Kerry said & who was the subject of his comment?

Why was Matthews allowed to spin this incident in a way that agrees with Kerry's false interpretation the comment that is the subject for Matthew's report? Why didn't someone at MSNBC step in and prevent Matthews from lying to the viewers when he chose to become a fellow conspirator in the lie about what Kerry actually said - and what Kerry wants us to BELIEVE he said?

Why does nobody else but me seem to care that MSNBC has become the liberal Democrat version of FOX News? Why is nobody else saying that this is an offensive example of biased journalism & selective reporting by Chris matthews. (and MSNBC for allowing him to get away with lying to the viewers while covering up for a liar like John Kerry)


The video speaks for itself.

Had Chris Matthews done the PROFESSIONAL, RESPONSIBLE, & OBJECTIVE thing when reporting this event - he wouldn't have shown VIDEO for what Kerry's RESPONSE to the incident was, while NOT SHOWING the video freely available to him of the actual event in question.

It was the wrong thing to do for Matthews to show (and MSNBC to permit) video for one action, while not showing video for the other action. Either show BOTH video clips, or DO NOT show any video clips when reporting the incident.

To go about reporting the incident the way Matthews did only demeans the proud institution of Journalism.

And for Matthews to read the transcript a SECOND time and then offer his OPINION about what he feels Kerry's words "clearly say" is an offense equal to what Dan rather did that cost him his position as anchor on CBS news!!

If this wasn't enough, Matthews followed up his biased commentary by saying that he would like to put the President on a "lie detector" so that we could see that he is lying!!!

AGAIN, I ASK CHRIS MATTHEWS & MSNBC:

WHY DIDN'T YOU SHOW THE VIDEO OF KERRY'S ORIGINAL COMMENTS SO THAT WE COULD SEE EXACTLY WHAT KERRY SAID & IN WHAT CONTEXT HE SAID THE WORDS???

Why deceive the viewers by reporting an biased viewpoint that is more an EDITORIAL than an objective reporting of the FACTS???

Why New Yorkers should NOT vote for Hilary Clinton

There are so many other reasons to dislike her, but I will focus on the one I feel is most important when deciding whether she deserves your vote, or not.

I think the most important issue is her refusal to make a promise to complete a full term in office should she get re-elected to her Senate seat.

Think about it:

If she is going to run for President, that means she will only spend about 9 months serving the people of New York as Senator before she will abandon her duties to start campaigning for the Democratic nomination for President.

Why should the people of New York waste a vote on Hilary when she won't be earning her paycheck less than a year before her 2nd term begins?

What good is she doing for the people she is elected to serve as Senator if she isn't doing her job the entire time until the 2008 election is over?

I find it to lack integrity for her if she doesn't resign from office once she decides to seek the Democratic nomination. IF she chooses to seek the nomination, of course. But you know that if she does choose to seek the nomination, that she will not give up her position as the junior Senator from New York. She will hold on to the seat as a back up plan, should she either not get the nomination - or if she does, but fails to become the next President of the United States of America.

And THAT is something I find to be terribly lacking of integrity - to run for President while robbing the people of New York of a Senator who will represent them in office. Basically, if Hilary won the Democratic nomination, but lost the election - that would be a period of 22 months that New York would not have a Senator earning her paycheck & not performing the duties they elected her to do.

Do you think that Hilary would do the honorable thing of repaying New Yorkers the pay that she didn't earn?

I seriously doubt that she would.

Just like I doubt that Hilary would do the more honorable thing by resigning from office when she chooses to seek the Democratic Party's nomination for President.

But, if Hilary had one ounce of integrity she would be 100% honest with the people of New York and tell them that she won't be completing a full term if re-elected because she intends to run for President in 2008. Well, she won't complete a full term IF she wins the 2008 election... but she won't meet her full duties that she is elected for if she abandons her job as Senator to go off campaigning for President less than a year after she begins her second term as Senator. (IF she wins the election... but I think we know that's a "done deal")

What do you expect from her, really? Her husband lied to the people of Arkansas when he ran for re-election as Governor of Arkansas. He said that he would serve a full term if they re-elected him, and NOT abandon them by running for President.

As we all know, he won re-election as Governor... and then went back on his promise to complete the term when he ran - and won - the election to become our 41st President. (Yes, I said 41st & not 42nd as people make the mistake of calling him. Go back & count... he was the 41st man to hold the office - even if people choose to count the non-consecutive terms of Grover Cleveland as being different Presidents.)

We know that Hilary is equally unscrupulous as her husband, so we shouldn't expect any better from her when she is confronted with a similar situation.
I only pray that she doesn't have the same successful result as her husband did when she makes her bid to become the next President.

Although... it might be interesting to have a cycle of Bush - Clinton - Bush - Clinton - Bush. (I predict that 2012 will be a time for Jeb Bush to run, and that he will either win in 2012 or in 2016)

Political Ads, "Mudslinging" & "Dirty Politics"

I am paying close attention to all of the political ads as we get closer to the election on November 7th. I am looking at ads in races of all the states, and not just my home state of Pennsylvania because I like to be informed as a voter - just in case some of these other races end up appearing in the National race for the 2008 campaign.

One race that has really upset me is the Senatorial race in Tennessee, where a very dirty ad about Harold Ford went to what I consider to be a new low.

The ad mentioned that Ford had attended a Superbowl party dponsored by Playboy magazine. The undertone of the ad was racist - in my opinion - and played upon the irrational fear of African-American men having sexual relations with caucasin women. Harold Ford is an African-American, and a man of faith who attends religous services. I think it is appalling to imply he has done anything inappropriate without actual proof.

I saw a Republican strategist on MSNBC make the error when talking about the ad by saying that Harold Ford was at the Playboy Mansion for this party - which is 100% false. Many people who have been to parties like this have come to Ford's defense by saying that the events are so crowded, and that he was almost assuredly being escorted by someone, that the chances for Ford to be in a position to engage in any inappropriate activity is almost zero. From what people who attend these types of events have said, you get rushed from meeting one person to another so quickly that you don't really get a chance to say much more than "hello" before you are pulled away to the next person you "must" meet.

To falsely state that a party for the Superbowl was actually at the Playboy mansion when it wasn't is a gross example of that Republican strategist lacking any integrity. His comments were said to get a reaction from people too stupid to think for themselves, and when either side does this it is very wrong.

If I were a registered voter in Tennessee, I would be offended by this. Even if I didn't already like Harold Ford for the Senate seat... this ad would cause me to change my mind & cause me to vote for Ford.

I would do that, even though I know that by putting Ford into that Senate seat it puts the Democrats that much closer to gaining control of the Senate. I like him as a person & as a candidate I feel he is the right choice for the position... I don't care if it would mean to the "Big Picture", even though the result would make me want to move to Ireland! :)

When tactics like this are used, it's usually because the opposing side has nothing to offer, so they try to put focus on the negative qualities of your opponent. From what I have seen, this usually backfires on the person who employes the dirty tactic... but this doesn't seem to keep people from going to the mudslinging well, especially as election day gets closer.


Another example of behavior that has me wanting to either vomit or punch the offending person in the face, is the way Rush Limbaugh reacted to a political ad by Michael J Fox in support for stem cell research & a candidate who shares Fox's position.

Limbaugh mocked the way Michael J Fox was moving about in the ad. It wouldn't be an issue, but Fox suffers from Parkinson's disease, and his involuntary movements are symptoms of his disease. For Limbaugh to make fun of Fox is bad enough - but when Limbaugh accused Fox of purposely not taking his medication to ilicit a more sympathetic response from viewers of the ad... well, that is something that will surely reserve Limbaugh his very own place in Hell!! That's way beyond what people should condone, and Limbaugh should be treated the way that the Dixie Chicks were after they offered their opinion about the President while on tour in England. He should be shunned like the pariah that he is until he gets a clue that his behavior is not within the bounds of a human being. (as if Limbaugh should even be talking about a person taking medication or not, taking his own history into account)


I consider myself to be a conservative, but I am for stem cell research. I do not take the extreme position that says it is akin to murder to "destroy" an embryo to harvest the stem cells needed to do research. Those people need to get a grip on reality & not exclude a line of research that has the potential to save lives - by saying that it is destroying lives in the process. That position makes no sense and only serves to prevent a cure from being discovered sooner than it will be by not allowing stem cell research to continue.

Getting back to using political ads in a dirty fashion... I do not approve of how the opposing side has recruited celebrities to appear in ads to counteract what Michael J Fox has gained for those who are for stem cell research.

One particular example of what I consider to be a "low blow" is the recruitment of actor Jim Caviezel - the actor from the movie "The Passion of the Christ" to oppose the views of Fox on the topic of stem cell research. I am appalled by this because Caviezel portrayed Jesus in the movie... and this is a subliminal way of answering the popular question of: "What would Jesus do?"


And now I will bring up the Senate race in Virginia.

Incumbant Senator, George Allen has been a victim of some serious mudslinging by Democrats who want his Democratic opponent, Jim Webb, to take that seat.

Weeks prior to the election much was being made of comments that Allen said on the campaign trail. He pointed out to the audience that Webb had a staffer following Allen as he went across the state filming Allen's words. (presumably so that Webb's people could disect every word to find anything that could be used against Allen) The result was George Allen calling the Webb staffer a word that is supposed to be a racial slur. Allen referred to the man & used the word "mecaca" - a term that is used negatively to describe a person of dark skin in the French Colonial area in Africa.

Supposedly it is a word that Allen's mother should have known about because of where she is of French Tunisian descent, but no proof exists that Allen ever heard the word from his mother at any time prior to the incident when he called the Webb staffer (who is of Indian descent, NOT African) the term.

I could tell a story from my youth that relates how innocently a racial slur could become part of a child's subconscious without that person realizing the actual meaning of the word... but it would take too long & go way off topic - so I will save that for another time.

But that doesn't mean I am excusing Allen for saying the "mecaca" comment. It also doesn't mean that I believe he is a racist, because I don't see that as proof of anything other than him being foolish with his words.

This comment was the subject of many news reports & commentary by people wishing Allen to lose his Senate seat. It was just one way that people (who had no basis to debate Allen on his excellent record for the people of Virginia) to take focus away from what really matters in an election. That's why those same people kept digging into Allen's past for more dirt to use against him.

It's why we heard about how Allen was fascinated with "Southern" culture, even though he grew up in California. It's why we heard how Allen had a noose & a Confederate flag in his office, and alleged examples of Allen being a racist.

People were bringing up alleged comments that Allen made from THIRTY years ago! Stories were printed that misreported the facts, and people who never actually heard Allen say the "N" word went on record as "knowing" that he used that word frequently... 30 years ago.

But, when Jim Webb admitted that he himself had used that word as a youth, so many years ago... the same people condemning Allen tried to downplay the words Webb admitted to using - because they couldn't let their guy be called a racist for doing the exact same thing they were calling Allen for. That doesn't help the Democrats win that Senate seat... sot Webb is NOT a racist for saying "nigger", BUT Allen IS a racist for saying the same word. I'm sure it makes sense to the Democrats, when they filter it through their double standard lens.

And now that Jim Webb is in the news for what he wrote in some novels back in 2001... the same people who felt that Allen's past (from 30 years ago) is so relevant now are saying that Webb's past (from ONLY 5 years ago) is NOT relevant, so we shouldn't even discuss it.

Nevermind that Webb writes about the type of behavior that is far worse than what Democrats accuse former Representative Mark Foley of... Webb is a Democrat, so whatever he does is ok.

Jim Webb wrote about an incident that he supposedly witnessed (along with about 300 people, or so we are to believe) back in Viet Nam - where a man engages in a sexual act on his son. Webb's novel seems to romanticize the act, and his supporters claim it's not relevant to the election, and says nothing about Webb's character.

I think that is DOES show a lack in character if Webb witnessed the heinous act & did nothing about it! Isn't that what Democrats accuse Republicans of in the Mark Foley scandal?

In a side note about Foley, I saw a Democratic strategist get away with calling Foley a "pedophile", when it is 100% false. There is no proof that Foley engaged in sexual activity with a minor - which is what a pedophile is. He seems to have had inappropriate message exchanges with people who were over the age where it would be considered a pedophile - IF Foley actually went on to have a physical relationship with the former Congressional pages. BUT, since Foley waited until the pages were over 21 before engaging in sexual relations... he is NOT a pedophile. But Democrats casually ignore that important fact when they play dirty politics.

Back to Allen & Webb and how the Democrats apply the double standard:

It's ok to bring up all of Allen's past, no matter how far back you go, when talking about how he shouldn't be re-elected to the Senate. It is NOT ok to talk about the exact same issues of Webb's past, even from 5 years ago, when talking about why he shouldn't become Virginia's Senator.

It's funny to listen to the strategists as they say Webb's past is irrelevant, while trying to pack in as many of Allen's past deeds into the same sentence. If just ONE news personality would ask them why it's ok in Allen's case, but not Webb's & force the strategist to answer the question (rather than just rehash Allen's past) you would probably see the person's head explode from all the hypocricy.


Another example of "dirty politics" is when people take comments that Vice President Dick Cheney recently made out of context.

Cheney was asked a question about "water boarding" and he was fed the term "no brainer" in the question. When the Vice President asnwered the question, the answer was used against him, as if the term "no brainer" was a comment by the Vice President, and not the interviewer.

That's disingenuious, and another example of "dirty politics" used by reporters when they are forwarding an agenda.

The Vice President never initiated the term "no brainer" when talking about water boarding, he was forced to reply to the term in a way that made him look like he supported that tactic - because the interviewer "painted him into a corner" by the way he phrased the question.



No matter who is doing it... it's wrong. Unfortunately, it happens for too often, and the debate never ends up about what really matters.


Harold Ford is a decent man, and deserves to be the new Senator from Tennessee. George Allen is not a racist, but a man who has done tremendous good for the people of Virginia while he has been serving them through the many political offices he has been elected to. Michael J Fox is a decent man who is trying to help find a cure for a terrible disease, and shouldn't be mocked for the disease he is afflicted by.

People who engage in dirty politics as a way of avoiding the issues, should be chased out of politics because they do no good for the people of this country.

Pennsylvania and three races of concern

I have not been a total fan of Rick Santorum, mostly because I liked the man he replaced - former Senator Harris Woffard - even though Woffard was a Democrat. I do not agree with every position that Santorum takes as a very conservative Republican. (I consider myself to be conservative, but not to the degree of Santorum. I am a Libertarian, not a Republican.)

I do respect Santorum for how he stands by his positions, even if they are unpopular. I guess this goes back to how my Dad had taught me to mean what you say, and say what you mean - and to not change your opinion just because it becomes unpopular. I was taught to admit being wrong, if that becomes obvious... but never to change your position just to please others. I grew up believing in the idea that if you can't count on a person to keep their word, then you can't count on them at all. If you don't have that integrity - then you are nothing, and have nothing to offer people when it comes to your character.

So, for that, I respect Santorum - even if I don't agree with some of the positions he takes.

Because of that, I will vote for him on November 7th.

I feel he is the better of the two candidates for the Senatorial seat up for grabs. I have no faith in his opponent, Robert Casey, Jr. because I don't see his as a person who stands for anything and I don't feel that he is a man of integrity at all.

And my opinion isn't swayed by the negative political ads that Santorum has aired about Casey.

I wish that Santorum hadn't sunk to the level he had with some of the earlier ads, where Casey is portrayed as being in league with some very shady people. I think the subject could have been addressed in a much better way that didn't need to mudsling.

I do like the most recent ad where Santorum points out Casey's opinions on topics that matter to me: such as border security, protecting the country against nuclear threats from countries like North Korea & Iran, and the war on terror.

In another important race, that between Ed Rendell & Lynn Swann for Governor - I will be voting for Swann over Rendell.

I am less concerned that Lynn Swann is inexperienced as a politican, than I am at the blatant corruption of Rendell. I could go on & on about how corrupt Rendell is, and has been since his days as Mayor of Philadelphia, but I won't. I will just say that I do not like the negative ads that Rendell has aired in an attempt to sway voters from choosing Swann for Governor. I would much rather have someone who is inexperienced but willing to try something new, than a crook who is trying to get richer at the expense of Pennsylvanians while helping his buddies get richer along with him.

One final race in Pennsylvania I will mention is a local one with State-wide consequences.

Blair County Commissioner, John Eichelberger won the Republican nomination in the primary over long-time incumbant, President Pro-Tem of the Senate Robert Jubelirer. I feel that Eichelberger has done the citizens of Blair County (and Central Pennsylvania by extension) a GREAT dis-service! Eichelberger took away the position of power that this area had in Jubelirer by defeating him in the primary.

I'm sure that Eichelberger has good intentions, but - should he win the Senatorial seat on November 7th, he will go to Harrisburg as a 1st term Senator, one with no "connections" and this means he will basically be impotent as a Senator. What can he accomplish for the area he represents when there is nothing to gain by other, more established, politicans by helping him get whatever legislation Eichelberger wishes to get enacted into law? The Central Pennsylvania area has lost their powerful voice when Jubelirer didn't win the primary. Jubelirer was basically the 2nd most powerful man in state politics, and he made sure that the Blair County area didn't get ignored at the expense of Pittsburgh & Philadelphia. Now, there will be a new President Pro-Tem in the Senate - someone not from this area, and won't care one bit about what happens here.

By what Eichelberger did by winning the Republican nomination was assure that Central Pennsylvania is going to be ignored when it comes to funding projects that would help the citizens who live here. With a new President Pro-Tem of the Senate who doesn't have any idea what goes on here in this area, and a freshmen Senator with no connections or hope of being able to get anything done... the Blair County area is going to suffer greatly.

And we have John Eichelberger to thank for that.

My main problem with Eichelberger (beyond the way he divided the Republican Party in Central Pa.) is that he never gave up his job as Blair County Commissioner while running for the Republican nominee for this Senate District. That means he was not earning his pay because he was out campaigning when he should have been doing his job. If he had some integrity, he would have resigned his position as County Commissioner when he chose to run for the State Senate position being held by Jubelirer. That way, the citizens of Blair County would not have been bilked out of the tax dollars we paid that went to Eichelberger's salary when he wasn't doing his job.

So, not only did he steal money from the taxpayers of Blair County... Eichelberger has assured that Blair County (and Central Pennsylvania by extension) will lose a powerful voice in state politics - which means the area will greatly suffer because of Eichelberger's egotistical need to be State Senator.

I know almost nothing of the Democratic challenger for this Senate seat, but I will be voting for him come November 7th. I can only hope he defeats Eichelberger... and that we can oust that dishonest egomanicial disruptive force from his County Commissioner seat when the next time he is up for re-election.

I just hope that this area doesn't suffer too much from losing a good man like Jubelirer. But when the area feels the consequences from Jubelirer not being the President Pro-Tem of the Senate... I hope that Eichelberger will apologize to all the people whose lives he has negatively effected.

Oh, those "devious" Republicans!!

If we are to believe the liberals & Democrats, the Republicans in power are a current version of Machiavelli.

Every time we see a news report dealing with positive actions by Republicans it is always mentioned that this is a "political move" only because the mid-term elections are days away.

Are Democrats & liberals so cynical that they can't give credit where it is due? Or maybe it is because they themselves can't make a move unless it has some ulterior motive or is forwarding an agenda that they believe the Republicans are doing the same thing.

My father used to say, "A thief is the first person to lock his door at night" meaning that if you are a certain way, you expect everyone else to be that way too. This is probably why Democrats & liberals accuse Republicans of having an agenda behind the positive actions they have achieved recently.


Another thing I find interesting about Democrats & liberals is how they will accuse Republicans of being devious or calculating, but they won't allow anyone to even consider the idea that Democrats in the House of Republicans knew of the inappropriate actions that Mark Foley was doing for years... and that the Democrats held onto this information so they could release it at a time when it would do severe damage to Republicans only a month before the mid-term elections.


We hear about how Nancy Pelosi is very intelligent, competant, and a good member of Congress.

If that is true, then she MUST have known about Foley's actions! And if she knew, then it also means that she either DID NOTHING about his offensive behavior, or PURPOSEFULLY held onto the information so that it could be used against Republicans in the upcoming elections.

If either of those things happened, she should be removed from office.

If Nancy Pelosi truly didn't know about what Foley was doing, then she is far too stupid to be competant as a member of Congress - and should be removed from Congress.

The same goes for ANY Democrat who has been in Congress since 2000, when Foley's actions were allegedly so obvious that his fellow Republicans are being accused of covering up for him.

If Democrats can put Republicans under the microscope for what they either didn't do or actively did so that Foley could do his misdeeds, then it is only appropriate that they themselves are put under the same microscope to be examined for the same things.

Donald Trump was recently on Larry King talking about many topics, Mark Foley among them. If someone like Donald Trump knew about Foley's sexual preference... then Democrats in Congress should have known the very things that they accuse Republicans of knowing.

If they didn't know, then they are too stupid to see the obvious - and should be run out of office at light speed.


But, back to those crafty Republicans and their political maneuvers.


The falling gas prices are because Republicans are getting their "Big Oil" connections to manipulate prices - so that Republicans can take credit.

The recent signing of the Border Fence Bill into law was timed so that Republicans could take credit in election ads.

The recent announcement of "benchmarks" in Iraq was done so that Republicans can take credit for progress in the war effort in their election campaigns.

The date for the verdict in Saddam Hussein's trial on November 5th is deliberately timed as being 2 days before the election so that Republicans can take credit in their campaigns.

Republicans have manipulated the stock market's record gains & the early reduction of the defecit so that they can take credit, as well as having something to take attention away from the Foley scandal. (something that Democrats seem to mention in every sentence they utter over the past month)


The obvious problem is this:

If Republicans are so smart & calculating, then why are Democrats like Nancy Pelosi & Joe Biden saying that Republicans in general and the President in specific are dumb, out of touch, incompetant, and other ways of calling them stupid?

You can't have it both ways. Either the Republicans are too stupid to be in office, or they are so smart that they can manipulate events to their maximum benefit.

Which is something to be expected from a political party like the Democrats - who have nothing to offer the American Public. That's why they keep the debate on what they feel is wrong with Republicans. If they get the voters' focus on that - and not what the Democrats have as an alternative - then they might win some seats in the upcoming election.

But if people ask the Democrats what their plan is, they will find out that the Democrats don't have a plan. They have an idea - that of not doing what the Republicans are doing now - but that doesn't say what exactly they will do. The options of what could be done are limitless.

One possibility is that Democrats will turn D.C. into a three ring circus.

It's the most likely result, since they are too stupid to notice someone in their midst who is trying to "get it on" with Congressional pages.

With such gross neglegence & incompetance shown by Democrats... a circus is the BEST we can hope for. I pity the country if enough people are gullible that they fell for the liberal Democrat propaganda that they vote Democrat on November 7th & the control of the House & the Senate change to the Democrats.

I'm just glad that the border fence hasn't been built yet... I may want to move to Mexico before the Democrats can totally ruin the country!!

Will the real Keith Olbermann please stand up?

If you regularly watch MSNBC you might get confused and think that there are at least 2 Keith Olbermanns at the network.

This is because it seems that even Keith doesn't know what type of "journalist" (and I use that term very lightly) he wants to be.

If you watch the promo ads for his show you get the mixed message that Keith is either supposed to be taken seriously - as if he belongs next to people like Walter Cronkite & Tim Russert, or that he's funny, trendy, and in touch with today's youth - like Jon Stewart.

The problem is these are two contradictory qualities - you can't be both at the same time. Well, unless you are neither, and are just trying to be whatever will be acceptable to the target audience you are addressing at the time.

And that is the best description of Keith Olbermann: He's a hypocritical phoney who will do and say anything as long as it will get him ratings.

In a promo ad for MSNBC's 10th anniversary they had the various hosts of the MSNBC shows talk about their shows in soundbites. The part where Keith describes his show was edited after a few airings - because Keith made a typical insensitive comment. He talked about his show should be appealing to the masses, because he & his staff enjoy it. The offensive comment dealt with how Keith & his staff are the A.D.H.D. type, and his show is fast paced enough to keep even them interested... so this means everyone watching it would also stay interested.

It's these kind of insensitive comments that Keith just tosses out for the public consumption that shows he doesn't belong on a network that is supposed to be reproting the news. News is a reporting of facts, and has nothing to do with the opinions of the person doing the reporting. Keith can't get through 5 minutes without his opinions being clear. It's an op-ed program, not news - and MSNBC should have to put a disclaimer on Keith's show so that the public knows that the program has a slanted & biased viewing of the news events he reports.

I find it laughable how MSNBC & Olbermann try to portray Keith as a journalist of integrity and gravitas, when previous promo material equate Olbermann's show with Jon Stewart's fake news program on Comedy Central.

Is Keith a fake journalist - like Jon Stewart, or a serious journalist - like Walter Cronkite? I don't think Keith knows which one he wants to be. It's easier for him to be both, that way he can try to court the many demographics for maximum ratings. I guess Keith has no problem being a total hypocrite so that he can get ratings, because he will conveniently apply double standards when it suits him.

An example of his hypocritical use of the double standard is when he recently bashed the President for endorsing a Republican incumbant who has admitted to having an affair. Keith asked why the President, who Olbermann described as being part of a "Moral Majority", would openly support someone who has admitted to acting in an unmoral way by committing adultery? By doing this, Keith calls the President's integrity into question.

The problem with that is this:

Keith has promo ads that proclaim him to be the one how determines which people are morally fit, and which are morally deficient. This implies that Keith is a person of high moral standard, and because of this he is qualified to judge whether other people are fit or unfit - in the area of morals.

If this is true, then why does Keith openly support Bill Clinton - an man who has been found to have adulterous affairs with several women?

If the President is wrong and lacking integrity for supporting that incumbant politician... wouldn't that also make Keith equally wrong and lacking integrity for how he supports Bill Clinton?

But you won't ever see Keith address his hypocritical positions, because that would mean he would have to admit that he's 100% fake & phoney - and doesn't deserve a show as a "journalist" on a news program.

I call for MSNBC to put up a disclaimer on Keith's show at the beginning so that viewers know the program is not about the news, but an editorial from someone who is biased to one political direction... and that the host is hypocritical by the way he will do & say anything to get ratings - and have no concern for what his double standard hypocricy says about him.

I don't expect MSNBC to meet this challenge I have made, because they lack integrity as much as Olbermann does.

The "Double Standard" trick

I want to state that I am not a Republican. I am a Libertarian. I do not vote specifically for one party over the other (I am referring to the Democrat & Republican parties since most people only think we have 2 political parties in this country) but I will admit that I do consider myself to be "conservative" when it comes to politics. But that alone doesn't mean I must be a Republican. I have many issues with how that party does business, which is why I will not register as a Republican for political purposes.

Even though I find fault with how Republicans do business, I have more of a problem with how Democrats and other liberals want to conduct the business of governing the "People".

It is because of this that I have recently been bothered by the ramblings of a member of the liberal Cult that is the Democrat Party. Although I find this mindless drone to be amusing, I now find myself having to address this lemming in a blog entry.

If the cowardly person known at "GT" (Is this a man or a woman? I can't tell for sure one way or the other.) were someone of character, they would allow me to view their blog & have an option for me to comment on their blog. But, for some reason, I can no longer see any entries at the URL http://taketheusback.blogspot.com/ and there is no means for me to send a message to "GT". I say above that "if" this were a person of character they wouldn't have hidden from me as they seem to have done. Truth is, if they were a person of character... then they wouldn't be a liberal Democrat, would they? :)

Why am I bringing up this "GT", you may ask? I will tell you:

This is the 2nd comment that "GT" left on my blog. Besides being filled with errors & untrue comments, it's an example of how Democrats in specific - and liberals in general - act when someone points out their flaws. They resort to insulting the person who doesn't agree with them, and then they offer either untrue information as "fact" or they selective cite some article, poll, or report to make their point of view appear to be correct - especially when it's not.

Here is the comment that "GT" left for me on this blog:

Liked your comments on my blog since they prove my point. You mention in here the Gerry Studds scandal, as you did in your response on my blog. Funny thing with trying to mislead people is you often end up looking like a fool. Studds actually had a relationships that started WHEN THE YOUNG MAN WAS LEGAL AND OF THE AGE OF CONSENT(SAME WITH CLINTON, WHAT 2 GROWN ADULTS DO IS FINE REGARDLESS OF WHAT YOU THINK). FOLEY WAS GOING AFTER YOUNG MEN UNDER THE AGE OF CONSENT, HENCE DIFFERENT ISSUE. And Duche, if you did any research, you would realize that almost every Democrat has asked Jefferson to resign and they stripped him of all of his posts, guess research isn't your strong suit unless it's to back up your "not a republican, just campaign for them" sort of Fox News approach to fact checking. Reading your blog post makes me wonder about your sanity and if you live in the real world or Bush's lala world with the rest of the sheep. I think it's the latter. Keep up the good republican fight(you really shouldn't try to mislead people, it's very unbecoming, at least us Democrats don't claim to be other parties to try to look independant)
--Posted by GT to The Scandal Sheet at 10/19/2006 07:19:42 AM


Since "GT" has foolishly chosen me as an opponent, (and because "GT" is so cowardly as to not allow me to directly respond to this comment) I will address this comment & the relating subject matter in this blog entry.

1. Gary Studds did NOT have a relationship with someone that was "legal" or "of the age of consent" as we are lead to believe from the comment by "GT".

Gary Studds, in fact, engaged in a sexual relationship with a 17 year old boy. He fully admitted this on the floor of the House of Representatives when he was censured by the House Ethics Committee back in 1983.

Well, let me clarify something. I am not 100% certain about what the "age of consent" was for the District of Columbia or in Portugal back in 1973 as Studds was having anal sex with a 17 year old Congressional page, but he definitely was under 18, so that would make the boy a minor in any state of the country.

And the fact that this was someone who was a current Congressional page at the time makes it more relevant to the current position being spouted ad nauseum by Democrats & liberals. (The one where they assert that Republicans aren't protecting our "underage" children who are in Congress as part of the page program because of what Mark Foley "allegedly" did.)

Foley is a scumbag, there's no deny or defending that.

BUT... there has not been ANY proof that shows Foley was doing anything inappropriate with someone who was currently a Congressional page. The one person who has come forward to be interviewed has stated very clearly that Foley didn't contact him until AFTER he left the page program. And this person further stated that he never had a physical sexual encounter with Foley until he was 21 years old!

In case you can't do the math "GT", that's 3 whole years above the age of 18 - clearly making the former page an adult in what he himself called a "consentual" sexual encounter". Contrast that to Studds physically having sex with a 17 year old who was a current Congressional page when he was under the age of 18. I have to look into the specifics of the law at the time, but I don't think a 17 year old can legally give consent - so that would not only make Studd's anal sex encounters with the 17 year old inappropriate, it might also have been rape.

But, getting back to Foley & the page who has come forward.

In a article reported in an L.A. newspaper, the former page stated that Foley waited until the person in question was above the age of 21 - he said that this was because Foley would NEVER engage in this type of behavior with someone who is "underage". This was something that I heard reported on MSNBC just 1 time over a period of 8 hours that they were repeatedly mentioning the more negative aspects of Foley's inappropriate behavior while he was in Congress.

It makes you wonder why they wouldn't mention this fact as often as everything else they reported. Could it be because this shows Mark Foley as being less of the "sexual predator" - a term used frequently by Democrats, liberals, and the liberally-biased media to describe Foley?
If he was a gay man having consentual sex with a 21 year old man, it doesn't make Foley look as bad as if he were roaming the halls of Congress looking to have a physical sexual encounter with a 17 year old Congressional page...

Oh wait, that's EXACTLY what Studds was doing!!! So, why are Democrats & liberals saying that the Studd's situation isn't relevant when talking about Foley?


2. Another topic in the "GT" comment was how Bill Clinton having an adulterous affair with Monica Lewinsky is ok, because they were 2 adults having a consentual sexual relationship.

Why would I have a problem with "Slick Willy" getting it on with Monica? I'll tell you why:

Bill Clinton campaigned for the Presidency by going on TV and admitting his affair with Gennifer Flowers. Hillary was by his side as he said he had done wrong, but that he was sorry. He also claimed to have learned his lesson, and wouldn't be doing such things again. He used this as a way to counteract claims that this lack of character disqualified him for becoming President. He wanted us to forget that he lied to his wife as he was committing adultery. We should give him another chance, because his wife did.

Forward through many other women that Clinton had indiscretions with to Monica. Forget for now women like Paula Jones & the others that Clinton met as he used his position of power to get what he wanted sexually, as any other sexual predator would. For now, we just want to talk about Bill & Monica.


Monica Lewinsky was an intern at the White House. Basically, Clinton was her boss - just like if she were a cashier at WalMart & Bill was the store manager. If what had happened was actually going on in my WalMart analogy, Bill would have been fired for having an inappropriate sexual relationship with an employee while "on the clock" for WalMart.


Much of the physical aspect of their sexual relationship happened either "in" or "just off" the Oval Office. This is when Clinton was conducting business for the American People who elected him into office. We didn't elect him to masturbate while Moncia was masturbating for him, or for him to get oral sex - we elected him to handle the People's business.

I'm not saying that if Monica were never an intern at the White House, and the affair had happened "after hours" that I would approve... but I might be willing to listen to idiots like "GT" when they try to say it was a private matter between 2 consenting adults. I'd still say it was wrong, and an example of Clinton being unqualified to lead the American People as the President... but I woul;dn't be as upset about it as I am considering he was doing it when he should have been trying to catch Osama Bin Laden & preventing 9/11.


I'll give a comparrison to Foley from the Clinton scandal:


So much is being made about Foley "allegedly" exchanging inappropriate instant messages with a FORMER page at a time when he should have been on the House Floor for a vote on the War in Iraq. Democrats & liberals are just outraged that Foley would do this when he should have been doing the job he was elected to do.


So, why weren't these same people as upset & outraged when Clinton was getting a blow job from Monica in the Oval Office while Yassar Arafat was forced to wait to meet with Clinton in the Rose Garden of the White House?

Maybe we wouldn't have as much tension in the Middle East if Clinton spent more time doing his job and not getting a blow job?

But the Democrats & liberals wouldn't think of applying the same standards to themselves as they do to Republicans!!!


The Bush Administration is under fire because it looks like people either altered the visitation log or they didn't completely & accurately log every time Jack Abramoff was at the White House. Sure, it has legitimate consequences considering that at least 2 Congressmen have been indicted over Abramoff's illegal actions as a lobbyist...

But why didn't people make as big of a deal when the same thing happened for Clinton as he had Monica visit him many times at the White House that aren't in the log record? Witnesses verify Monica's claims, but Democrats & liberals don't mind. If Clinton lied about Monica visiting the White House... were other visitors kept from the record to keep Clinton's misdeeds from being known?

Remember, this is a President who sold our nuclear secrets to China - by means of "donors" who were granted such treats as a) meetings with the President; b) trips on Air Force One; and c) nights in the Lincoln Bedroom depending on how much they gave Clinton for the Democratic Party. What other ways did he betray our country while he was busy hopping in bed with the Chinese & getting some from Monica?



3. In regard to William Jefferson and his bribery scandal, "GT" again misleads while trying to inform what happened.

The only reason that the Democrats voted to strip Jefferson of his position was because if they didn't do something, then Speaker of the House Hastert was going to do much more. What Democrats did was inadequate at best, and not what they would demand be done if Jefferson were a Republican. They would jump right to the extreme of demanding a resignation from Congress if Jefferson were a Republican.

But since he's a Democrat, things like the Congressional Black Caucus take the position that NOTHING should be done to him because he should be presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Nevermind that a sting operation was conducted where he took a $100,000 bribe, and when his office was searched, $90,000 of the marked bribe money was clearly found in his refridgerator. What did the Democrats say about it? They said that his office should never been searched because it's off grounds as him being a member of Congress.

A similar defense was being offered when another Democrat was found to be driving while intoxicated & in an accident. The claim that he couldn't be questioned or detained because he was on his way to vote (which was a total lie) was tossed out so that the police couldn't use any information about this Congressman's alleged intoxication could be used against him.

Or when another member of Congress assaulted an officer who wanted to take a closer look at her because he didn't recognize her as being the member of Congress she claimed to be... Democrats & liberals said she was justified to assault the officer - the race card was even tossed into the mix as a justification for her assaulting an officer trying to do his job.

But back to William Jefferson:

Nancy Pelosi said that Jefferson should step down from his position on the House Ways & Means Committee "only until his situation is clarified". Meaning, if he doesn't get charged or indicted, he can return to his position of power. I'm guessing she's hoping there can be some means of getting the $90,000 found in his freezer excluded from the record so Jefferson can get back to work for her. Nevermind that he's guilty as sin... he has work to do for them!



But forget all the "facts" getting in the way of "GT"'s comment to me. I just love how "GT" went right to insulting me - in true liberal Democrat fashion. It's a tactic that is used by the likes of Al Franken & his ilk to attack their opponents when they don't have facts on their side.

It's really sad that "GT" was too lazy to use spell check, if so, then I wouldn't have been called a "Duche" when it's spelled "douche".

I also like how my sanity is called into question, when it's "GT" who is definitely in need of psychiatric help.

And I am accused of being just like FOX News as I campaign for the Republicans. How funny. :)

I love how "GT" claims that a Democrat would never claim to be of another party so as to appear independant. The problem with that is this: You can always spot a liberal Democrat! They can't try to hide who they are, and they are never independant.

I am not a Republican, as I have said many times before this. I am an outside observer to the Democrat - Republican battle, even if I fully admit to being a conservative.

I am way more objective than "GT" or any other liberal/Democrat will ever be. I do not follow any party line, nor do I spout propaganda as "GT" does.

I take a look at the situation, and I give an honest telling, based on "facts" - not feelings like "GT" does.


Oh, and one tidbit to show I am not trying to "mislead" or hide anything (as "GT" claims I do):

In that same incident where Studds was censured in Congress... there was a republican who was also censured. This Republican was having a sexual relationship with a 17 year old FEMALE page.

It should be noted that when the Republican admitted doing wrong & offering an apology, he did so facing the other members of the House.

Studds turned his back on his fellow Congressmen & faced only the Speaker of the House, like the coward he was. Then he held a press conference.... and went on to staying in his office, being re-elected 5 more times before retiring in 1996.

Compare how Democrats reacted to him sodomizing a 17 year old boy who was a current Congressional page - to how Democrats reacted to Foley, who merely sent inappropriate messages to FORMER pages & only having sex with them once they were 21 years old.



And they want us to believe that only the Democrats are fit to be in power... whatever!


And to "GT"... don't be a coward & hide from me. Either stand behind your opinions & allow someone to prove you wrong... or don't offer a comment, only to hide afterward.

Oh yeah, and please, get professional help. I think your medications have run out.

Help support this cause

Tonight Comedy Central is having a benefit for Autism education called the "Night Of Too Many Stars".

Here's some info about the program:

"The Night Of Too Many Stars" is Comedy Central's first live, on-air and online special event, Night of Too Many Stars: An Overbooked Benefit for Autism Education will be held at New York City's Beacon Theatre on Sunday, October 15.

"Night of Too Many Stars" is designed to raise awareness of autism. This live performance will benefit the Alpine Learning Group, the New York Center for Autism Charter School and other autism education programs.

The funds raised will support educational facilities that have recently opened or are about to open their doors along with those very well-established model schools that are now developing innovative programs to provide vocational and life skills for adults with autism.

Proceeds will also support outreach programs that provide training and consultation to families of very young children in their homes.

Additionally, a portion of the proceeds will benefit Autism Speaks, the nation's leading autism advocacy group.

For more information about autism education, please visit www.nyc4a.org or www.alpinelearninggroup.org .

For more information about autism advocacy and research, please visit www.autismspeaks.org.

It's a very worthy cause, and I am sending out this info to everyone I know so that they have a chance to help out.

I don't have alot, but I donated $20.

If you wish to help you can call the toll free number 1-877-974-8633.

There's a secure way to donate if you wish to donate online by going to this URL:

http://www.comedycentral.com/shows/night_of_too_many_stars/index.jhtml

You can also send a check or money order by mail to:

N.Y.C.A. 477 Madison Avenue Suite 420 New York, NY 10022

(make the check/money order out to "N.Y.C.A.")

Please help, even if it's only by sending this message to everyone you know. Every little bit will help, and I'm sure those who will benefit from your donation will greatly appreciate it.

Here's another way you can help those in need:

http://www.cafepress.com/never_run

Benefits those effected by the tragedy of 9/11/01 and show your patriotism by going to this site and supporting this cause as well.

Don Imus is the only one at MSNBC with integrity!

On Sunday morning I watched MSNBC from Alison Stewart all the way through Contessa Brewer. I think I spent about 8 full hours watching MSNBC, I'm not certain because the whole morning & early afternoon blurred into about an hour of broadcast time.

This is because MSNBC reported one story, with 2 or 3 other stories briefly mentioned at random intervals before going back to the one story being talked about. I can barely recall what other topics were discussed that day because The so-called "scandal" set into motion by former Rep. Mark Foley was being shoved down my throat every possible moment of airtime.

It's no wonder the polls that were talked about that day seem to indicate that the public is not happy with Republicans, that the public seems to feel that Democrats are now better on moral issues & defending us against terrorism, or any of the other things that these obviously biased & leading poll questions were designed to "prove". When a network spends 8 hours in one day (and repeats this propaganda reporting over actual news reporting every day) pushing an agenda... people will eventually start to wonder if it's the truth - even if there's an obvious bias in the "reporting". (It's like the saying goes, "If you say a lie often enough, and loud enough... people will eventually believe it". That's why the truth is said to be subjective, because a "truth" is only something you can get a person to believe - whereas a "fact" is based on reality, not feelings or beliefs.)

There was an obvious liberal bias in the reporting of that day's "news". One example is how the alleged accusations of a former page (an anonymous source at that, something that calls into question the believability of the alleged information & should have caused both MSNBC & the L.A. newspaper to NOT report what is basically unsubstantiated rumor) were being repeated over & over - BUT one tidbit of information that wasn't damaging to Foley & the Republicans was only mentioned ONCE.

I am referring to the bit of info where the anonymous former page said that Rep. Foley told him that he would NEVER engage in inappropriate behavior with someone who is underage, because of it being a crime.

Why wasn't this bit of info repeated over & over with all of the assumptions & other comments that amount to mere conjecture?

Is it because this comment gives the public a more accurate picture of former Rep. Foley - one that isn't a pedophile or sexual predator, but simply a gay man engaging in gay sex with another consenting adult?

If a benign picture of Foley is reported, then the public won't believe all of the liberally-biased propaganda that MSNBC reports to them in the attempt to sway public opinion. A Foley who is engaging in mutually consensual (non-illegal) gay sex doesn't serve to demonize the Representative in specific - which means the general implication of the Republicans as a whole being morally deficient doesn't work to a rationally thinking person.

And that isn't something that the liberally-biased MSNBC can sell, so it mentioned it one time. Most likely some producer either realized the implication of the comment, or was told about it from someone else... and the decision to "forget" to keep reporting this piece of information was made.

Another example of selective reporting is when Contessa Brewer had opposing guests on air to debate the topic. The usual liberal bias didn't remain unnoticed by the conservative guest. He was either the first to notice, or the first to be brave enough to call Contessa & MSNBC on the biasness because I haven't seen anyone say on air what he did.

Contessa cut the man off when he tried to speak on topic about how the Democrats also have moral scandals. Later, when the liberal guest went WAY off topic, Contessa allowed him to go on - because his comments either bashed Republicans or pointed out their flaws.

When the conservative guest tried to bring equality & fair play into the debate, he was ridiculed by his liberal opponent & censured by Contessa.

The liberal guest was rude & unprofessional. He insulted the conservative guest with many ad hominem attacks such as purposefully mispronouncing his name in a way that was insulting. This was one of many immature comments that Contessa allowed him to hurl at the conservative guest. Neither Contessa nor the producer of the news working at the time didn't even stop the liberal guest when he literally said "SHUT UP" to his conservative counterpart. How is this fair & unbiased, let alone professional by MSNBC?

Two things that MSNBC ignores in their biased reporting are these subjects NOT seen on any MSNBC program:

1) If the actions of former Rep. Mark Foley in regards to the Congressional pages was so obvious that his fellow Republicans just HAD to know about it for years... why wouldn't the Democrats in the House of Representatives also know about them? Congressional Pages are people used by all of the members of the House not assigned to specific Congressmen, so the pages who came into contact with Foley would also come in contact with Democrat members of the House, as well as other Congressional Pages.

MSNBC has been reporting of the Democrats' outrage towards House Republicans who MIGHT have known about Foley's actions but didn't say anything to the general House population, let alone the American Public. This ignores the almost certain reality that at least one House Democrat also knew of Foley's inappropriate behavior.

Mark Foley was known to be a gay man, and it looks like a fellow gay Republican House member knew way back in 2000 of Foley's behavior. Are we to believe that for SIX YEARS the House Democrats were kept in the dark?

If that is true... then the House Democrats are stupid... if it's not the truth, then the Democrats are just as guilty of whatever it is that Nancy Pelosi is accusing of the House Republicans.

Why is MSNBC only reporting about Republicans being to blame, and not including House Democrats? Is it because that to report Democrats being as potentially culpable as the Republicans it prevents them from being able to paint the Republicans as having moral deficiencies while Democrats are morally superior?

And why aren't the polls asking the public whether they look poorly at the Democrats for either: a) being too stupid/gullable for not knowing sooner, or b) whether Democrats MUST have known and kept quiet - making them just as guilty as Republicans?

2)Why is it not relevant to bring up incidents when a Democrat has engaged in behavior that is equally inappropriate ... if not worse?

MSNBC is allowing their liberal guests to comment about how the Republicans are supposedly failing to accurately represent the "moral values" they claimed to have when they took control of Congress so many years ago... while preventing any mention of how the Democrats repeatedly show that they are just as guilty, if not more so.

Why is it ok to talk ad nauseum of what people like Delay, Abramoff, Cunningham, and other Republicans/conservatives... but it not ok to also mention Democrats who have committed actions of low moral character?

Foley is allowed to be the poster boy for all Republicans as an example of their moral failures, and this is being given as reason to give power back to Democrats.

If you believe Democrats, they wouldn't have acted as negligently as they claim Republicans acted in regard to Foley's actions & an alleged cover-up.

HOWEVER, when a Democrat in Congress was actually having sexual relations with underage Congressional pages/interns... he wasn't told to resign by his fellow Democrats - he was allowed to remain in his elected office & was REELECTED 5 more times!!!

When a Democrat was actually running a prostitution ring out of his residence was he forced to resign by his fellow Democrats? NO, he was allowed to remain in office - and is still there to this day!!!

And when a Democrat was President and engaged in adulterous sexual behavior with an intern IN THE OVAL OFFICE AND WHILE "ON THE CLOCK" FOR THE AMERICAN PUBLIC did his fellow Democrats in Congress force him from office? Of course not, they did everything possible to keep a sexual predator in office!!!

This is just three examples of Democrats allowing Democrats to engage immorally reprehensible behavior, just so they could keep the power of having the offending Democrat in office... while now saying that it's a totally different situation now that the offender is a Republican.

The proper way to describe this behavior by Democrats is as them having a Double Standard. And when someone acts like that, they are a HYPOCRITE!!!

When Bill Clinton was committing adultery with Monica Lewinsky while he was supposed to be conducting the business of the American People his fellow Democrats said it was a "private" matter, and none of our business... but now that it's a Republican being accused, it's not a "private" matter at all and it's very much our business.

How is it any different when Foley allegedly was engaging in sexual messaging with a Congressional Page (whether former or present) and when Clinton was receiving oral sex from an intern while he was making phone calls (with government officials, whether they be U.S. or foreign) as he was conducting official business?

And when recent reports of Clinton potentially in a conversation with a married woman that was described as being sexual in nature... why is that not ok to talk about in response to how Foley & Republicans being the only ones guilty of moral transgressions? Why is the incident made out to be a "joke" or of no consequence, just because the husband of the woman that Clinton was talking to in a sexual way was Ashton Kutcher - host of a tv show about pranks & practical jokes?


Wouldn't it be relevant if a member of Congress was found to be in possession of $90,000 cash that was given to him as a bribe from what turned out to be an undercover agent of the government agency that was investigating the Congressman for criminal behavior when talking about morals? It probably would, if the Congressman in question were a Republican - but since he is a Democrat, MSNBC doesn't bother to mention this incident, or allow others to comment on him.

To allow any mention of these 4 examples of Democrats who have engaged in morally deficient behavior would negate any idea that it is only Republicans who are guilty of moral transgressions. It would also allow people to realistically judge members of Congress as individuals, and not in the general terms of a political party.

In the courtroom MSNBC & liberals would not be allowed to behave this way. In a forum where the truth, equality, and fairness are mandatory so that justice can be possible. You can't tell people about the positive qualities of someone involved with the trial without the opposition being allowed to bring up their negative qualities. If you want to assure that the negatives can't be brought into record... then you can't "open the door" to a character debate by bringing up only that which benefits you. It's a shame that MSNBC doesn't follow such principled behavior because they are doing the public a great disservice.

News isn't supposed to have an opinion, it's supposed to be neutral & just report the facts. It's hypocritical & ironic that MSNBC (Keith Olbermann especially) likes to point at FOX News for being biased towards the conservative viewpoint... when MSNBC is obviously just as guilty of biasness, only towards the liberal viewpoint. Dan Rather was disgraced & eventually booted from his position as news anchor at CBS when his liberal bias became public.

It was correct that he be removed from that position since he couldn't appear to be neutral when reporting the news, and MSNBC (and FOX) should follow such a professional benchmark with all of their news reporters who appear on air. To allow a biased opinion (of either viewpoint) is not professional, it is engaging in the spreading of an agenda by means of propaganda. This should fall under the subject of political commentary that requires "equal time" from the opposing view - or be punished by the appropriate government agency as being biased speech.

Keith Olbermann tries to paint himself as a serious newsman. He wants people to think he should be considered among such noteworthy newscasters like Cronkite, that he can be trusted. Which is interesting when you consider that promotional ads for his show "Countdown with Keith Olbermann" had compared the show to Jon Stewart and his show "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart" - even though Stewart's show is a comedy program making fun of the news programs rather than an actual news program. I see that as being a contradiction - you are either a respected news program or a comedy program. The people who watch Jon Stewart appreciate his take on the news, but he isn't on par with a respected newsman like Cronkite - even if he is extremely popular & many people (unfortunately) get their news from his show spoofing the news.

Keith is probably the most biased among a biased bunch. His whole "hook" is his Bush-bashing (and Republican-bashing by extension) and also by his relentless "stalking" of Bill O'Reilly with the sole purpose of bashing & slandering him. I guess Keith figures that by mentioning O'Reilly's name every chance he can... that this will result in others mentioning him - giving Olbermann a level of awareness in the public consciousness that he wouldn't normally have (and didn't earn of his own merit) thus resulting in his ratings boost. It's a "ride the bandwagon" type of boost that comes from people who have been whipped into a frenzy from all of the other propaganda being force fed to the public by MSNBC - and not a genuine boost in ratings because people actually want to watch Olbermann because he's talented, trustworthy, or likable.

It's like how the housing boom finally began to end - because enough people said that it couldn't last much longer often enough that people stopped showing confidence in the market... resulting in the predicted end of the boom. It's a self-fulfilling process that isn't a result of untainted events, but a situation where "cause & effect" is thrown into reverse.

The result of Olbermann using this tactic of bashing Bush, Republicans & the anti-O'Reilly commentary is that Keith's show has (allegedly, if you believe MSNBC as the source) doubled in the ratings race.

Keith is on air opposite of the #1 show in all of cable news, that of his nemesis, Bill O'Reilly on FOX News, so it's no wonder why he uses O'Reilly to boost his own ratings.

Recently Olbermann interviewed Bill Clinton in what MSNBC proclaimed as "The Olbermann Interview" - as if 20 years from now history will see this moment as being noteworthy. The promo ad also described Olbermann as being one of the most respected journalists of our time, or some such description equating Olbermann as a modern day Cronkite.

What the "interview" really was can only be described as the journalistic version of Olbermann performing oral sex on the former President. It's ironic that Clinton accused a member of FOX News as being a tool or a puppet of his conservative masters, when Olbermann was the epitome of being a willing accomplice to whatever message Clinton wanted to spread. There were no tough questions for Clinton from Olbermann. It could honestly be said that it couldn't have been a better example for the liberal cause - even if Michael Moore directed it while Al Franken, Bill Maher, Howard Dean, & Nancy Pelosi wrote the script!

Even though the September 11 Commission stated that the Clinton Administration shared blame for the tragedy of September 11, 2001... Olbermann didn't question the former President about it. Clinton was allowed to deny any wrongdoing while shifting blame to the current Administration. Days later Olbermann was all about blaming President Bush with accusations coming from former Clinton. Why should Keith accept Bill Clinton as a source when his claims are contradicted by the September 11 Commission?

You would think that a group made up of 5 Democrats & 5 Republicans would have be unbiased, as we have seen them to be. They are the epitome of being an objective 3rd party - yet Olbermann chose the word of a man who has been proven to be a liar, a thief, an adulterer, and possibly a traitor to his country over this impartial group.

Keith siding with Clinton over the September 11 Commission is proof of him being a tool or a puppet for his liberal masters. It also shows that he should not be on cable tv where he can sway public opinion with propaganda when he is supposed to be reporting the news in a neutral fashion. In the very least, it proves that he should be described as a journalist of integrity or high stature.


When Olbermann mentions O'Reilly, FOX News, President Bush, or Republicans in a negative light, he does so because he knows it will boost his ratings. He is pandering to the lowest common denominator, and that is sad. Keith's show is the political version of Jerry Springer, and that has nothing to do with what the news is supposed to be about.

MSNBC & Olbermann want people to believe that he (and MSNBC as well) is a journalist of high regard, that he should be put in the same category of people like Walter Cronkite. We are being told that he is someone of integrity, and that we should trust him to be neutral when he reports the news to us.

But when Olbermann (and MSNBC) allows his political views/opinions to shape how & what he reports... then the process becomes tainted - it's no longer news, but an Op Ed piece at best... it's the forwarding of an agenda through propaganda at worst.



But... back to Imus.

He also deserves props for taking on the corrupt politican who lied to people (a group inculding Imus' wife) so that he could get support for his Bill to get passed... only to be the sole reason that a Bill supported by Imus (and many members of Congress) is blocked in committee - a committee that this corrupt politician, Joe Barton, happens to run.

Joe Barton has tried to get Imus censorced or gagged by going to people at MSNBC he felt were in control of Imus. This cowardly tactic failed, and has served to give Imus a boost of energy in his campaign of awareness against this politician.

Good for you Don - keep up the fight!!!

Selective journalism & the effect on public opinion

On Sunday morning I watched MSNBC from Alison Stewart all the way through Contessa Brewer. I think I spent about 8 full hours watching MSNBC, I'm not certain because the whole morning & early afternoon blurred into about an hour of broadcast time.

This is because MSNBC reported one story, with 2 or 3 other stories briefly mentioned at random intervals before going back to the one story being talked about. I can barely recall what other topics were discussed that day because The so-called "scandal" set into motion by former Rep. Mark Foley was being shoved down my throat every possible moment of airtime.

It's no wonder the polls that were talked about that day seem to indicate that the public is not happy with Republicans, that the public seems to feel that Democrats are now better on moral issues & defending us against terrorism, or any of the other things that these obviously biased & leading poll questions were designed to "prove". When a network spends 8 hours in one day (and repeats this propaganda reporting over actual news reporting every day) pushing an agenda... people will eventually start to wonder if it's the truth - even if there's an obvious bias in the "reporting". (It's like the saying goes, "If you say a lie often enough, and loud enough... people will eventually believe it". That's why the truth is said to be subjective, because a "truth" is only something you can get a person to believe - whereas a "fact" is based on reality, not feelings or beliefs.)

There was an obvious liberal bias in the reporting of that day's "news". One example is how the alleged accusations of a former page (an anonymous source at that, something that calls into question the believability of the alleged information & should have caused both MSNBC & the L.A. newspaper to NOT report what is basically unsubstantiated rumor) were being repeated over & over - BUT one tidbit of information that wasn't damaging to Foley & the Republicans was only mentioned ONCE.

I am referring to the bit of info where the anonymous former page said that Rep. Foley told him that he would NEVER engage in inappropriate behavior with someone who is underage, because of it being a crime.

Why wasn't this bit of info repeated over & over with all of the assumptions & other comments that amount to mere conjecture?

Is it because this comment gives the public a more accurate picture of former Rep. Foley - one that isn't a pedophile or sexual predator, but simply a gay man engaging in gay sex with another consenting adult?

If a benign picture of Foley is reported, then the public won't believe all of the liberally-biased propaganda that MSNBC reports to them in the attempt to sway public opinion. A Foley who is engaging in mutually consensual (non-illegal) gay sex doesn't serve to demonize the Representative in specific - which means the general implication of the Republicans as a whole being morally deficient doesn't work to a rationally thinking person.

And that isn't something that the liberally-biased MSNBC can sell, so it mentioned it one time. Most likely some producer either realized the implication of the comment, or was told about it from someone else... and the decision to "forget" to keep reporting this piece of information was made.

Another example of selective reporting is when Contessa Brewer had opposing guests on air to debate the topic. The usual liberal bias didn't remain unnoticed by the conservative guest. He was either the first to notice, or the first to be brave enough to call Contessa & MSNBC on the biasness because I haven't seen anyone say on air what he did.

Contessa cut the man off when he tried to speak on topic about how the Democrats also have moral scandals. Later, when the liberal guest went WAY off topic, Contessa allowed him to go on - because his comments either bashed Republicans or pointed out their flaws.

When the conservative guest tried to bring equality & fair play into the debate, he was ridiculed by his liberal opponent & censured by Contessa.

The liberal guest was rude & unprofessional. He insulted the conservative guest with many ad hominem attacks such as purposefully mispronouncing his name in a way that was insulting. This was one of many immature comments that Contessa allowed him to hurl at the conservative guest. Neither Contessa nor the producer of the news working at the time didn't even stop the liberal guest when he literally said "SHUT UP" to his conservative counterpart. How is this fair & unbiased, let alone professional by MSNBC?

Two things that MSNBC ignores in their biased reporting are these subjects NOT seen on any MSNBC program:

1) If the actions of former Rep. Mark Foley in regards to the Congressional pages was so obvious that his fellow Republicans just HAD to know about it for years... why wouldn't the Democrats in the House of Representatives also know about them? Congressional Pages are people used by all of the members of the House not assigned to specific Congressmen, so the pages who came into contact with Foley would also come in contact with Democrat members of the House, as well as other Congressional Pages.

MSNBC has been reporting of the Democrats' outrage towards House Republicans who MIGHT have known about Foley's actions but didn't say anything to the general House population, let alone the American Public. This ignores the almost certain reality that at least one House Democrat also knew of Foley's inappropriate behavior.

Mark Foley was known to be a gay man, and it looks like a fellow gay Republican House member knew way back in 2000 of Foley's behavior. Are we to believe that for SIX YEARS the House Democrats were kept in the dark?

If that is true... then the House Democrats are stupid... if it's not the truth, then the Democrats are just as guilty of whatever it is that Nancy Pelosi is accusing of the House Republicans.

Why is MSNBC only reporting about Republicans being to blame, and not including House Democrats? Is it because that to report Democrats being as potentially culpable as the Republicans it prevents them from being able to paint the Republicans as having moral deficiencies while Democrats are morally superior?

And why aren't the polls asking the public whether they look poorly at the Democrats for either: a) being too stupid/gullable for not knowing sooner, or b) whether Democrats MUST have known and kept quiet - making them just as guilty as Republicans?

2)Why is it not relevant to bring up incidents when a Democrat has engaged in behavior that is equally inappropriate ... if not worse?

MSNBC is allowing their liberal guests to comment about how the Republicans are supposedly failing to accurately represent the "moral values" they claimed to have when they took control of Congress so many years ago... while preventing any mention of how the Democrats repeatedly show that they are just as guilty, if not more so.

Why is it ok to talk ad nauseum of what people like Delay, Abramoff, Cunningham, and other Republicans/conservatives... but it not ok to also mention Democrats who have committed actions of low moral character?

Foley is allowed to be the poster boy for all Republicans as an example of their moral failures, and this is being given as reason to give power back to Democrats.

If you believe Democrats, they wouldn't have acted as negligently as they claim Republicans acted in regard to Foley's actions & an alleged cover-up.

HOWEVER, when a Democrat in Congress was actually having sexual relations with underage Congressional pages/interns... he wasn't told to resign by his fellow Democrats - he was allowed to remain in his elected office & was REELECTED 5 more times!!!

When a Democrat was actually running a prostitution ring out of his residence was he forced to resign by his fellow Democrats? NO, he was allowed to remain in office - and is still there to this day!!!

And when a Democrat was President and engaged in adulterous sexual behavior with an intern IN THE OVAL OFFICE AND WHILE "ON THE CLOCK" FOR THE AMERICAN PUBLIC did his fellow Democrats in Congress force him from office? Of course not, they did everything possible to keep a sexual predator in office!!!

This is just three examples of Democrats allowing Democrats to engage immorally reprehensible behavior, just so they could keep the power of having the offending Democrat in office... while now saying that it's a totally different situation now that the offender is a Republican.

The proper way to describe this behavior by Democrats is as them having a Double Standard. And when someone acts like that, they are a HYPOCRITE!!!

When Bill Clinton was committing adultery with Monica Lewinsky while he was supposed to be conducting the business of the American People his fellow Democrats said it was a "private" matter, and none of our business... but now that it's a Republican being accused, it's not a "private" matter at all and it's very much our business.

How is it any different when Foley allegedly was engaging in sexual messaging with a Congressional Page (whether former or present) and when Clinton was receiving oral sex from an intern while he was making phone calls (with government officials, whether they be U.S. or foreign) as he was conducting official business?

And when recent reports of Clinton potentially in a conversation with a married woman that was described as being sexual in nature... why is that not ok to talk about in response to how Foley & Republicans being the only ones guilty of moral transgressions? Why is the incident made out to be a "joke" or of no consequence, just because the husband of the woman that Clinton was talking to in a sexual way was Ashton Kutcher - host of a tv show about pranks & practical jokes?


Wouldn't it be relevant if a member of Congress was found to be in possession of $90,000 cash that was given to him as a bribe from what turned out to be an undercover agent of the government agency that was investigating the Congressman for criminal behavior when talking about morals? It probably would, if the Congressman in question were a Republican - but since he is a Democrat, MSNBC doesn't bother to mention this incident, or allow others to comment on him.

To allow any mention of these 4 examples of Democrats who have engaged in morally deficient behavior would negate any idea that it is only Republicans who are guilty of moral transgressions. It would also allow people to realistically judge members of Congress as individuals, and not in the general terms of a political party.

In the courtroom MSNBC & liberals would not be allowed to behave this way. In a forum where the truth, equality, and fairness are mandatory so that justice can be possible. You can't tell people about the positive qualities of someone involved with the trial without the opposition being allowed to bring up their negative qualities. If you want to assure that the negatives can't be brought into record... then you can't "open the door" to a character debate by bringing up only that which benefits you. It's a shame that MSNBC doesn't follow such principled behavior because they are doing the public a great disservice.

News isn't supposed to have an opinion, it's supposed to be neutral & just report the facts. It's hypocritical & ironic that MSNBC (Keith Olbermann especially) likes to point at FOX News for being biased towards the conservative viewpoint... when MSNBC is obviously just as guilty of biasness, only towards the liberal viewpoint. Dan Rather was disgraced & eventually booted from his position as news anchor at CBS when his liberal bias became public.

It was correct that he be removed from that position since he couldn't appear to be neutral when reporting the news, and MSNBC (and FOX) should follow such a professional benchmark with all of their news reporters who appear on air. To allow a biased opinion (of either viewpoint) is not professional, it is engaging in the spreading of an agenda by means of propaganda. This should fall under the subject of political commentary that requires "equal time" from the opposing view - or be punished by the appropriate government agency as being biased speech.

Keith Olbermann tries to paint himself as a serious newsman. He wants people to think he should be considered among such noteworthy newscasters like Cronkite, that he can be trusted. Which is interesting when you consider that promotional ads for his show "Countdown with Keith Olbermann" had compared the show to Jon Stewart and his show "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart" - even though Stewart's show is a comedy program making fun of the news programs rather than an actual news program. I see that as being a contradiction - you are either a respected news program or a comedy program. The people who watch Jon Stewart appreciate his take on the news, but he isn't on par with a respected newsman like Cronkite - even if he is extremely popular & many people (unfortunately) get their news from his show spoofing the news.

Keith is probably the most biased among a biased bunch. His whole "hook" is his Bush-bashing (and Republican-bashing by extension) and also by his relentless "stalking" of Bill O'Reilly with the sole purpose of bashing & slandering him. I guess Keith figures that by mentioning O'Reilly's name every chance he can... that this will result in others mentioning him - giving Olbermann a level of awareness in the public consciousness that he wouldn't normally have (and didn't earn of his own merit) thus resulting in his ratings boost. It's a "ride the bandwagon" type of boost that comes from people who have been whipped into a frenzy from all of the other propaganda being force fed to the public by MSNBC - and not a genuine boost in ratings because people actually want to watch Olbermann because he's talented, trustworthy, or likable.

It's like how the housing boom finally began to end - because enough people said that it couldn't last much longer often enough that people stopped showing confidence in the market... resulting in the predicted end of the boom. It's a self-fulfilling process that isn't a result of untainted events, but a situation where "cause & effect" is thrown into reverse.

The result of Olbermann using this tactic of bashing Bush, Republicans & the anti-O'Reilly commentary is that Keith's show has (allegedly, if you believe MSNBC as the source) doubled in the ratings race.

Keith is on air opposite of the #1 show in all of cable news, that of his nemesis, Bill O'Reilly on FOX News, so it's no wonder why he uses O'Reilly to boost his own ratings.

Recently Olbermann interviewed Bill Clinton in what MSNBC proclaimed as "The Olbermann Interview" - as if 20 years from now history will see this moment as being noteworthy. The promo ad also described Olbermann as being one of the most respected journalists of our time, or some such description equating Olbermann as a modern day Cronkite.

What the "interview" really was can only be described as the journalistic version of Olbermann performing oral sex on the former President. It's ironic that Clinton accused a member of FOX News as being a tool or a puppet of his conservative masters, when Olbermann was the epitome of being a willing accomplice to whatever message Clinton wanted to spread. There were no tough questions for Clinton from Olbermann. It could honestly be said that it couldn't have been a better example for the liberal cause - even if Michael Moore directed it while Al Franken, Bill Maher, Howard Dean, & Nancy Pelosi wrote the script!

Even though the September 11 Commission stated that the Clinton Administration shared blame for the tragedy of September 11, 2001... Olbermann didn't question the former President about it. Clinton was allowed to deny any wrongdoing while shifting blame to the current Administration. Days later Olbermann was all about blaming President Bush with accusations coming from former Clinton. Why should Keith accept Bill Clinton as a source when his claims are contradicted by the September 11 Commission?

You would think that a group made up of 5 Democrats & 5 Republicans would have be unbiased, as we have seen them to be. They are the epitome of being an objective 3rd party - yet Olbermann chose the word of a man who has been proven to be a liar, a thief, an adulterer, and possibly a traitor to his country over this impartial group.

Keith siding with Clinton over the September 11 Commission is proof of him being a tool or a puppet for his liberal masters. It also shows that he should not be on cable tv where he can sway public opinion with propaganda when he is supposed to be reporting the news in a neutral fashion. In the very least, it proves that he should be described as a journalist of integrity or high stature.


When Olbermann mentions O'Reilly, FOX News, President Bush, or Republicans in a negative light, he does so because he knows it will boost his ratings. He is pandering to the lowest common denominator, and that is sad. Keith's show is the political version of Jerry Springer, and that has nothing to do with what the news is supposed to be about.

MSNBC & Olbermann want people to believe that he (and MSNBC as well) is a journalist of high regard, that he should be put in the same category of people like Walter Cronkite. We are being told that he is someone of integrity, and that we should trust him to be neutral when he reports the news to us.

But when Olbermann (and MSNBC) allows his political views/opinions to shape how & what he reports... then the process becomes tainted - it's no longer news, but an Op Ed piece at best... it's the forwarding of an agenda through propaganda at worst.