October 19, 2006

"Your words are lies, Sir. They are lies that imperil us all." -- Keith Olbermann. (Crooks and Liars link; content available as txt, WMV and MOV.)

See also: MeFi #55627.

posted by fuyugare 17 years ago
  • It's true.
  • I was more interested with his conversation with Turley last night. Olberman's comments seem to be increasingly about Olberman's own performance, imo. But that MeFi #55627 is a damn fine post.
  • Olberman's comments seem to be increasingly about Olberman's own performance, imo. I've never heard Olberman comment on his own performance. Link please!
  • Here's a link. I think that's Olberman's head...
  • I am honestly more than a bit suspicious of Olbermann. His speech reeks of sophistry. Why is he pleading with or lecturing Bushco? Surely no one still believes that Bushco can be swayed by passionate arguments! It it personal ambition? Does he want to become the next Jon Stewart? Does he want to be the counterbalance to the Rush and Hannity circus? (Isn't this field getting a bit crowded?) Not to say, of course, that I disagree with the text of his speech. I merely find the speaker questionable. We've known, and been screaming to anyone who'll hear, this stuff about Bush since 2003 (at least). Bush himself famously commented on his preference for dictatorships (with him as the dictator). Where were Olbermann and his Special Comments in 2003, 2004 and 2005? Why make an issue of Bush now, so very late in the game? Does he think that there are people who still have doubts about Bush's nature? Who, I wonder, does Olbermann think his audience is?
  • > Who, I wonder, does Olbermann think his audience is? i don't know; my impression is he's trying to contribute to a swing in the congressional elections. his audience has been growing of late:
    Since that first commentary, Olbermann's nightly audience has increased 69 percent, according to Nielsen Media Research. This past Monday 834,000 people tuned in, virtually double his season average...
    i don't think i'd ever heard of him before september of this year, though i understand he had a long sportscasting career. i find his content good, though his delivery is patchy. i've heard that msnbc is not happy with his new direction, but that the ratings are such that he's been given a lot of scope.
  • >>Why is he pleading with or lecturing Bushco? Surely no one still believes that Bushco can be swayed by passionate arguments! Um, I think it's a rhetorical device. >>Does he think that there are people who still have doubts about Bush's nature? Are you kidding? Honestly, I'll be surprised if the Republicans lose any significant ground in the coming elections. I'm not finding any shortage of people who don't know what habeas corpus is, much less that it might have been mentioned in passing in the news lately. I think you might be confusing what's common knowledge on, say, Monkeyfilter with what's common knowledge in the general populace. I think it's REALLY IMPORTANT that anybody with a real public platform say stuff like this.
  • Well, seeing as how they're not likely to put Chomsky on the airways anytime soon, I'll take this guy. Even if he's doused in the pretensions of a high school debating team captain.
  • Wow. How bad does Bush need to fuck for you guys to quit attacking the messenger? Speaking with conviction is not pretentious. Neither is speaking with confidence or having manners. When Bush drops a nuke next week, will you guys be pissed at Olberman when he says that dropping a nuke is bad? "Does he really think there are people out there who still have doubts about the nature of nukes?" (Oh, and he's not suddenly outspoken like you are trying to claim, fuyu. He was right there with his "spedial comments" in 2003, 2004, 2005. You are just late to the game if you think this is new for him.)
  • Oh, and we're still waiting for a link showing one instance of Olberman commenting on his own performance.
  • Olberman is saying on TV what eveyone I know is saying amongst themselves, only more eloquently and to a wider audience. I can only speak for myself, but it's a good feeling, and an all-too-rare one, to have the administration publically called out.
  • I'm not finding any shortage of people who don't know what habeas corpus is Yeah, it's prevalent and frightening. I often lament the existence of the Electoral College, but then I think about the endless number of toothless morans in this country and I am grateful that they can't directly elect the president. I do my part by not letting vehicles with Dubya stickers on them merge into traffic. Olberman does have an air of ringmaster about him, as it is obvious that his commentary is prewritten and he is just doing the "anchor with rancor" bit, but I think that his commentary is spot-on, and it looks like he (or someone, at least) does his homework.
  • the endless number of toothless morans in this country... I do my part by not letting vehicles with Dubya stickers on them merge into traffic. Heh. You're one-in-a-million nunia. My new hero! Hell, someone has to do it. If not Olberman?? I haven't managed to catch him live (as on-air time coincides with stroller time), but the transcripts and video feeds I've perused on the internets lead me to believe that he is dead on for the most part. Suspicious or not, I'm down with it. Me likes this rant. Why is it that all of the cars with dubya stickers in my neighborhood are invariably parked alongside the massive Jehovah Witness' temple? I'm soooo tempted to pull out my keys... Restraint... must use restraint... uggh!
  • You're one-in-a-million nunia. That must mean there are 300 just like me in the USA. I must kill them all. *noogies smt*
  • How bad does Bush need to fuck for you guys to quit attacking the messenger? If there's one tradition that the left has, it's devouring their own. Not saying that it's a bright idea, but it's what we do.
  • *gives nunia a wedgie*
  • Spot the right winger in this thread. :D
  • His speech reeks of sophistry... Not to say, of course, that I disagree with the text of his speech. Either you don't know what sophistry means, or you disagree with the text of his speech. You can't think it's sophistry without disagreeing with it.
  • Isn't sophistry a specialized kind of furniture upholstery?
  • Oh, and we're still waiting for a link showing one instance of Olberman commenting on his own performance. What I meant was that his performance is becoming increasingly self-indulgent. He's turning into a drama queen, and I really wish he wouldn't go that route, since he's one of the few (if not the only) guy in the MSM who speaks the unpleasant truth.
  • I do think he is walking a very fine line between true eloquence and self-parody, but for now I think he is on the correct side of the line. It's not a far fall, though. Seriously, this stuff needs to be said out loud to as many people as can hear it. There doesn't have to be any deeper agenda, and I don't get the sense that Olbermann has an ulterior motive other than expressing the inchoate outrage that many of us are filled with. It would be too easy to turn this into a platform for something else, and I don't see him taking that advantage.
  • I kind of get what people mean, here, when they say he's debater-ish and that he could fall into self-parody. I did, actually, get that feeling once when he finished a speech with 'good night, and good luck', which could be seen as either an homage, or as adopting a mantle he had no right to claim for himself. Nonetheless, I thought this a rare misstep. Rather than trying to be 'overblown' I get the impression that he's trying to be very, very careful. Debate, in the US, has become so shrill, so divorced from facts, so emotionally loaded, that anybody trying to raise a voice risks opening themselves up to charges of bias. I get the impression that Olbermann is carefully skirting this by being absolutely correct in the way he argues. He's punctilious in his rhetoric, courteous even in his invective, precise in his language. And by saying things the best way rather than the easiest way he is able to avoid charges that he's merely taking cheap shots. So, yes, he does end up sounding a little 'debater-ish' because that's what competitive debaters have to do when they speak in front of other people who have high standards for speeches. I like this very much. I'm often annoyed at the poverty of modern political rhetoric particularly (though not exclusively) in the US. Olbermann speaks like an orator from a different age, an age of high oratorical standards, and in doing so shows up what a bad speaker Mr Bush is.
  • Olbermann, or his producers, clearly want this speech to be heard by a certain kind of person. Those opposed to the Bush agenda already are not his audience, as they are already hoarse from shouting about it. The 20% who will vote for Republicans even if they were found to have raped, killed and eaten a congressional page live on national TV are also not Olbermann's audience. It seems fairly uncontroversial that his speech is aimed at the unthinking or apolitical "middle". Are these people likely to be swayed by passionate---if purple---prose? Are they even watching MSNBC? This terminally bovine breed are not idealistic. Due process to them is detective Lenny Briscoe growling "you have the right to remain silent" on the tele. They will not care about the loss of habeus corpus until their friends and neighbors start disappearing, and even then they will stand around chewing the cud and hoping for the storm to pass over. If after six years they still don't care, then they will never care. What is needed in this time are not targeted soundbites but leaders using revolutionary language. We need a million people marching to Washington and laying siege to the White House and Congress. We need the kind of force that swept Nixon out of office. Olbermann, Stewart, Colbert, et al are actors playing for our entertainment, not rousing a people into action.
  • ...playing for our entertainment, not rousing a people into action. The problem being that this particular type of action cannot be conveniently packaged and sold at Best Buy. I'm not sure what needs to happen to break through to the cud-chewing majority, but "revolution" appears to register as an archaic term in the American mindset these days.
  • We need a million people marching to Washington and laying siege to the White House and Congress. Agreed. I'm not sure what needs to happen to break through to the cud-chewing majority Agreed. Whatever it is, it 'aint gonna be pretty.
  • >>Stewart, Colbert, et al are actors playing for our entertainment, not rousing a people into action. You sound like you're mad at them. They're comedians; it's not their fault that they look more like journalists than the journalists do nowadays.
  • > Olbermann speaks like an orator from a different age, an age of high oratorical standards, i agree. but when i say that i find his "delivery patchy", i mean that he either lacks certain necessary skill or he hasn't practised enough. his voice varies from good modulation to a complete flatness; when he controls his voice well, it's powerful, but when he becomes flat and monotonic, it's quite poor. this is one reason i find his sportscasting background interesting - i think he specialized in baseball.
  • did, actually, get that feeling once when he finished a speech with 'good night, and good luck', which could be seen as either an homage, or as adopting a mantle he had no right to claim for himself. That's KO's standard signoff and on at least one occasion, he acknowledged its origin and said something to the effect of "I hope I can eventually rise to level of the man from whom I shamelessy borrowed this from" It was disarmingly humble and I forgave him for it. What is needed in this time are not targeted soundbites but leaders using revolutionary language. We need a million people marching to Washington and laying siege to the White House and Congress. Well all KO is in a position to do is produce those soundbites with the hope that eventually some of them may penetrate the fog of American awareness and perhaps engender the march you envision.
  • Irony isn't just dead, it's rotting at the back of that man's freezer.
  • I don't know if anything can change the news. But I love the rant.
  • This is wrong. We used to decry the supposed 'secret' assassination attempts. Now they're no longer covert, and we just shrug and go 'meh.'
  • Now they've put killer drones (with poor eyesight!) out to assassinate people...