Patterico's Pontifications



Filed under: General — Patterico @ 9:42 pm

I don’t get it. A lot of people who seemingly should know better, like Allah, seem to discuss this Keith Olbermann guy as some kind of person worth paying attention to.

Isn’t he just some sports guy who is out of his depth and trying to cover it up with shameless pandering to lefties?

If there’s more to him, I don’t know what it is; I don’t really pay much attention.

33 Responses to “Olberwho?”

  1. Channeling Derek Zoolander.

    “I gues I would have to answer your question with a question. How many oblerdickifools do you see in national politics?”

    He’s a cartoon that thinks he’s southpark when he isn’t even “drawn together”

    Wickedpinto (d099bd)

  2. yeah, p. this national guy who you envy isn’t worth your attention. so you start a thread.

    nosh (ee9fe2)

  3. If a bunch of smart guys started talking about nosh’s opinion I’d be even more befuddled.

    Doesn’t make nosh a somebody.

    Patterico (de0616)

  4. What is significant about Olberwho is that such a bigoted nut-roots spew-job is given a soapbox by the mainstream media. They recognize him as one of them. He is a little more out of the closet than most, but they all do the exact same thing: they selectively attend to what they can twist to fit their presumptions, and they lack any conception that it is even possible for anyone to do anything different.

    That is why they are so comfortable with maximizing the disinformation content of the news, and with accusing Republicans of every dirty trick with no regard for reason or evidence. They are projecting. They actually belive what they were taught at university: that there is no such thing as truth, only ideology. Hence their “you go girl” attitude towards Clinton’s purple faced lies.

    I thought Clinton looked like Phyllis Diller, by the way, with his shocking white afro and baggy eyes. Come to think of it, he’s got her two-pack-a-day voice too. If only he could learn to be droll.

    Alec (6c4b0b)

  5. Shorter Patterico: I have nothing but contempt for those who disagree with me.

    Kimmitt (80218d)

  6. Shorter Kimmitt: I poop my pants at Patterico’s!

    Pablo (08e1e8)

  7. yeah, p. this national guy who you envy

    It seems Patterico isn’t allowed to post about anything or anyone. I think I’m going to start a list of folks Patterico is jealous or envious of, at least according to his trolls.

    Its sort of like the chickenhawk thing, an extremely thoughtful and probative comment some folks toss out to demonstrate how smart they are.

    FWIW Patt, I agree with you about Olberman. It is sort of funny though, if you cruise around the stuff that Allah and others post about him, to see some of the outrageous stuff Olberman has been saying. For me though its like screaming about Rush Limbaugh or something, kind of silly.

    Dwilkers (a1687a)

  8. Olberman is a bad imitation of Westbrook Pegler, a sports writer for the Chicago Tribune who became a bitter critic of Roosevelt. One difference is that Pegler had a sense of humor and once sent out a Christmas card with a picture of him with Eleanor Roosevelt. Another difference is that a lot of people paid attention to him. Olberman, to get attention, has to feign psychosis.

    I think he’s feigning it.

    Mike K (416363)

  9. the thing is, Olbermann’s audience is small but shrill. And as long as KO Speaks Teh Truth to Teh Power, they can keep banging the same old drum and tout Olbermurtha as some kind of folk hero. Plus, now they’re loading KO’s rants on YouTube which reaches a much larger audience than MSNBC. The fact that he’s still ranting and raging on TV is proof that American Fascism doesn’t exist. But his very presence is seen as a victory. As a moderate, I am turned off by spittle-flinging vitriol as much as i am repulsed by this talentless hack’s inability to form a coherent argument. He’s a joke. If he didn’t exist, he’d be invented as a character on SNL. or the Simpsons. I believe it’s important to discuss this classless buffoon — if only to combat his army of strawmen and rhetoric with facts and reasoned discourse. Has KO issued a public apology for his “moneky” comment?

    Robot Ninja (18f999)

  10. Losing a spot on Sportscenter and ending up with a talk show on a network no one watches wasn’t a step up for Keith, who was a lightweight as a sports guy, too. I don’t think anyone at ESPN misses him.

    TNugent (58efde)

  11. Re: #10
    Please, Keith was hardly a lightweight. When he sticks to sports , as he sometimes does on the Dan Patrick Show, he brings more to the table than nearly anyone else has ever done. He was in a rare strata heavyweight class when he was just sports.

    He suffers from what many sportscasters suffer – envy of the so called journalistic reporters. Keith suffers more than others, as can be seen from his circumstances in leaving ESPN and FoxSports.

    BTW: anyone who doesn’t think that his FoxSports experience colors his opinion of FoxNews are deluding themselves.

    seePea (fb6824)

  12. thats becuase olbermann is a blabbering idiot and just plain boring to listen to

    krazy kagu (1b5cd8)

  13. I stand by my comment. Olberman was a lightweight as a sports guy, too. “Rare strata in heavyweight class”?!?! Give me a break. You’re far too easily impressed. To find rare strata in heavyweight class in sports, you usually need to watch network broadcast TV — sure, those guys (at least the ones who work for ABC) do ESPN, too, but you won’t find rare strata in heavyweight class doing exclusively or almost exclusively cable. “Rare strata in heavyweight class” anything, sporrts or otherwise, doesn’t end up in TV-Siberia doing a barely watched talk show.

    TNugent (6128b4)

  14. Olbermans ratings attest to his influence. More people read the top 25 blogs each day than watch Keith Olberman. Point of fact, more people watched his little rants on Crooks and Liars than watched his show. Olberman basicaly is making a pretty good living on cribbing O’Riellys schtick, and his viewers seem oblivious to this, and seem hellbent on praising him as some modern day folk hero who “speaks truth to power”. If MSNBC is still on the air after the 08 election, KO will be cancelled because he won’t have Bush to focus all of his attention on.

    Gabriel Chapman (6d7447)

  15. I forget where I read the comment, but someone had an excellent summation of Olberman and his ilk: He has carved out a niche audience on a small cable channel and is content to sing from the hymn book of the 5% of the population with the tinfoil hats. Perhaps he even believes his own nonsense, but maybe he just grabbing the Ann Coulter or Michael Moore path to riches.

    JVW (d667c9)

  16. Aside from irritation or anger over Keith’s selective quotes, slanting of stories and failure to have any guests on who would more than slightly differ with his opinions, I think part of the fascination with Keith on the right is the same reason people turn their heads and look when they’re driving by the scene of a horrific accident. There’s nothing you can do if all the EMS and other emergency personnel are already there, but you still want to look at the carnage.

    Keith’s taken his hyperbole to such new levels in the past three weeks, and seems to be getting an adreneline boost each time he takes it high, that you want to peek at the scene, even though you know he can’t go much higher before he either gets into 9/11 conspiracy territory and MSNBC has to yank him off the air, or he pulls a Terrell Owens and people wonder why nobody saw the warning signs earlier.

    John (81be8d)

  17. See: Greenwald, Glenn.

    Darlings of the nutcase loonbin moonbat parade, gleefully feeding their audience the peanuts that they crave.

    RW (8f8726)

  18. Olbermann’s doing something right if he’s pushed so many of your buttons. I love the dichotomy; when gauging O’Reilly or Coulter I’m told “it’s entertainment, irony, etc.”. But when the left presents someone with acerbic wit and a surgeon’s hands with the scalpel of rhetoric, he’s shrill, second-rate and a moonbat. Hypocrisy is alive and well.

    mmm...lemonheads (a960c9)

  19. Olbermann’s doing something right if he’s pushed so many of your buttons

    What might that be?

    Pablo (cb50c5)

  20. lemonhead, Olbermann fancies himself as an unbiased journalist. Digest that for a while.

    RW (8f8726)

  21. “…a surgeon’s hands with the scalpel of rhetoric..”

    So calling a journalist a “monkey” – that, to you, is skillful use of rhetoric?

    I imagine you’d be REALLY impressed by the playground chatter at my son’s elementary school.

    tomaig (691a55)

  22. The dude has a gift of sifting through the doublespeak of an administration that shovels it out on a daily basis. Is he unbiased? Depends on your definition of biased. If you think a journalist that smells bs and calls a politician out on it biased, than so be it. I will admit his monologues venture into the vicinity of a diatribe, but the way the press have been lap dogs to this administration for fear of admonition, it’s quite refreshing. No one else is doing it, for ratings or otherwise. Why do you think that is? Why is he the exception and not the rule? If it were purely for ratings, wouldn’t journalists, columnists and pundits be lining up to tee off as Olbermann does? They don’t because they’re afraid their precious “access” will be cut off, and they will no longer be a member of the club. Olbermann doesn’t care, and that makes him different. Not right all the time, but definitely different.

    mmm...lemonheads (a960c9)

  23. mmm…lemonheads – “The dude has a gift.”

    Yeah, like Father Coughlin had a calling.

    MikeH (e9e89c)

  24. mmm…lemonheads – The word “scalpel” implies precision, subtlety and nuance. I think the word you were groping for was “sledgehammer.”

    As horrifying as this may seem to you (and to me) there are people out there who admire the eloquence and sagacity of Bill O’Reilly, just as you are smitten with Keith.

    Others have remarked about the colossal irony of Olbermann — with his obsessive crusade ridiculing O’Reilly as the pompous, blustering blowhard that he is — becoming exactly the mirror image of his object of ridicule!

    Exaggerated, hyperbolic ranting is not eloquence. Any half-wit can churn out passionate rants; if you don’t believe me, read the typical college newspaper, or Daily Kos, dude.

    One thing I do share with Olbermann, however, is his obvious admiration of Edward R. Murrow. Murrow was creative enough to think up his own tag line, rather than steal one from someone else.

    Dennis Mosher (fdfa94)

  25. Not right all the time, but definitely different.

    I run into this guy downtown like that all the time. He’s even got signs and stuff. Sometimes, he makes sense. But I usually pass him on the other side of the street anyway, because sometimes, he doesn’t.

    Maybe I could wrangle a finder’s fee from MSNBC.

    Pablo (08e1e8)

  26. “Depends on your definition of biased.”

    What is it with liberals not understanding the universal definitions of common words? Do you need us to tell you what the definition of “is” is as well?

    sharon (dfeb10)

  27. I will admit his monologues venture into the vicinity of a diatribe…

    I think we can add “vicinity” to the list of words our friend doesn’t understand.

    Sean M. (db71f3)

  28. I appreciate the term “friend” applied to my presence, though I’m sure it wasn’t applied in the warm way it was received. Olbermann is polarizing, but that’s not necessarily a bad thing. He can be polemic, but he also frames issues in a way NO ONE else is willing to do. The Washington press club refuses to bring out the big guns; they’ve done it with every recent President but for whatever reason they refuse to do it with this man. Hard questions are rarely asked, and if they are they’re deflected with the skill of a Tony Snow or the clumsy bluster of The Man himself. I don’t agree with everything he says, but to me he serves a vital role; a foil to the current policies and decisions that no one, including the Democrats, seem to be willing to question with any serious opposition. No power should go unchecked.

    mmm...lemonheads (a960c9)

  29. Lemonheads, lots of people are willing to frame issues in the very same way the Olbermann does . . . but media outlets usually have the good sense (including good business sense) not to embarrass themselves, damage their credibility and their brand, drive advertisers away, etc. by putting such crap on the air (or cable). No one pays attention to Olbermann because he’s not worth it. Obviously, there are a few people who are impressed with mediocrity and think Olbermann deserves prime time. Fortunately for them, there is at least one media outlet so desperate to fill its schedule that even someone like Olbermann will do. But even Fox News’ contrived Christians to the Lions (aka carnivorous Hannity devouring the handwringing, milquetoast Colmes night after night — which is kind of like pro wrestling, or the Globetrotters playing an entire season against the Washington Generals) is superior to Olbermann — simply because it pays lip service to the notion of an opposing view (I don’t watch either — I know this only because it said so on Wikipedia, indexed under “FoxNews” AND “damning with faint praise”).

    TNugent (6128b4)

  30. TNugent, you make some good points, as far as feeding to lions what the lions crave. But the opposition side or party serves a vital purpose in a democracy; without it democracy is just an idea, not a way of doing things the right way. This administration has framed the debate in a way that stifles the opposition and puts them in a corner. You’re either for us or against us, you’re either a patriot or an enabler of terrorism. People like KO remind some of us that the debate cannot be framed as such, as there is no further debate if you do. For some insane reason the press and opposition party of this country has fully bought into the idea that if you hold particular ideas antithetical to the policies enacted, you’re either unpatriotic, siding with the enemy or both. A firebrand such as Olbermann serves to remind us that such partisan rhetoric is nonsense. There are always other opinions and policy solutions to consider,and to not debate them vigorously would be not only not logical, but inviolate to the principles we hold dear. There’s always a better answer, no matter what the problem. To believe the first answer considered and agreed upon is always the right one is arrogance. This country has been self-correcting for centuries, whether it be WWII or trade agreements. We consider, we opine, we debate, we reflect. And then we adjust to the changing realities of the situation and the world. We used to consider ourselves above autocracy and theocracy, concretes that don’t consider the changing tides of reality. I’m not sure we do that anymore.

    mmm...lemonheads (a960c9)

  31. The Washington press club refuses to bring out the big guns; they’ve done it with every recent President but for whatever reason they refuse to do it with this man. Hard questions are rarely asked,

    One wonders what you have been paying attention to these last five-plus years to reach this conclusion.

    The Ace (8d7f7b)

  32. One wonders what you have been paying attention to these last five-plus years to reach this conclusion.

    Comment by The Ace — 9/28/2006 @ 5:26 pm

    Every press conference preceding the the last five months or so. Yeah, they finally grew a pair but it took them almost six years to do it. And if you think asking a question followed by an answer like “it’s hard work”, followed by little follow up is akin to an inquisition, you probably wouldn’t handle the “coercive techniques” they endorse very well.

    mmm...lemonheads (a960c9)

Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1250 secs.