Barr on Olbermann
comments powered by Disqus
Randll Reese Besch - 7/30/2008
He is unknown to me.
Randll Reese Besch - 7/26/2008
Maybe it is because Obama doesn't give him enough fodder to chew on unlike McCaine? He did come down on Obama concerning the FISA bill vote. I hope he condemns Obama for his greater right ward slant. The real Obama in my opinion.
David T. Beito - 7/26/2008
We are on the same page on this. I rarely watch Olbermann and his self-righteousness and pompousness is far worse than even Rush.
He is not very bright and, despite his purple antiwar prose at times, is thoroughly partisan. Imagine what someone more intelligent like Scott Horton could do if he had that show.
David T. Beito - 7/26/2008
Good point. I could have framed it better. To a great extent I was writing about Olbermann's perception of the situation not my own.
While you are right that a Paul appearance would have weakened McCain, it would not necessarily have helped Obama (it might have hurt him by diverting support Paul), and Olbermann is thoroughly in the tank for his new messiah.
Sheldon Richman - 7/26/2008
That I agree with Olbermann on the Iraq occupation and the civil-liberties issues doesn't keep his show from being largely a big bore for me. There's rarely any debate on the show because he only brings on people who agree with him. Why doesn't he invite some of the more articulate spokesmen for empire and thrash it out? Because he's not up to it. His Special Comments are often substantively good, but his self-righteousness is a sickening turn-off. Is Rachel Maddow his alter ego? Why have her on when he is already saying what she's going to say? Who's this program convincing? Bah!
Craig J Bolton - 7/26/2008
I guess I don't get your point.
Paul, except for two or three issues like his xenophobia toward immigrants, agreed much more with the purported positions of the Democratic Party than he did with his fellow Republicans. Thus his appearance on Olbermann would have hurt whoever became the Republican nominee by undermining the case for another Republic President with the same disasterous policies.
Barr, when he can remember he's converted to libertarianism, has the same effect. McCain is Bush Light a third time, Obama purportedly isn't [although some of us are strating to wonder]. If you think that Bush is Satan, then McCain is one of his chief Devils and should never be President.
If you agree with Paul, similarly, McCain should never be President. McCain has, for instance, announced that he'll keep the U.S. in Iraq for a century if needed to "win." Paul wants out now, just like Obama.
While Paul and Obama couldn't be further apart on economic issues. No one with a brain believes that McCain won't do exactly what Obama says he wants to do vis-a-vis taxing and spending. For Republicans to label Democrats "the tax and spend party" after the past 8 years is to engender ROTFL.
And so it goes ..... [Drano, anyone?
- Joan Peters’s legacy assessed by one of her fiercest critics, Norman Finkelstein
- West Point historian says if his cadets can understand the history of war, so can Congress
- Australian historian Alan Atkinson wins $100,000 literary prize
- Duke honors historian John Hope Franklin with year-long series of events