Still Dramatic, Olbermann Names Wingnut Author as Bad Person


Lest we forget, Keith Olbermann is back on the air and as dramatic as an Internets chipmunk:

Last night, Olbermann called out recent interview subject and Wingnuts author John Avlon as second runner-up in his Worst Person of The Week bit (the top two were—yawn—Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck, which is like nominating Meryl Streep for an Oscar). Not only did Avlon once work for the real America's answer to Joe Smitherman, Rudolph Giuliani, he has the temerity to call leftys and rightys both wingnuts (as Prof. von Olbermann pedantically pointed out, by definition, only right-wingers can be wingnuts, which is really like saying that only Dunkin' Donuts can make donut holes). Anyhoo, watch Olbermann shed some verbiage here.

And watch Avlon here and tell us whether he's such a bad guy.

NEXT: Red Ink and Green Jobs

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “Anyhoo, watch Olbermann shed some verbiage here.”

    I’d rather shit blood.

    1. I believe Steve Smith can arrange that.

    2. I’d rather watch Maddow skullfuck him.

  2. Keith Olbermann is such a national disgrace I can’t believe he isn’t Canadian. That said, I watched Avlon on CSPAN this weekend and have no sympathy for his “worst of both worlds” vision of a centrist hegemony.

    1. Dude, I agree about Olbermann, but get a fucking grip.

      1. Yeah, don’t put that kind of slur on our Canadian friends.

  3. I look forward to the day when Hyperdoberman has his Falling Down moment and names himself as the Worst Person Ever.

    1. Matthew 7 (King James Version)

      1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.

      2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

      3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

      4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?

      5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.

  4. It’s interesting to contrast Avlon’s warnings about left- and right-wing extremists with Jesse Walker’s warnings about “the paranoid center.”

    Not to alienate anyone here by turning into a Jesus freak, but there’s actually a quote attributed to Jesus in the book of Revelation that might be used as a refutation of Avlon’s argument: “I know your works: you are neither cold nor hot. Would that you were either cold or hot! So, because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth.” (Rev. 3:15-16) In the long run, it just might be the lukewarm milquetoasts rather than the passionate extremists who pose the real threat to liberty and justice. I’m just saying.

    1. How does that refute his argument? How does being lukewarm make one more dangerous? Lukewarm means dull and unambitious to me; meaning a politician who won’t damage anything.

      However, never mind the fucking Book of Lies, the danger are people who seek power. The kind of people who want power aren’t the kinds of people who should wield it. The kinds of people who want power tend to be passionate idealists, whatever their political commitments.

      1. Nihilists! Fuck me. I mean, say what you like about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude, at least it’s an ethos.

        1. This isn’t about the fucking marmot, Walter!


      2. People without strong convictions can be easily manipulated. The Son of Man’s point is that you can go-along, get-along yourself straight to Hell just as quickly as if you went on a ten state nun-raping spree. Would that you had raped nuns, at least then you get nun poon.

        1. Whoa. Well-stated, rho.

    1. A link to the National Review; you know what, Reason has gone downhill. God, I hope the Republicans can finally get their power back so they can quit whining.

        1. I’m not Drink!. Whoever that guy is.

      1. Hey fuck you. Anyone who pulls the old attack the messenger bullshit can suck my fat cock. One can learn from the National Review. One can learn from the Ed show. Your as stupid as a pack of Lesbians trying to keep people from reading Allen Bloom.

        Lesbian #1 We just

        1. Damn! Where’d my little story go. Anyway, it was about a group of lesbians that were trying to ban a book by Allen Bloom (true story). Not one of them had read the fucking book, and yet all agreed that it should be banned because they had heard that Bloom was icky.

          1. Okay, you made your point. I’m not calling for censorship. I just don’t think the National Review is exactly quality journalism. Maybe I should’ve just said that.

  5. In Olbermann’s defense, the proper term for a left-wing nutter is moonbat.

    As for the dangers of a centrist hegemony, I’d rather have that. Ideologues, when in power, do more harm than people who lack convictions. Review Celine’s Third Law:

    3. An honest politician is a national calamity.

    Why? Because a dishonest (regular) politician is only concerned with
    bettering his own lot at our expense. A honest politician is genuinely interested in bettering society; meaning that, in practice, we’ll get more laws toward this end; which means more freedom being lost. Instead of a crook, though, we should chose the most inoffensive and unambitious dullards for all levels of government.

    1. Pick me! Pick me!

      1. Jury is still out. You did have a problem with Richard Epstein.

    2. Um, I think the proper term for a left-wing nutter is “Mr. President”

  6. What would be great is if we can stop having articles written about Olbermann and Penn, and then we can pretend they don’t exist. Yawn.

  7. Nick, I think there’s more to this story here. Olbermann’s main objection was Avlon’s comparing Code Pink to the nutjob Hutaree milia group. But if you either watch the actual segment or read the transcript (I did the latter here) Avlon does no such thing.

    Apparently Avlon’s little segment is that he profiles a “wingnut” on the left and the right. Olbermann and his friends on the left are outraged that he is equating the goofy but benign Code Pink with “domestic terrorists.” However, Avlon did no such thing. After explaining why Code Pink is his “wingnut” for the left, his co-host asks who is wingnut on the right is. Avlon starts his answer by disclaiming that it’s “a whole different breed, ladies and gentlemen.” He then states: “This is a real deep strayed wingnut, kind of off-the-bridge stuff.”

    Look, the segment may set up a sort of dichotomy, but Avlon went out of his way to clarify that he’s NOT equating the two. That’s disingenuous even by Olbermann’s standards.

    1. Olbermann’s… standards? Does not compute.

        1. Wait, what part of the drinking game encompasses Sean W. Malone’s comment? (for those keeping score at home)

  8. Why do I still have a job?

    1. Plastics!

    2. So Tony and I have something to watch as we lay there, smoking.

    3. Keith, the last blowjob was rather lacking. I’m going to need ball-tonguing and some rim action next time if you want to keep that time slot. And for God’s sake, use some lip balm next time.

  9. I’d rather have the hyper-partisanship in Congress. It gums up the works and keeps them busy fighting each other rather than pounding the rest of us in the ass.

    1. True, but it would be better if we elected dull, boring, uninteresting people. They will be esp. harmless. Besides, hyperpartisanship doesn’t protect against every infringement.

      1. Clearly not.

      2. Right on Club Med!

        I have met my Congressman, and he is dull, boring, uninteresting, except that he is more boring even than that. But he is not harmless.

        He voted for the Iraq War, the Patriot Act, bailing out the banks, the border fence, etc. Just the kind of BS that dull, boring Congressmen stick us with.

    2. Bullshit. I’d rather have honest, trustworthy people of honor that can actually solve real problems and not create new problems. A do-nothing congress is only the solution when we don’t believe there is EVER ANY solution. I’m no nihilist.

      1. No thanks. I’d rather have a congress that didn’t believe its job was to “solve problems.” It’s the belief that they can, and should, in fact solve problems that creates the new problems you speak of. A do-nothing congress is just fine even if there are real solutions once you realize that those solutions will never — or at best, are highly unlikely to — come from central problem-solvers.

      2. And I’d rather have a woman who gives great head, fetches me a beer, and then goes away and leaves me alone. But I’m not gonna hold my breath for it.

        There is never any problem … that congress can’t make worse.

  10. It quite possible to be a centrist wingnut. It’s when you can’t tell right from wrong and feel compelled to see both sides as either equally wrong or right, regardless of the issue.

    1. For example: When an arsonist is burning down your house and some crazy firemen comes with a big hose to soak the place. They are both wingnuts, but if you can’t see the dif., you are a wingnut too.

      1. Isn’t that just a nut and not a wingnut?

  11. I think being on Keith Olbermann’s Worst Person in the world list isn’t a bad thing. It’s like an award show. Perhaps what I’ll say is said too many times, but if it’s supposed to be “the worst person in the world” shouldn’t it mostly be reserved for people who have killed other people as opposed to crazy conservatives who spew nonsense on national television?

  12. Looks like I’ve got a new contender for tonight’s Worst Person… HEISENBERG!

    1. Heisenberg: Just keep moving! That way they can’t know as much about you.

      Ahhhh, who am I kidding? Hyperdoberman will just make it up as needed.

  13. People watch Olbermann because they like the commercials that air on his show.

  14. Christ on a pony. Shut the fuck up, Olbermann.

  15. Good gosh…why was there a link to Olber on MSNBC?


  16. Must not pull out dictionary to show definition of wingnut. Must not pull out dictionary to show definition of wingnut.

    1. Dictionaries are so 1900’s.

  17. Left Wingnuts are technically Moonbats.

    1. wingnuts are useful and hold things together – moonbats…well they suck your blood or something.

  18. Olbermann is a wingnut, not a moonbat.

  19. 8 years of the left lying about Bush, and the right pushes back, and then this guy steps in???

    Blandly saying that both sides are equal on being crazy is an exercise in lazy thinking.

    1. Lies about Bush? You talking about all those weapons of mass destruction they found in Iraq?

    2. I’m very far from an Olbermann fan, but how is it even possible to lie about Bush if you’re saying anything bad at all? That guy was a disaster in every direction he moved.

  20. What would be great is if we can stop having articles written about Olbermann and Penn, and then we can pretend they don’t exist. Yawn.

    Seriously, you’re only encouraging them. Just ignore them and eventually they’ll get bored and go do something else less obnoxious.

  21. Olbermann’s schtick was entertaining at first. But I quickly learned that once you’d heard him you’d heard everything he had to say. So now I don’t click on his clips. Pretty much the same with Limbaugh and his clones.

  22. Bachman and Beck are wingnuts? Limbaugh’s a wingnut? Avlon seems to have a tenuous grasp on what HATE is and what defines a wingnut. Asserting that certain policies are destructive to the civic body doesn’t make one a wingnut or make that hate speech, dude. Avlon is pandering.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.