In Defense of Keith Olbermann

|

According to a report in Politico, MSNBC host Keith Olbermann gave money to the campaign of three Democrats—Kentucky Senate candidate Jack Conway and Arizona and Reps. Raul Grijalva and Gabrielle Giffords—in violation of the company's policy regarding political donations. According to this tweet from NPR's David Folkenflik, Olbermann has been suspended by management, though no further details are provided. Sure, it's pretty stupid to make campaign donations when your employer expressly forbids it. But I can't help but wondering why MSNBC has a one-size-fits-all policy on such issues. Isn't it unfair to hold Olbermann, who is one of the most partisan people on television (if not of Earth), to the same standards as, say, Brian Williams? Countdown exists to promote Democratic candidates and liberal policies, which is just fine by me. So why shouldn't Olbermann, as a private citizen, be allowed to donate money to those candidates he plumps for on television?

The Washington Post has more details:

In a statement to Politico, Olbermann said, "One week ago, on the night of Thursday October 28 2010, after a discussion with a friend about the state of politics in Arizona, I donated $2,400 each to the reelection campaigns of Democratic Representatives Raul Grijalva and Gabrielle Giffords. I also donated the same amount to the campaign of Democratic Senatorial candidate Jack Conway in Kentucky." Olbermann went on to say he "did not privately or publicly encourage anyone else to donate to these campaigns, nor to any others in this election or any previous ones, nor have I previously donated to any political campaign at any level."

The news comes in the wake of Olbermann's harsh criticism of Fox News parent company News Corp., which donated to Republican-leaning groups. MSNBC president Phil Griffin also issued an open challenge in light of the News Corp. donations, saying to The New York Times in October, "Show me an example of us fundraising."

In MSNBC's defense, it should be pointed out that the News Corp donation (which I am also fine with) is slightly different from the Olbermann donation—one hosts a lefty opinion show, the other is the parent company of both opinion and straight news outlets. Nevertheless, I think it's fair to say that Griffin's sniffy riposte ("Show me an example of us fundraising") to Fox News was a bit premature and just maybe contributed to the decision to suspend Olbermann.

Update: Mediaite has Griffin's statement: "I became aware of Keith's political contributions late last night. Mindful of NBC News policy and standards, I have suspended him indefinitely without pay." Indefinitely, eh?

NEXT: Reason the Tube: Michael Moynihan Talks Media Scare Stories on Stossel

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 Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I also donated the same amount to the campaign of Democratic Senatorial candidate Jack Conway in Kentucky

    His campaign inspired you, did it?

    1. Didn’t HNR say just yesterday that MSNBC was OFFICIALLY an arm of the DNC???

    2. And once again we see that for some reason liberals hate libertarians most of all.

      There are presumably all sorts of social conservatives that Olbermann could have contributed against. But no, gotta go after the guy who questions the drug war.

      1. Perhaps because libertaians point out the lefts “liberty loving” hypocrisy?

        Without libertarians the left could run forever on the notion that they are the only alternative to fascist, liberty hating Republicans… and get back to the business of DESTROYING personal liberty through statism.

      2. yeah rand paul spends so much time decrying the drug war. dude’s phony as hell. i would’ve voted for his dad over any candidate but obama, but the son is a corporatist shill who gives little thought to foreign affairs, who says NOTHING abt defense spending (even after all the news about the ridiculous waste and graft since 9/11), and doesn’t seem to care about the hundreds of billions of dollars spent on vague domestic “intelligence” operations involving 800,000 alleged contractors and govt employees with Top Secret clearance.

        I like libertarians, just not phonies. HTH

        1. Conway spent all his time attacking Rand for being too soft on the drug war and nonviolent offenders, whether Rand ran on it or not, troll.

        2. is a corporatist shill who gives little thought to foreign affairs, who says NOTHING abt defense spending (even after all the news about the ridiculous waste and graft since 9/11), and doesn’t seem to care about the hundreds of billions of dollars spent on vague domestic “intelligence” operations involving 800,000 alleged contractors and govt employees with Top Secret clearance.

          Wait, are we talking about Obama or Rand Paul here?

          1. pretty sure that, when that WP story came out, Obama’s sec-def and cia chief went on the record with their concerns about the bloat, and their intention to reign it in. (PSA: these programs were started under that last president, and they can’t exactly be dismantled quickly). also pretty sure obama is ending the fraudulently sold war that the last guy started, and that he wouldn’t let the military force an extended stay in afghan. here’s a question: you think the MIC likes Obama? lolol

            1. Hmmm…
              Wasn’t there something in the news about a surge in Afganistan modeled after Bush’s in Iraq?

              Also, aren’t there 50,000 troops still in Iraq with no timeline for withdrawal?

              Do you still think Obama is anti-war president?

              1. Obama is ending the fraudulent Republican-started war that has so benefited Dick Cheney’s friends and former colleagues. These Republican wars that have cost this country TRILLIONS of dollars (if you believe that the Iraq War cost less than $1 trillion, like they’ve been saying for the last couple years, you’re dumb). So the other party started these wars, and Obama is ending them. But you want to blame Obama for them?

                1. You missed my point entirely.

                  Despite campaigning against Bush’s wars, Obama has not stopped either war and does not appear interested in stopping them. In fact, he has increased the troop presence in Afganistan (a surge like the one he said he was against in Iraq) and expanded the front to parts of Pakistan.

                  They are trillion dollar wars, like you said, but you are delusional if you think Obama is stopping them.

                  And yes, I do blame Obama for prolonging the wars. He campaigned against them, and now he supports them fully.

                  1. white guys start fraudulent war, bankrupt nation, despoil gulf coast: black guy blamed – why?

                    1. Did you read what marlok wrote?

                    2. yeah i read it, and i think it’s the most bullshit line of criticism against obama. you act like ending a fucking war is something you can do in a day. he didn’t start these awful goddamn wars, he didn’t bankrupt this country, he didn’t lie about their costs, he’s not friendly with Dick Cheney’s old colleagues and the MIC that’s stuffing their pockets with $ and bankrupting their country, he doesn’t beat his chest and tell Muslims we want to fight them forever. PSA: war is a fucking racket, and corrupt Republicans AND Dems — but not Obama — work to grease the skids for the people who benefit from that racket. and the retarded electorate that bitches about $200,000 earmarks but remains blissfully ignorant about this racket doesn’t help

                    3. No more feeding this troll, who I’m suspicious is a hoax from one of the regulars.

                    4. translation: i’ve been thoroughly pwn3d and have no response to this comment revealing the naked intellectual dishonesty of my obama bashing

                2. i claim to be a libertarian, and yet here i am kissing Obama’s ass. the cat’s out of the bag.

            2. “PSA: these programs were started under that last president, and they can’t exactly be dismantled quickly”

              Obama can start the process of dismantling them by not putting funding for them in his budget proposal. Then, when Congress (both parties) scream about leaving the nation vulnerable, he responds by pointing out that these are Bush policies and that he refuses to continue them. If Congress puts the funding back in the budget, he vetoes the budget.

              See? It’s not that hard, is it?

              1. yes, we need our own version of the Stasi — did they have 800,000 domestic agents? — or else we will be “leaving the nation vulnerable”. libertarian magazine lolol

                1. So were you always this passive-aggressive, or was it the years of parental neglect that caused it?

                  1. i had to make the reference. i’m a liberal cocksucker, after all.

                    i like cats.

  2. “Sure, it’s pretty stupid to make campaign donations when your employer expressly forbids it. But I can’t help but wondering why MSNBC has a one-size-fits-all policy on such issues.”

    That very well may be, but I stand by the right of MSNBC to make decisions about what’s in the best interest of their own brand name.

    I said the same thing about Weigel and the Washington Post. I said the same thing about Juan Williams at NPR.

    I think MSNBC should be able to fire Olbermann if they think his hairstyle adversely affects their brand name–whether it really does or not!

    How’s that?

    1. I like them apples just fine.

      If you go thumbin’ yer nose at mgmt, expect the fucking hammer. Right?

    2. One might point out that there’s a fundamental difference between MSNBC, WaPo, and NPR. Only one of these forcibly extracts money from your paycheck.

      1. don’t worry the teabagger hordes descending on Capitol Hill in the coming months will defund this monstrous govt-sanctioned threat to are freedoms my libertarian friend

        1. Doubtful.

          1. i am hopeful for change. and there is no moar pressing concern facing are nation than the orwellian monstrosity that is govt-sanctioned public broadcasting

            1. Is there a place on the internet where your form of argumentation suffices as intelligent or amusing?

              1. i rather like this site i think i’ve found a new hang-out

                1. Prepare to be hazed!

                  1. lol

                    1. Well, Chairman, if you’re going to post here, could you at least make it something substantive?

                    2. you and i have different definitions of substantive i suppose

                    3. Apparently we have different definitions of capitalization and punctuation too.

                    4. I kinda like this troll, more of a sense of humor than Tony.

                    5. And lern how too fuking spelle?

      2. “One might point out that there’s a fundamental difference between MSNBC, WaPo, and NPR. Only one of these forcibly extracts money from your paycheck.”

        And I’d cut off that funding tomorrow if I could.

        In the meantime? If managers can’t fire people who hurt the operations they’re working for becasue it’s the government they’re working for?

        Well that’s an excuse to keep every incompetent employee on the payroll from losing their job, isn’t it?

        When government entities fire people for doing a bad job? I think that’s a good thing. I’d like to see a lot more of that–not less.

        Good managers fire bad employees. One of the reasons government employees tend to suck so much? Is becasue management can’t fire the people easily.

        It doesn’t matter whether it’s McDonalds or NPR, if you do something on purpose to alienate customers?

        You should get fired.

        That’s part of what makes America better than Canada so great!

    3. Well, I don’t think that really the issue here. Nobody’s questioning MSNBC’s right to fire Olbermann, we’re just wondering whose credibility is affected by the revelation that the biggest liberal on TV has donated money to liberals.

      1. Well, I don’t think that really the issue here. Nobody’s questioning “MSNBC’s right to fire Olbermann, we’re just wondering whose credibility is affected by the revelation that the biggest liberal on TV has donated money to liberals.”

        So this is an upper division class in management?

        Maybe Weigel will send him a copy of “Who Moved My *&@!ing Cheese?”

        http://www.amazon.com/Who-Move…..0399144463

        Upper level or not, the idea that managers should be free to fire whomever they think is more of a liability than an asset really isn’t moot here. It’s kinda basic and gets lost in the shuffle a lot. …more than it should.

        You know what would be great to see on Reason.tv? David Weigel, Juan Williams, Keith Olbermann and Randy Moss all sitting around playing celebrity poker.

        Randy Moss: “I’m tellin’ you guys, it was shittiest ham sandwich I ever saw–in my life!”

        David Weigel: “And I’m telling you guys, we really would be better off…if all the rat-fuckers just set themselves on fire!”

        Keith Olbermann: “Of course you’re right, Dave. I’ve been sayin’ more or less the same thing on air for months now!”

        Juan Williams: “You white liberals make me nervous.”

        1. I give you people comedy gold…

          1. But it’s so gauche to laugh at your own punchline…

            1. But I’m hilarious!

  3. It was only a matter of time, if you believe in poetic justice.

  4. Didn’t Keith Olbermann recently say he does not vote so he can claim he does not have a “horse in the race”? I can respect principled non-voters like the folks at Strike-The-Root but they are at least philosophically consistant.

    1. OK, that was in 2008 but he did say it.
      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…..42749.html

  5. I’d cry if I were human.

    1. They used it’s tear ducts during it’s penile reconstruction surgery.

      1. classy man

      2. +10

    2. Don’t cry. This is your chance for the primetime spot! Olbermann can fetch your coffee and do your eye makeup.

      1. This is my first time on this festering shithole of a website (NYT link), so perhaps you could help a brother out and tell me whether homophobic (and worst of all unfunny) comments are normal on this “libertarian” website?

        1. I have no problem with Rachel Maddow being a man. I have no problem if Rachel Maddow is sexually attracted to men.

        2. Unfunny? are you freaking kidding me?

        3. I happen to like this festering shithole of a website. The quality of liberal foils around has sucked since Obama got elected (easier to attack Bush than defend Obama, I suppose), so your presence might liven up the comments a bit.

          Like most of the internets, people make a lot of mean-spirited and stupid comments. Some are amusing, many are not. Do I really have to explain this?

          1. nah man it’s cool i frequent many racist and homophobic chat boards my problem was more with the ‘unfunny’ part

            1. Well let’s use this as a teaching moment. Give us an example of a funny racist, homophobic comment regarding Rachel Maddow.

              1. sorry friend, can’t help you with that. my homophobic behavior/speech is limited to my copious use of the word faggot, which owes less to any animus to gays than it does to the musicality and versatility of the word, especially when flaming people on websites you stupid faggot

              2. sorry friend, can’t help you with that. my homophobic behavior/speech is limited to my copious use of the word faggot, which owes less to any animus to gays than it does to the musicality and versatility of the word, especially when flaming people on websites you stupid faggot

                1. Why do African Americans hate faggots so?

                  1. you can say nigger man i have a very miltonian approach to speech

                    1. If Fox News did a poetry segment I could probably respond with some sweet racist prose, but sadly I must return to counting my ammo and burning Korans.

                    2. yeah you better get to that, cause when the race war comes you’ll be the first teabagger i come looking for

                    3. I’ll try to be the first to drop my balls in your mouth when the time comes, but I’m afraid there will be a line.

                    4. touche, faggot

                    5. I misread that as “burning Koreans”.

            2. Okay, Chairman… please point out the *actual* “racist and homophobic” comments on here.

              Not what you *think* they are… what they ACTUALLY are.

              1. Rachel Maddow|11.5.10 @ 2:24PM|#

                I’d cry if I were human.
                reply to this
                Colin|11.5.10 @ 2:37PM|#

                +1
                reply to this
                Upgrayyed|11.5.10 @ 3:25PM|#

                They used it’s tear ducts during it’s penile reconstruction surgery.

                1. Epic. Fail. Homophobic, means an irrational fear of gays. No one hear is afraid of gays and several posters either are gay or like me, have a gay sister in a long-term committed relationship with a baby.

                  There are also several regular posters of color here. Of course, we do hate them.

                  1. To be clear, my sister is in a committed relationship with an adult woman. not just with a baby.

                    1. Apparently, Da Chairman uses his own definitions… then engages in hate speech while simultaneously ragging on others for using what he considers hate speech.

                      Basic liberal hypocrisy. Not surprising.

                  2. silly me man, i thought calling a lesbian “it” and referring to her “penis” reflected homophobia. but i’ll accept your definition because i really don’t give a fuck about homophobes or racists expatiating their impotent, small-dicked rage on the interwebs. first amendment rules and i like words, even offensive ones.

                    1. I *claim* to be a First Amendment supporter, but only when it applies to me and the liberal cause. Everyone else is a hatemonger.

                    2. “expatiating their impotent, small-dicked”

                      I can’t believe someone who is condemning homophobia and racism could be so blatantly flaccidist and sizeist.

                    3. “I can’t believe someone who is condemning homophobia and racism could be so blatantly flaccidist and sizeist.”

                      Well, EJ, I don’t normally make public confessions, but ever since my operation turned out to be a failure, I’ve been sensitive about alternative sexuality, size and turgidity. Please try to understand.

                2. It’s not that I don’t like lesbians, it’s that I don’t like lesbian cyborgs. , it’s because you are a retard. I dislike you because you are a retard, not because you like to have a cock and a set of balls in your mouth at the same time.

                  For future reference, is there a special term that you have for such an occasion? Like ‘taking the whole golf bag’ or ‘breadstick and meatballs please’. Enlighten me so that I may ridicule you correctly counselor.

                  1. one more time in english please?

                    1. Yeah I got some extra retard in there, it’s hard to type sometimes with this stupid hood on.

                    2. Hey man what’s the view like up on your cross? I ask because you seem to think I’ve called you a racist and you seem to be extremely butthurt about it. What’s with you teabaggers and your persecution complexes?

                    3. It’s just that my penis is especially small! I cannot achieve so much with such small penis, but you, wow, penis so big, so big penis!

                    4. asian?

                    5. Use the term “racist” correctly, for a change. You might get better results.

                    6. my brian hurts, reading dictionaries is for faggots and teabaggers anyway.

                    7. use ur stewie then

                    8. Just for future reference… I don’t think any of the regulars on this site would call themselves “teabaggers”, or even “Tea Partiers”. Although, I’m sure many do enjoy both tea and parties.

                    9. Yeah, but to committed leftists, libertarians = tools of the GOP/Republicans who smoke pot/blah blah yakkety schmakkety. Just ask shrike.

  6. I hope NBC was kind enough to email all of his viewer about this.

    1. Yes. We all were notified.

      1. You overestimate the sum of Bee Tagger’s comment.

        1. Bee Tagger’s comment was referring to the rating where a viewer = household. However the Olberman household has three people in it who watch Countdown. You know, Mrs. Olberman and the two cats.

          1. I thought she only owned Ms. Precious Perfect.

  7. I believe MSNBC rightly realized that Olbermann was only good for being able to name on any given day the worst person in the world, and without that, what’s the use?

    In Countdown‘s timeslot, MSNBC will be streaming live The O’Reilly Factor.

    1. Actually, you might be able to design a robo-Olberman based on this idea. Just have a bot that inserts a loud, snarky “NOT” every third phrase. And at random intervals (about 3 times per show) insert a condescending “have you no shame!?” That should just about cover it…

      1. Have you no shame, sir? Great idea – NOT!

        I like it, Cyto – it works.

      2. Just to complete the loop:

        1. Show Republican saying something Republican.
        2. Go to robolbermann saying “That’s a great idea. NOT!”
        3. Insert stock footage of generic Olbie accusations of racism, fascism
        4. Robolbermann’s turns head. “Have you no shame, sir?”.
        5. Cut to commercial

        Cyto’s program really could be automated.

    2. Nah, just play Olbermann reruns.

      Its not like anyone would notice.

      His fans don’t have the brain power to remember that they’ve see this episode before.

      1. Glenn Beck FTW

        1. Stupid much?

          1. u mad libtard?

            1. Gosh, Chairman, for someone so hot and bothered about hate speech upthread, you’re pretty good at flinging it yourself. Hypocrisy much?

              1. lol are u serious man. talking about rachel maddow’s “penis” strikes me as unclassy, but not hate speech. still, it’s more hateful than ‘libtard’

                u mad libtard?

                1. *classless*

                  1. My brother is retarded, fuckstain. I don’t suppose you’d like to use the “tard” suffix now, would you?

                    1. meh. i doubt you’re really offended by a guy on the interwebs with the moniker Chairman LMAO calling you a libtard. so not really sorry, but to be on the safe side will try to remember your moniker and choose future insults more carefully you pencil-dicked twit

                    2. Nah, I think “fuckstain” fits you quite nicely. And, it’s a racism- and homophobia-free insult.

                      Not that I’m politically-correct, mind you. I just believe in putting true, proper labels on the deserving – as opposed to just calling people “racist” when the word clearly does not apply.

                    3. Again with the “racist” sensitivity! where did i call you racist?! jesus, sometimes i hope obama loses because y’all are going fucking nuts with the persecuted white man meme!

                    4. B to tha A to tha R to tha F
                      go my balls in ya wife
                      can ya smell it on her breff?

                    5. Some of the best shit I’ve read.

                      Ever.

                      Good shit, barfman. Good shit.

                    6. lmao, the best shit you’ve ever read?

                      teabagger, amirite?

                    7. I made a decision to not use the “n”-word. No one told me to do it, or threatened me with sanctions… I just find it distasteful. Obviously, you don’t.

                      Plus, I could give half a shit what color Obama is. He could look like Carrot Top, I’d still despise him. So, your “persecuted white man” horseshit is exactly that, LMAO… horseshit.

                    8. this post in an unholy incoherent mess i don’t even know

                    9. well it’s been real fellas, but i need to sleep. i will be back to troll and pwn all of your souls regularly

                    10. i hope Mom remembers to wake me up.

  8. Isn’t it unfair to hold Olbermann, who is one of the most partisan people on television (if not of Earth), to the same standards as, say, Brian Williams?

    The alternative is the NPR approach, with different, subtle gradations depending on your job title, with all the problems that brings.

    For something like this, I think one-size-fits-all is the way to go. Its simple, easily applied, and all that.

    1. While I can’t deny that a suffering Olby warms somewhat the black nether regions of my soul…

      No way, dude. His whole shtick is that he’s not impartial. He was hired specifically to be partisan, and he isn’t a journalist. NBC can do whatever the shit they want, but they’re only further embarrassing themselves.

      1. he’s a partisan hack, but he practices journalism. moreso than Fox News’ “straight-news” people

        1. Uh… no he doesn’t?

          1. not shoe-leather journalism or straight news. more like the garbage brand of opinion journalism practiced by, say, writers for Reason or the National Review or some other subsidized opinion rag.

            1. Oh, you’re a troll. Sorry. I didn’t know that. Ignore my last comment.

              1. wat

            2. That’s 2010 Western Publishing Association award winner for Best News Story Reason magazine to you.

              But I’m sure you don’t care about faulty forensics putting people in jail, because you’re just a troll who believes that those poor blacks deserved it anyway.

              1. hey man don’t jump down my throat, like i said i got here through a NYT link and i don’t know much about what these guys do. good for them if they do this kind of public-spirited, important work (seriously, i’m a criminal defense atty).

                1. Do not be his porn (DNBHP).

                  1. what does that mean man

                2. You would be doing all potential clients a service if you posted your real name. I’m guessing illiteracy isn’t a highly sought after skill when hiring someone for criminal defense.

                  1. good one man, really devastating rejoinder. hopefully i never have to face opposing counsel with your argumentative skills. my illteracy, ouch.

                3. If by criminal defense atty, you mean douchebag, I’m buying.

            3. NPR isn’t “subsidized opinion”?

              News to me.

              1. link to may suggesting it wasn’t?

                1. *me*

                  1. You didn’t say it. But you inferred it. Which tells me you’re okay with it, as long as it’s NPR getting the subsidies.

                    However, you’re conflating taxpayer money with privately-donated money, which is NOT a subsidy.

                    1. fwiw, i think NPR’s point of view and focus is more corporatist than anything else (“The Diane Rehm show is brought to you by Northrup Grummon” etc., etc.,), and i could give a fuck if the gubmint took it’s money.

                    2. Diane Rehm … i could give a fuck if the gubmint took it’s money

                      Why are you calling Diane Rehm an “it”?

                    3. lol

                    4. inferred, implied

      2. but they’re only further embarrassing themselves.

        SHHHHHHHH!!!!!!! You want them to catch on?

    2. Yes. And the policy should be “everyone knows we’re an arm of the DNC, so fuck it. Do whatever you want. If you donate to non-democrats, though, your ass is toast.”

  9. Also, it must be understood the huge corporate owners involved. They no doubt have interest in some piece of upcoming legislation, and prohibit their employees from making campaign contributions so as not to give a whiff of impropriety.

    1. a whiff of impropriety

      That pretty much defines Olbermann’s entire career at MSNBC, if you replace “whiff” with “hurricane.”

  10. Sure, it’s pretty stupid to make campaign donations when your employer expressly forbids it.

    And even stupider when your station President runs his mouth about how “non-partisan” they are.

    I’m sure MSNBC’s three viewers are very conflicted about all this.

    1. Yes. We are conflicted. But MSNBC told us to endeavor to persevere.

  11. So why shouldn’t Olbermann, as a private citizen, be allowed to donate money to those candidates he plumps for on television?

    I don’t know, because MSNBC has to put out the preposterous pretense that they’re a serious and unbiased news network?

    I agree, it’s totally laughable, especially when you consider that GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt is a freaking advisor to the sitting president.

    But MSNBC more or less has the right to set whatever policies in this arena they want for their employees, so the loser Olbermann will have to face the consequences.

    1. And Fox News is also “fair and balanced.”

      1. And the police have no legal obligation to Serve and Protect.

        False advertising is a bitch, ain’t it?

        1. A cop once told me that ‘serve & protect’ was BS. He said his job was to enforce and arrest.

  12. MSNBC president Phil Griffin also issued an open challenge in light of the News Corp. donations, saying to The New York Times in October, “Show me an example of us fundraising.”

    Providing a virtually nonstop bullhorn for the Demos to tell us all how pathetic and stupid and helpless we are doesn’t count, right?

    1. Isn’t Phil’s brother Peter on the Fox network?

    2. As someone wrote a few days ago, MSNBC is the primary opposition research arm of the Democratic party.

      1. lol. and what’s Fox? seriously i’m curious about your answer to that. like i mentioned above, this is my first time on this festering shithole of a website, and all i know about this magazine is that its ostensibly “libertarian,” so i’m curious about whether i was right to assume that like most self-professed libertarian white people the readers on this are actually pseudo-libertarian/right-wing authoritarians

        1. Yes, we’re all white, we’re all right-wing maniacs and none of us is actually libertarian. Now run on back to your Kos Kiddie pals and tell them how we’re just so nasty here.

          1. nah man i don’t read that shit site either. if i’m going to comment on an opinion blog, it’s going to be antagonistic, guess i’m just an antagonistic guy, and i wouldn’t find much to disagree with there

              1. what’s the matter man you don’t like open debate? you’d rather the comments section on your favorite sites be rightwing circle jerks?

                1. Funny how he just got here, and yet 1) knows in its entirety that it is “a shithole” and 2) talks exactly like a Kos poster, yet denies reading their “shit”. Which it is, but I digress.

                2. People will debate you when you make an argument, instead of the predictable ad hominem.

        2. While I can understand that this is ostensibly a post about Olbermann getting fired for donating to Democrats, I’d rather talk about Fox.

          Fox, Fox, Fox, Fox, Fox.

          1. Yay! Fox Fox Fox Fox Fox Fox Fox Fox Fox Fox Fox Fox Fox Fox Fox Fox Fox Fox Fox Fox Fox Fox Fox Fox Fox Fox Fox Fox Fox Fox Fox Fox Fox Fox Fox Fox Fox Fox Fox Fox Fox Fox Fox Fox Fox Fox Fox Fox Fox Fox Fox Fox Fox Fox Fox Fox Fox Fox Fox Fox Fox Fox Fox Fox Fox Fox Fox Fox Fox Fox Fox Fox Fox Fox Fox Fox Fox Fox Fox Fox Fox Fox Fox Fox Fox Fox Fox

        3. How about this: I’m a left-wing libertarian who believes limited corporate liability is a government created entity, and that only in a pure laissez faire market with full liability for violating the rights and property of others will conglomeration be limited and capital decentralized?

          Sure we have our share of teabaggers, and we also have a lot of us who want wide open borders and the freedom to have gay sex in the middle of the street while high on heroin if one so chooses.

  13. Speaking of hubris, Nancy Pelosi has just announced that she will be running for House Minority Leader. Yee-haw!

    1. She’s still relevant!

      1. Not to mention delusional. Everybody wins!

        1. Are the donkeys really that dumb to elect her to minority leader?

          (rhetorical question)

          1. lol boehner

          2. Bets are high that either Steny Hoyer or Heath Shuler (hopefully the latter, one of the best Democrats on economics) will challenge her.

            1. i was unaware that former redskins qb heath shuler knew a lot about economics. steny is solid.

              1. football players can’t know complicated things. they’re all morans.

                1. But I wonder if he knows how to spell “moron.”

        2. All the Republican congressmen should switch their party affiliation and caucus allegiance for that vote just to make sure she never loses that limelight.

      2. Are you serious?

  14. Which was worth more? The $7200 in cash he gave or all the airtime that was spent on promoting the same candidates? It’s ok to use the bosses time but not your own money?

    1. I’d say the cash. You can buy airtime on channels with viewers with it.

      1. Not true. The 14 people in Keith’s audience all voted straight Dem tickets, I bet. You just can’t buy that kind of influence.

    2. Plus, do you think viewers of MSNBC are really, in ANY way, conflicted as to whom they should vote for? That would be like advertising Pepsi in the break room of a Coke factory.

  15. Sorting actual journalists from self-important frothers would be pretty exacting work, and time-consuming to boot, so I suppose “One Size Fits All” is the best rule, as well as a great Zappa album.

    1. I think it’s pretty easy to sort opinion journalism from what’s supposed to be straight news. It’s actually refreshing to see someone putting his money where his mouth is.

    2. I was always partial to The Grand Wazoo.

  16. HuffPo has around 1700 comments (so far) and it’s weapons grade stupid in about 1680 of them. Seems like 5 of 6 cry about …”but Fox gave $1M to Republican candidates…” and “O’Reilly, Beck, Hannity and the rest of the bobble head on Faux news NEVER donate to Republican and Tea Party campaigns…”

    It’s nearly as entertaining as watching MSNBC was on election night. It is also painful. Very painful. The stupid is strong with the hyper-partisan groups.

    1. “Olbermann is not a reporter he is an opinion journalist, a big difference. Who he gives his own money to in private is his business. Olbermann is the leading personality on MSNBC and if he is removed I see no reason to watch it all, except for Rachel Maddow.”

      These are the same thumb sucking fuck knuckles who REFUSE to acknowlwdge anything about Beck or O’Reilly or Hannity being “opinion journalists”…after a while it hurts my head. Can we drink yet?

      1. Keith, Sean, Bill and whatever his first name is are all uniquely unbiased.

      2. meh. my problem with fox news is the allegedly “news” programs. their mid-day programming is pure propaganda

          1. u mad?

            1. You are truly a disgrace to black people everywhere. I’m black – I live in Chicago – and I’m a Libertarian!

              Why? Because i’m intelligent enough to understand that Liberals may claim to want to actually help minorities – but in turn do the exact opposite with their useless entitlement programs.

              Take a second of your day, instead of trolling around talking gibberish, and actually educate yourself. Read a few articles on this site, before condemning it. You’d be surprised at how much TRUTH you can find in the Libertarian message.

              Keep in mind, this idea that Libertarians are “Racist” was formulated by the very Liberals whose penises are lodged in your throat..

              Educate yourself, you ignorant troll.

              1. Can’t type now. I have a cock to suck.

              2. whoa calm the fuck down man. btw, how’s polysci 101?

              3. and incidentally, i AM a libertarian Clarence. i defend civil liberties every fucking day.

                1. I’m lying. I get paid by the DNC to post on non-liberal websites, and pretend to be a douchebag.

                  Well, not really pretend as such. Just bein’ myself.

                  1. lololol at the notion that postings on this obscure magazine’s website are worth paying an astroturf cash-for-comments program. also, astroturf tends to be done by corporate interests and government agents, not liberal commenters. HTH idiot!

                    1. Besides, I do it for free. It’s for the Team Blue Cause, after all.

          1. sort of mad yeah

            1. post your street addresses, I’ll stalk you and pee on your azaleas.

              1. i’ll get right on that chief. ps: my moniker is copyrighted get your own

                1. i’m a lawyer, i can sue your ass!

    2. The Stupid is what gives a Huffpo his power. It’s an energy field created by all Stupid things. It surrounds us, penetrates us, and binds the Stupid together.

      Moronic beings we are…. not this crude matter….

      1. It’s also our Celebrity Aura.

    3. Naturally, they ignore that MSNBC’s new 51% lord and masters Comcast donated 1.4 million to Team Blue candidates and their 49% lord and masters donated 7.1 million to Team Blue and 6.3 million to Team Red.

      I sometimes wonder what it’s like to live in an ideological bubble so clearly lacking in breathable air.

      1. Breathing becomes an afterthought when one is mainlining teh stoopid.

  17. Keith Olbermann makes much more money than I do. Therefore, it’s unfair that he use his financial advantage to support candidates to a greater extent than I can.

    Do I really believe this? No. But I’d love to see progressive egalitarians contort themselves to disagree with me.

    1. Don’t hurt yourself

      Extremamente Flex?vel

      1. I’d hit that.

    2. lol nice straw man. you can give $2300 to anyone you want bro, so long as i can look you up on opensecrets.org

      1. But not $2301, right? Because that would be unfair.

        But it’s totally fair that we can all hunt through our spare change for $2300 to chip in. The law wisely forbids both homeless people and Olbermann from sleeping under bridges.

        1. Pikers! I don’t contribute, I just buy them outright. I own this administration.

          1. lololol @ this critique (Obama is owned by big donors) from Retardicans/alleged “libertarians”

            1. because everyone knows only Republicans are on the take. my fellow Democrats are all pure and clean and honest.

  18. I’m not seeing the problem here.

  19. I think what is really going on is that MSNBC has been waiting and hoping to fire Olbermann for a long time now to put someone else in his spot so to more effectively take on Fox.

    1. Don’t discount the fact that Comcast will have a controlling interest of NBC Universal soon. Not that I’m a conspiracy theorist.

    2. olbermann’s obviously jumped the shark, but if there’s one thing he does well it’s “effectively tak[ing] on Fox.” Pretty soon, however, politicians will campaign against media organizations as if they were opposing candidates (Republicans have arguably been doing this for years). Obama’s previewed that against Fox and if he’s smart he’ll ramp it up come 2012. When I say campaign against media orgs as if they’re opponents, I mean doing heretofore untried tactics like running ads against them and linking them to your political opponents. Lots of copy for oppo ad men

      1. Ooooh! Fire me next! I wanna be a martyr!

      2. I am so obviously lodged in Team Blue’s ass. I wonder if Michelle would let her husband have sex with me.

      3. If ratings are any indication, I would say Olbermann has been rather ineffective at taking on Fox.

        Also, not sure that running against Fox News will really help Obama that much. Remember when he tried to ostracize them and the rest of the Beltway establishment surprisingly stood with Fox? Also, FN’s ratings went up while Obama’s ratings started to decline, and it’s not like FN got any more sympathetic to the Obama Administration.
        http://www.cbsnews.com/stories…..5921.shtml

        1. i doubt obama’s ratings decline had anything to do with his attacks on Faux News man, and Obama shouldn’t give a fuck about the rest of the “Beltway establishment.” that establishment is the reason this country has so many problems, and the rest of the country would be storming DC if the corporatist media organizations actually reported on the extent of it’s kleptocratic tendencies

          1. “the rest of the country would be storming DC if the corporatist media organizations actually reported on the extent of it’s kleptocratic tendencies.”

            I think this happened. It was called the “tea party”.

            1. lmao, the teabagger movement is a nascent fascist movement that will flame out, not a reaction to the kleptocratic tendencies of the corporate and ruling elite.

              1. but i swear i’m not a liberal, even though i use all the MSNBC talking points when referring to everyone in the teabagger category.

                1. these categories have been rendered meaningless. see, e.g., rand paul, alleged libertarian.

              2. I like the sound of your ideas, perhaps you have a blog or a newsletter I can subscribe to?

                1. He’s too busy being self-important to author a blog, and it would take him weeks to crayon a stack of newsletters.

                  1. you’d better stop using my name without my permission. i filled out the copyright forms and everything. i’m a lawyer!

  20. Karma is a bitch. Poor bastard was a victim of his own team’s completely false world-view of “objectivity”.

  21. From what I’ve read about this story its less the party politics of the issue and more internal corporate politics. The reason he was suspended was because he didn’t get approval for the donations; msnbc allows political contributions, but has to be approved beforehand. Phil Griffith, the msnbc prez, has been struggling to control his talent for a while now.

    1. You seem pretty loose with the term ‘talent’ there, buddy.

      1. That shitty band playing the local watering hole for $200 and free Yuengling would also be called talent under the same definition.

        It’s just the entertainment industry word for artist – even shitty artists.

  22. Does anyone actually give a shit about Hyperbolberman? I’m being semi-serious here. What are his ratings?

    1. You care enough to make up a stoopid portmanteau.

      neener neener

      1. What would you call a foot fetish video starring that chick who played Queen Amidala?

        1. Had to look up who Queen Amidala was, pretty funny.

        2. Fap, fap, fap…

        3. That was terrible.

        4. “That chick” was also the one in The Professional.

    2. Olbermann’s ratings have nothing to do with it. Wolf Blitzer has crappy ratings too, but he isn’t a hypocritical, lying, holier-than-thou, lying, sanctimonious, lying, sarcastic, duplicitous, lying bastard pretending to be an objective newsman.

      1. Olbermann pretended to be objective? When was that?

        1. Olbermann pretended to be a man?

        2. lol good question, but don’t interrupt his thoughtless teabagger screed, the online thesaurus searching took him 5 minutes

          1. I wonder if Olbermann would have sex with me…

          2. Don’t need no thesaurus. Have a working brain.

      2. No, Blitzer is just a plain old idiot pretending to be an objective newsman.

    3. A girl I used to date thought he was pretty good, and couldn’t fathom why I wouldn’t like him.

      For predictable reasons, we didn’t work out.

      1. Is the “predictable reason” because she was developmentally challenged and unable to give informed consent?

        Cause I can’t fathom another reason why someone would think he is pretty good.

    4. I bet his ratings are pretty good. I watch him from time to time like I read Paul Krugman and listen to Mark Levin because shills with zero self-awareness of their own hypocrisy and are who convinced that their own farts smell good are utterly fascinating.

      1. My farts really stink, but I purposefully waft it up and take a healthy sniff anyways. What does that make me?

      2. I bet his ratings are pretty good.

        Gutfield’s 3 AM (East Coast) “Redeye” show gets better ratings than Keef.

        1. I hope so, because Gutfeld’s show is really awesomely good – in fact, maybe the best in the media – no offense, Stossel/Napolitano. Unfortunately it could never come to prime time – way too racy and would have to temper its adult appeal.

    5. Not good enough to keep his job obviously

  23. My feeling is that he wanted to be suspended. He wanted to become a martyr after Stewart’s mockery of him at the rally.

  24. Olbermann off the tube is probably good news for Democrats. Dude has got to drive intelligent independents far away.

    1. That’s psycho talk.

      1. Ooh, Ed! You’re hitting my hot buttons!

        1. Hold on a second here, you’re female?

          1. No, that’s the name of my testicles.

          2. This can’t be Ed Schultz….IT’S NOT IN ALL CAPS!!!!!!

            1. I’m gonna torch this place!

              1. Please don’t. The smell from the burning of this festering shithole would be offensive to my elite nostrils.

                1. Your nostrils, the nostrils on your face, the very nostrils with which you breath, those very nostrils that you suck in the air of partisan demagoguery, are destroying this nation, this nation of men and women and gays and lesbians and yes–transgenders; those nostrils will one day, maybe not tomorrow and maybe not next week but some day, some day soon…what the fuck was I getting at?

                  1. attention teabaggers/”libertarians”: this is how you do funny (@4:57).

                    1. For I say unto thee, unless thou art Team Blue, thou art surely an inbred racist teabagger.

                      Maddow said it, I believe it, and that settles it.

                    2. hey man who said anything about you being racists? awfully touch about that. tell me my white friend, what’s the view like up on your cross? i know how bad things are for white men in Obama’s America.

                    3. YOU did, fuckstain. Upthread, you accused posters on here of being “racist and homophobic”. Now you’re claiming you haven’t, which is another liberal standby.

                      Go back to Kos where you belong. Or hang out here and get burned. Your choice, slick.

                    4. link?

                    5. link?

                    6. THIS link, asshat. The one you’ve been posting on. Up ^ thataway.

                      Fuck if I’m gonna cut’n’paste your own shitscribblings. UPTHREAD, cuntboy. Do you not know what that means?

                    7. lol u sound mad man

                      u mad?

                    8. Frustrated. Do your own research, lazy-ass.

                    9. But does it really settle it? Does it really really really really settle it? Because if it really settles it, if it sets it in stone or cement or perhaps reinforced concrete, if it makes it so unalterably comprehensible that only far-right, unadulterated tea-bagging narcissists financed by the Koch Brothers or the Smith Brothers or even the Smothers Brothers if what they are smothering is their own mother out of simple human decency because she can’t afford health care because of…what the fuck was I trying to say?

  25. So why shouldn’t Olbermann, as a private citizen, be allowed to donate money to those candidates he plumps for on television?

    How does ‘as a private citizen’ come into the question?

    1. Look, he can donate to my side anytime, and I can take Air Force One anytime, anywhere to stump for my folks.

    2. Seriously. He’s beholden to whatever rules his employer comes up with, period.

      1. Are you sure? Does being employed grant your employer to limit your political speech?

        1. “grant your employer the right”

          1. grant your employer the right the legal authority

        2. I’m pretty sure that a libertarian would respond that no employer has the obligation to employ someone who votes against their interests.

          The risk of “losing your job” does not limit your political speech.

          1. At least some of us would also say that the government shouldn’t be helping enforce these shitty employment conditions by banning anonymous contributions.

            1. +1

              Also, smash the state.

        3. If someone was walking around with an American Nazi Party button on their shirt you don’t think the employer has the right to fire them? Or if they were exposed as a member in the local media? Just making the point…

    3. Are politicol contributions something we should allow employers to have policies about? What if an employer made a corporate policy requireing all employees to vote for a given candidate. Employment at will right? Would we be ok with that? If not, how is this different, except for the fact that campaign contributions have to be made public, where votes don’t. Are we ok with that?

      For shits and giggles, I will defend the point that MSNBC is not within it’s rights to terminate him, because they shouldn’t even be allowed to know who he donates to.

      1. Legal arguments aside, I would presume that a corporation who made it company policy to vote for a specific candidate would have more negative PR than employees. Employee at will, right?

        1. Maybe I’m a bit cosmotarian here, but I don’t think companies should be allowed to require votes of their employees as a condition of employment. I’m also ok with making the purchase of votes illegal. I comfortable with that being a proper exercise of power by government.

          1. No one is forcing anyone to be employed.

            Plus, votes are secret (like donations should be allowed to be). So there’s no issue.

      2. I don’t see the problem with contracting to engage in particular patterns of speech – if the goverment restricts my right to contract myself to a given pattern of speech, then you’re restricting my right to control my speech. Since campaign contributions count indirect speech, I would have a problem with the goverment telling me that I can’t contract with regard to it. It also would pose pragmatic problems that would chill speech – if I can’t contract to give speak (or inversely not speak) on a specified topic, my ability to secure resources to speak on that topic is limited.

        I’d distinguish it in nature from voting. Voting is an exercise of political power, since I’m deciding who to delegate political power to – my vote isn’t a piece of property, it’s a tiny chunk of authority granted to me under the constitution of the relevant level of government. Since it’s an exercise of political power, it’s appropriate to regulate it in such a way as to prevent corruption.

        1. People should be allowed to sell their votes. That’s exactly what politicians do every day, and I freaking hate rules that only apply to us, and not them.

          The correct answer is to allow vote buying. And pot buying. And sex buying. Everything is for sale.

  26. Did Olbermann do the daily dinger diary on espn, or was it some else?

  27. …I have suspended him indefinitely without pay.

    I guess Olberman isn’t in a union.

  28. Call me cynical, but are you sure this is not some odd stunt designed to get people talking about Olberman and MSNBC?

    1. Dunno. But MSNBC is curiously silent about it.

  29. In the olden days, Olbermann would have had to settle for being a tent show charlatan, thrilling the rubes with lurid tales of Kingdom Come.

    1. Elmer Olbermann.

    2. Yes siree, right this way, right this way. Come this way through this door for progress. Oh wait, did I say “progress”? I meant to say “egress”. But you should step this way anyways, folks.

    3. Yes siree, right this way, right this way. Come this way through this door for progress. Oh wait, did I say “progress”? I meant to say “egress”. But you should step this way anyways, folks.

  30. Olbermann is running out of networks to be fired and/or suspended from. Pretty soon he’ll be doing public access cable shows where he’ll fire away at the worst people in the world (anyone to the right of Al Gore).

    1. I’m thinking he’ll replace the eventually deceased Barbara Walters on The View.

      1. He might look better in a skirt.

  31. I wouldn’t walk across the street to piss on Olberman if he was on fire, but the application of this policy to him does seem stupid. No way! Olberman is secretly a left-winger? Holy Crap! I had no idea. I can never trust him to be objective again!

    Maybe he should sue MSNBC for being an evil corparashun. Being an evil corparashun should be against the law anyways, right? At least according to Olberman? Try to get a broadcasters Union involved or something too.

  32. MSNBC host Keith Olbermann gave money to the campaign of three Democrats ? Kentucky Senate candidate Jack Conway and Arizona and Reps. Raul Grijalva and Gabrielle Giffords ? in violation of the company’s policy regarding political donations.

    If I do something that violates the policies of the company I work for, I get my ass thrown onto the street, even if I am exercising a basic and fundamental right (for instance, my right to carry a gun). So why is K.O.’s actions defendible, again???

    I can’t help but wondering why MSNBC has a one-size-fits-all policy on such issues.

    Maybe, just maybe . . . it’s possible . . . but maybe:

    BECAUSE IT’S A FUCKING PRIVATE COMPANY AND THEY CAN DO PRETTY DAMNED WHATEVER THEY WANT. Even if what they do is moronic and stupid, it is the right of the owners and stockholders to set up whatever policy they deem appropriate to run their company, as long as it does not violate the law and as long as the employees accept at the moment of signing the contract.

    1. FFS, is anyone arguing that they don’t have that right?

      The argument is that they are exercising their rights foolishly.

      1. Given these alternatives:

        (1) What the hell guys, do whatever you want, and the reputation and goodwill of your employer be damned.

        (2) A painfully nuanced and extended policy on the different gradations and emoluments of various kinds of talking heads, a la NPR.

        (3) A one-sizer that says “don’t give nothing to nobody.”

        I honestly can’t see why anyone would think (3) wasn’t the smartest policy on offer.

        1. I agree. I just didn’t understand why OM felt the need to shout at the wind about an unrelated point.

          1. I think Moynihan was actually almost suggesting MSNBS was wrong for exercising their right to do what they want with their employees.

            1. If you don’t believe that people can be wrong for exercising their rights, then you’re not much of a libertarian IMO.

              I believe that some moralities should not be imposed in law. If you believe that everything is legal is right, then you believe that everything that is wrong should be legal. And therefore you’re just as much of a believe in legislating your morality as anyone else, simply with a smaller circle of morality.

      2. Re: MP,

        The argument is that they are exercising their rights foolishly.

        No, the post is called “In Defense of Keith Olbermann”

        I ask again – what’s there to defend? MSNBC is still a private company with their own company policy, so what’s there to defend for the employee?

        1. Defending KO’s decision to make that choice in the face of what Monyihan considers to be a foolish corporate policy.

        2. FREE OLBERMANN!

      3. The other thing is that, in all the years that Countdown has been on the air, we’re supposed to believe this is the *first* time Keith’s made donations to political candidates he’s supported on the air?

        No one is denying that MSNBC is well within its rights to suspend him per contract, it’s the circumstances and justification that don’t completely pass the smell test, considering that Countdown’s been a de facto Democratic party promotion vehicle for several years now.

        Perhaps “He violated the terms of the contract” makes more PR and legal sense than “He’s a collossal asshole that rubs everyone the wrong way, even his fellow commies.”

        1. “The other thing is that, in all the years that Countdown has been on the air, we’re supposed to believe this is the *first* time Keith’s made donations to political candidates he’s supported on the air?”

          lol detective retard – there’s a way to test your suspicion: check FEC filings

      4. I dunno. There’s a conflict of interest when he is covering candidates and not publicly disclosing that they donated (while lambasting hypocritically all the companies who won’t reveal who they donated to.) The policy at MSNBC was not that they could not donate to candidates, but that they needed permission/approval first, recognizing the conflict of interest. He is within his rights to donate, but he may have violated his own employment contract so rightfully lost his job.

        I think it’s a good PRIVATE (emphasis needed) policy for journalists and opinionators to disclose who they donated to every time they mention something related to that race so we are aware that their viewpoints are slanted to offset presentation bias. Similar to the way most stock analysts generally disclose that they hold financial interests when encouraging a trade.

  33. Coming soon on MSNBC: Countdown with Alan Grayson!

    1. I didn’t think it could get any worse. I stand corrected.

      1. Worse? I was just thinking that it couldn’t get any better! Maybe if Nancy Pelosi was literally run over by a Tea Party bus…but then we couldn’t enjoy the spectacle of her House cronies bitch-slapping her into retirement over her Minority Leader bid…so it’s all good. For a few days, anyway.

    2. I bet he can’t wait to air footage of all those people dying in the street because of Republican policies.

      1. one thing’s for sure: we don’t see any footage of all those (brown) people dying in the (ME) street because of fraudulent Republican wars that enriched Dick Cheney’s friends.

        1. Obama/Pelosi/Reid BOOSH! gave the DOD another 10% raise this year.

          1. good nonsequitor man!

        2. No blame for Democrats, eh, Chairman?

          Hint: They BOTH suck.

    3. “Lean Forward” would have a whole different meaning with Grayson onboard. As in “take it Steve Smith style”.

      1. WHOA! STEVE SMITH HAVE STANDARDS!

  34. BOYCOTT TO MSNBC…….WE LOVE KEITH! HE TELLS IT LIKE IT IS…

  35. So why shouldn’t Olbermann, as a private citizen, be allowed to donate money to those candidates he plumps for on television?

    As a private citizen, he can donate to whoever he wants.

    As a private citizen, of course, he is discovering that he is not free to also work for whoever he wants.

    So its all good.

    1. And as a private citizen, people are free to criticize NBC for a policy that they feel is stupid.

      So it’s all good indeed.

    2. which constitutes thuggish force on the part of his employer. Glad in libertopia you have a way to keep folks in line.

      1. So in your nonlibertopian world, a non-thuggish employer would be forced by law to continue to employ the chairman of the local American Nazi Party out of deference to his freedom of speech? Or would that person have been thrown in jail for hate crimes and offensive speech so wouldn’t have a job in the first place?

        MSNBC’s image and reputation (pffffft *giggles*) gets hurt when Olbermann is exposed as a supreme hypocrite, therefore they do have some say-so over his off-hours activities that have a direct effect on his work.

  36. RACHEL BE CAREFUL YOU’RE NEXT…. WE ARE LOOSING THE VOICE OF THE PEOPLE….

  37. This is the least of this wack jobs transgressions. The over the top and outrageous election night coverage by this network in general is a travesty. Now that Alan Grayson is out of work, I wonder how long it will be before MSNBC employs him?

  38. Management should have the right to push any policy, stupid or otherwise, they like.

    Olbermann is free to flout the rules, and tell them to either make an exception for him or try to find a replacement with his ratings.

    Or, like a good liberal, knuckle under to authority, so long as it’s liberal authorities.

  39. Doesn’t NBC, the parent company, of MSNBC support liberal causes? I thought that Jeffrey Immelt was some sort of advisor to Barack Obama.

    1. Jane,

      They still have to follow the policy they established for themselves: there may be a SarbOx issue . . .

  40. I like to think the Olberman disease is the market in work. People who habitually watch Cable News want rabid simpleminded analysis. I mean it’s not like C-Span is the El Dorado of ratings because content isn’t what the market wants.

  41. Watch for the new Kieth Olbermann show, following Juan Williams on Fox…

  42. I think Olbermann might successfully argue that he really isn’t a journalist and therefore is immune from corporate ethics code.

    This has more to do with getting rid of the show after it has been sliding in the ratings. He needs the Republicans to take over and screw things up. I mean what’s Lex Luther without Superman? Olbermann needs a foil if he is to return to Countdown.

  43. I don’t like the NBC policy one little bit. It’s not as if their news and commentary staff is going to somehow be balanced and non-partisan if they’re debarred from donating to candidates, a phenomenon akin to assuming the sun will go down if I turn on my lights.

    I’d much rather see reporters and such be allowed to donate so we know exactly from where they’re coming.

  44. Tell the truth, this was just to bring in the trolls during fundraising week, right?

  45. All this shows is that Olbermann is an even bigger idiot than we all thought. Money given to candidates by late October is pretty much useless in changing minds. He might as well just have flushed that money down the toiliet.

    1. Given that he was suspended without pay, that’s kind of what he did.

    2. Down the toilet, or sent to the IRS… same result.

  46. Who would have thought that Reason and Bill Kristol would be brought together in defense of Olbermann?

    MSNBC’s suspension of Keith Olbermann is ludicrous.

    First, he donated money to candidates he liked. He didn’t take money, or favors, in a way that influenced his reporting.

    Second, he’s not a reporter. It’s an opinion show. If Olbermann wants to put his money where his mouth is, more power to him.

    Third, GE, the corporate parent of MSNBC, gives money to political organizations. GE executives and, I’m sure, NBC executives give money. Why can’t Olbermann?

    1. This is bizarro-world material: Neocon and libertoid defend liberal’s breech of contract to give money to Democrats’ campaigns.

      I wonder if this is motivated by a fear that someone less loathesome and unwatchable than Olbermann would replace him. Kristol’s probably doing it so that liberal Olbie opponents can use Kristol’s support against him.

      1. It may be motivated, but I think it’s silly of people to conflate the argument about whether NBC has a right to do this (obviously yes) with whether or not it’s a good policy (I think not.)

        Refusing to separate the two things is logically equivalent to believing in legislating morality. Let’s leave that to others.

  47. Hey Keith,

    I hear that NPR has an opening for someone who doesn’t go on Fox and doesn’t have any hesitations regarding those in Muslim garb. Since the first is pretty much the entirety of your career, you’re just the man to send a tingle down NPR’s leg.

    1. just the man to send a tingle down NPR’s leg

      It was a thrill, goddammit! A thrill!

  48. Why impose any prohibition on political contributions, reporter or anchor or commentator or whatever? I’d rather know people’s leanings than pretend they don’t exist. And all it is is a pretense. You don’t change the views of Olbermann or anyone else by telling them not to contribute.

  49. ChickaBOOMer: Keith Olbermann In Suspended Disbelief
    http://chickaboomer.blogspot.c…..ation.html

  50. LEAVE KEITH ALONE!

  51. Olbermann one of the most partisan people on television? What drugs are you on?

  52. Keith Olbermann violated MSNBC’s standards. The obvious question is: What standards?

  53. The evil corporation, GE, is probably seeing the handwriting on the wall with these midterm elections. Madcow may be the next to be sent to the Gulag, while GE tries to reposition itself for more government contracts under the new order.

  54. Olberman failed to comply with the terms of his contract, so he got canned. Did he think was such a big shot that he didn’t have to keep his word?

    -jcr

    1. Doubtful. Progressives by nature tend to be humble.

  55. why am i not surprised, only employers and owners get unquestioned free speech rights, not us peasants and workers. Please spare me your freedom loving excuses, they are your own and quite pathetic. Always good to know the ignorant people on this site will always rally to thuggish employers.

  56. simple answer idiots, employers do not have the right to limit your free speech outside of the work place, or stick it to your urine, in exchange for employment. what a bunch of thugs around here.

    1. Apparently so, as both Olbermann’s and MSNBC’s lawyers had no problem vetting the terms of the contract before he signed it.

      You don’t have to like it, but blame Olby’s crack team of Lionel Hutz-style attorneys for letting him sign on to a contract that made the limits on his speech enforceable.

    2. It’s not limiting free speech for an employer to say they will fire you if you say certain things. You are still free to say those things, and then seek alternate employment.

      1. sorry if it upsets you that i pointed out you like to control other peoples lives. its something that i see a lot of on here. Do you like using the carrot of employment to control/force your views onto other people? How thuggish

        1. Do you like using the carrot of employment to control/force your views onto other people? How thuggish

          Would you allow me to take a job that doesn’t force me to pay into Social(ist) (In)Security and Medi(S)care?

          I think I prefer “the carrot of employment” vs “a gun to my head”.

          1. Carrot > Stick

  57. NO JUSTICE, NO KEITH! NO JUSTICE, NO KEITH! NO JUSTICE, NO KEITH! NO JUSTICE, NO KEITH! NO JUSTICE, NO KEITH! NO JUSTICE, NO KEITH! NO JUSTICE, NO KEITH! NO JUSTICE, NO KEITH!

    1. Hey, the record’s stuck. Can one of you guys go move the needle a bit?

  58. What if an employer made a corporate policy requireing all employees to vote for a given candidate.

    That would be pretty hard to enforce, since employers aren’t allowed to follow employees into a voting booth.

  59. Really the height of hypocrisy going on in these comment sections, after the laborious and liberal defense of Citizens united. How important it is to liberty and freedom that there be no hindrance to corporate, oops i mean everyday ordinary people, from being involved in political campaigning. Now easily making thuggish excuses, not even needing a contract, to prohibit employees, oops i mean everyday ordinary people, from engaging in political speech.

    1. err…………………never mind. I’m not wasting my time.

    2. Get ready for it, because us libertarians are gonna ride the donations of Koch and co to victory in every remaining election in the history of this republic.

    3. I rephrase the question from above. Should Glenn Beck be able to go on air, inform us he joined the Nazi Party and is calling for a second Holocaust, and then expect to keep his job? Should Ed Schultz be able to talk about how much he loves molesting little boys and by law could not get fired?

      You’re talking like a total idiot. Employers have a right to follow whatever standards they want because they have an interest in self preservation and if employees are making the company look bad and are not following their employment contracts, they have the right to terminate those employees. There’s no authoritarianism in that, and if you were the boss of that company you’d say the same thing.

      Freedom of speech is protected from GOVERNMENT interference, but private individuals and organizations via contract do have the right to limit as they so choose (not that limiting is always wise or unwise). None of us believe Keith should have been banned from giving donations to his preferred candidates by the government, but if he didn’t want to follow the employment contract, he has a right to leave the company and start his own or find an employer who will let him do whatever he wants.

  60. I can’t imagine that this is news ? NBC and Olbermann are two distinct entities, it is true that he works for MSNBC but he is also a citizen of the United States of America and should be allowed to contribute to candidates. It might be a policy of NBC to require permission(?) of its news personalities before they do and it’s up to NBC on how they want to deal with him but it’s he cannot be judged by us. First of all he is not there to report news, he is there to comment and open dialog ? anyone who watches his show knows his leanings (for better or worst). Fox itself gave a million dollars to the republicans and half their staff was touring the country stumping for candidates ? let’s get real. NOT A STORY ? I am sure CNN staff cares enough about the country to support candidates who they feel will do better for it.

  61. “Isn’t it unfair to hold Olbermann, who is one of the most partisan people on television (if not of Earth), to the same standards as, say, Brian Williams?”

    Is it fair/unfair is the last thing I would expect from a libertarian. Or comparing him to others standards.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.