Olbermann named Gingrich "Worst Person" for declaring that "appeasers" label is "not an insult"
On the September 5 edition of MSNBC's Countdown, host Keith Olbermann named Fox News political analyst and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA) the winner of his nightly "Worst Person in the World" award. Olbermann recognized the "disgraced former speaker of the House," as he put it, for "not only lying about finding 700 new weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but telling a TV audience that it's, quote, 'not an insult[]' to compare those who criticize the war in Iraq or even the president to the appeasers who enabled Hitler."
As Media Matters for America noted, Gingrich made his comments in response to a recent speech by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld in which Rumsfeld "likened critics of the U.S. war strategy to those who tried to appease the Nazis," in the words of an August 29 Associated Press report.
From the September 5 edition of MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann:
OLBERMANN: That's ahead, but first, time for Countdown's latest list of nominees for "Worst Person in the World." Thank you, by the way, for pushing the book as high as No. 6 on the Amazon.com sales rankings over the weekend. And just because a buyer today was told there are only four copies left in stock there, that should not induce panic buying or hoarding. Well, all right. Hoard if you must.
First the nominees: Police in Tauranga in New Zealand, getting wide criticism for arresting 31-year-old Colin Smith for being a dangerous driver. He has no license; he has no arms. He was driving at 75 miles an hour, one foot on the pedals, the other on the steering wheel. But apparently he was really good at this. The charge has now been dropped. Not so for runner-up Omed Aziz of Oldbury in England's West Midlands. He, too, arrested for dangerous driving, wrong side of the road. Not that he could tell since he's blind -- lost his eyes in an explosion. Also partially deaf, and he has some leg tremors. Him, they convicted.
But our winner, Newt Gingrich. The disgraced former speaker of the House, not only lying about finding 700 new weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but telling a TV audience that it's, quote, "not an insult[]" to compare those who criticize the war in Iraq or even the president to the appeasers who enabled Hitler. I don't want to be an alarmist or anything, but I'm beginning to think the radical right has issued a new set of talking points. Newt Gingrich, today's "Worst Person in the World."
The other right-wing media mogul you should worry about
Palin's book and Obama's bow: a media week to forget
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
Newt is the worse person in the World for this? For giving his opinion? I just cant wait for Olberman to start in on Katie Couric because she is allowing Free speech on her newscast. I feel like this is Communist China listening to Olbermann.
And I am not a fan of Newt but where does Olberman get off by stating this:
"the disgraced former speaker of the House" Disgraced in whos eyes? Does Olberman the "disgraced former Sportscaster" have any factual basis to back that statement up?
He was forced to resign as Speaker of the House in the wake of a sex scandal, hence "disgraced former Speaker of the House." It's not Olbermann's opinion; it's simply a fact.
I dont think its fact that Newt resigned in disgrace . Its his opinion, it hasnt hurt Newt in his life after politics.
Be critical of Newt for his positions, but when KO and others mock him and use words like that they lose all credibility.
---"... when KO and others mock [Newt Gingrich] and use words like that they lose all credibility"---
Yet on another thread you defended ED Hill's unprovoked mocking of Helen Thomas and you found it, quote, "hysterical".
Yet on another thread you defended ED Hill's unprovoked mocking of Helen Thomas and you found it, quote, "hysterical".
I didnt think I was defending it at all. It was funny however as I stated everything on FOX is a joke. I dont find ED Hill to be a serious journalist or FAUX for that matter to be a serious network. I do have hope that MSNBC is more serious than FAUX however.
Not really sure of what your point is other than again to attack.
--"Not really sure of what your point is other than again to attack."--
You obviously apply a double standard, that's the point.
ED Hill mocks "Queen" (your name-calling) Helen Thomas and, according to you, it's "hystercial". Then Olbermann merely calls Gingrich a "worst person" and you say Olbermann "loses credibility".
Because Olbermann is not even in the same league with a joke organization like FAUX.
MSNBC should try and stay above name calling.
Helen Thomas is the queen, she is the best reporter to ever cover the White House .
Now, mocking Helen Thomas via braile (see Glenn Beck) would really be hysterical, let alone downright comical....
Umm... you DO remember the reasons WHY Newt resigned, right? I mean, it wasn't so he could take on a more important job.
Do you have a better word that describes his resignation? "Disgraced" seems appropriate to me.
"Disgraced" probably isn't an insult in Newt's mind. "Appeaser" isn't, so why would "disgraced" be?
LOL, logic just avoids you desn't it?
so newt has a right to his opinion, but KO does not?- So KO has a right to an opinion but Newt does not?
LOL, logic just avoids you desn't it? I ask you the same .
that Newt's opinion be censored? Huh? Nothing? Gosh what a shock!
Gingrich isn't speaking his opinion. He is speaking neocon talking points. When every Fox pundit starts repeating it, it is called propaganda.
But I have a vague recollection of some sort of a book deal... and then there was his affair with a young staffer while he was pursuing the impeachment of Bill Clinton...
Okay, maybe not "disgraced"... perhaps instead "hypocritical low-life who began the Republican crusade to do away with the two-party system in American politics with his take-no-prisoners plan in 1994 to demonize the Democratic Party."
Maybe I'm just too sensitive (I am a Democrat) but in the current context "appeaser" strikes me as a grave insult.
You are correct with how you define Newt. Too bad Olbermann doesnt have you working for him.
Tried that... Keith doesn't pay enough. ;>)
Jlyon,in response to your question about why he opened up stating that Gingrich was the disgraced former "Speaker of the House ",is because he is the former disgraced "Speaker of the House". What was Kieth going to do, let him off the hook for having to resign the Speakership after bieng caught borking some 25 year-old staffer working on the Hill!At the time he was borking her ,he was excoriating Clinton daily on the Floor of the House for the same thing! Newtie,just like his predecessor Dan Livingston of La.thought it was OK for them to bang someone besides their wives ,because their high rollers in the Christain Right! What goes around ,comes around! JLyon,did that answer your question!
How many times has a disgraced former Speaker called 63% of the American people who disagree with Bush on the Iraq war an "appeaser?"
Now, me, I've never been called an appeaser --- not by an adulterous dead-beat dad who bounced checks at the US Capitol post office and was charged with 80+ ethical violations and, after cutting a deal to save his scalp, tried to worm out of the agreement. Nope, never happened to me before.
Of course, Newt's no more "disgraced" than the other corrupt Republican America-hater, Jack Abramoff, but Jack Abramoff wasn't Speaker.
I've always found Newt's impact on politics and political discourse very negative. He perfected the poltics of character assasination and he was one of the leaders of the vast right wing conspiracy that went after Bill Clinton with WMDs. Name calling is but an often used tool in his bag of political dirty tricks. Newt gives the illusion of being "civil" that's a part of his game. I hope the people recognize Newt for what he is and make sure he remains on the political periphery because he's a terrible influence.
Fox News delivering Newt a forum is akin to being the keepers of Dracula. As long as they control what he kills the coffin will always be lined. And like Fox calling Florida for BushieCo in '00, the other nets follow along and put Count Newt on their shows. Sad.
Newt, thank God, will never have a sub committee to terrorize citizens with, and I'm sure he's all pent up about it.
Maybe Karl Rove could introduce Jeff Gannon from Talon News to Newt, and they could make headlines together??
Better than the henny-penny routine they got going.
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
What I don't understand is why "contract on America" Newt is frequently given high-profile soapboxes. He's been on Meet the Press several times lately, spouting off his extremists views.
Oh, I forgot. We no longer have major news organizations. Just ones that want to sell airtime (recall that major network news organizations used to be separate entities... now they all all part of their entertainment divisions!)
It doesn't seem to matter to the Right Wing what their supposed leaders do that fly in the face of their professed virtues, they always seem to crawl back out from under the rock they get dropped on them. Terry has an affair with an underaged staffer, and divorces his wife of 19 years, yet professes 'family values' and is a right-to-lifer. All of a sudden, thanks to the Schiavo fiasco, he's back in front of the camera. Funny, similar to ol' Newtie-boy, huh? These guys seem to do all the things they are supposedly against, yet they are welcomed back again and again by the idiots that support them. And it's NOT just a phenomenon of the far right. Heck, Jesse Jackson had an affair and - I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) - a "love child" from that affair - this from a guy who's a reverend - and he's welcome back with open arms as well. I personally don't get it. If I were caught in such acts of hypocrisy, I'd disappear from public life. These guys have no shame, do they?
Olbermann makes an important point about the right wing propaganda machine in this country. "I don't want to be an alarmist or anything, but I'm beginning to think the radical right has issued a new set of talking points."
This issue is something that needs to be discussed and thought about in the coming months running up to the elections. It has been quite sometime since an administration has been able to subdue the media and shape and focus nearly every issue on the news. Today it is 60% of the country are nazi appeasers and tomorrow we start locking people up for sedition. It is a very slippery slope we are on at this point in our history. Every American needs to think very carefully about the imformation they are being fed on a daily basis.
To paraphrase:
When the people are no longer informed a Democracy can no longer function.
Rounder; well said.
The sibling to "Information is Power."
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
Simply stated, there are many people out there who think there is nothing you can say that will 'appease' the Islamofacists in Iran.
Then there are those who think you can talk them out of developing nuclear weapons.
It doesn't matter if it is Newt or someone else, the term appeasement fits. It is simple and everyone knows that Chamberlain's appeasement allowed Hitler to gain time. If that offends KO, I say go ahead and be offended.
Of course nobody here would dream of offending anyone else now would they?
You are for invading Iran right now?
your silence to be a vote for appeasement. Appeaser.
The problem I have with Gingrich is that he USES the term "appeasement" in regards to those that criticize Bush's Iraq policy.
IF you gotta use it--It would be better used when discussing Iran. BUT that's not what Newt is doing here. He's making excuses for a War that is a HUGE mistake.
Personally I don't view Iran to be quite the big bad boogieman that Bush & Co. do. Yeah they want the A-Bomb, but I don't believe they are likely to USE it against the U.S. or even Israel.
IMO, they just want to possess it because it'll put them in THAT exclusive club of Nuclear Bomb Owners. They want to be the Big Shots in the Middle East...they think the A-Bomb gives them that power.
Personally I don't view Iran to be quite the big bad boogieman that Bush & Co. do.
APPEASER! APPEASER!
You caught me ;-)
It wasn't an insult. :^)
I think you are forgetting that Iran is a part of the "Axis of Evil". Remember? Did you lose your talking points or something?
Seriously, I think it would be hard to justify that Iran having a nucular or nuclear weapon is in the best interest of the United States.
I lost my Talking Points, I think the wife lined the birdcage with em ;-) IF you have an extra copy, send them to me ASAP!!!
The former Soviet Union having nuclear weapons wasn't in our BEST interests either...in fact anybody BUT us having them is probably NOT in our best interests. BUT, until the USA finally succeeds at our GOAL of total World Domination...oops
Maybe you & I should be having THIS conversation under The Dome Of Silence ;-)
Everyone BUT Bruce PLEASE ignore this post.
Are you kidding? I'm determined to de-code this covert conservative communiqué. I wish you guys would speak standard right wingese I've gotten pretty fluent in that, but this is a challenge. (Smile)
Well I could tell you EVERYTHING...but then I'd have to...oh no I could NEVER do that!!!
The Cone Of Silence is from that old 60's sitcom Get Smart and Bruce and I and I think it might have been Snoopy were joking around on a thread a while ago about it when Bruce and I were speaking "standard right wingese" [hehe that's clever!] and Snoopy suggested Bruce & I use The Cone Of Silence.
Just incase you didn't watch Get Smart [or are too young to remember it] I'll leave you a Wikipedia link that explains "The Cone".
[link to en.wikipedia.org]
There are many warmongers out there that want to get as many Americans killed as physically possible. Their warmonger bloodlust knows no bounds. It doesnt matter that the reasons given for the invasion have been shown to be false, it doesnt matter that terrorism has increased. The only things that matter to them is getting lots of people killed while they hide under their beds in craven fear. See there is always the tension between those who believe that peaceful goals can EVER be achieved and state violence should be a last resort and those who beleive the other is out to get them and we must kill and destroy immediatly or it will be the end of the world. Fear rules their world. No proof necessary, no rational moral justification just flat out fear.
do you realize that you provide no proof yourself?
Are you saying you didnt KNOW that we didnt find the WMDs in Iraq? That even the 9/11 commission said there were no corroborative ties between al Queda and Iraq? I didnt know I needed to prove such widely known facts. As for the assigning of motives it is not POSSIBLE to prove that which was my point. I am saying I have every bit as much rational to say YOU are a bloodthirsty, warmonger who wants to see as many Americans killed as possible as you do to call those like me an appeaser. THAT is the nature of making an argument out of assigning venal motives. IF you are saying you are NOT a bloodthirsty, warmonger that wants to see Americans killed the obvious point is that you have NO rational reason to believe your assignation for MY motives
---"Then there are those who think you can talk them out of developing nuclear weapons."---
Who, specifically? Who exactly thinks that "talk" is the only way to prevent them from obtaining weapons?
Name a public figure who has stated that we should leave the terrorists alone so they will leave us alone. Do, use a sourced direct quote. You can't beacuse that hasn't happened. The Facist scum that runs the republican party, and that includes the Dear Leader, spew this crap and fools who vote republican lick it up. And, al'a Newtie, what I just said isn't an insult. If you or any of your rightwing buddies is offended maybe you're just to politically correct or something.
the righty talkers always source their quotes.It's easy because it's always the same one;
THE LEFT (meaning made up strawman hallucination)
Quite so. The reason the framers of our constitution accepted the States' request for the addition of 12 amendments (The Bill of Rights) was they had great respect and regard for the common man's ability to make reasoned decisions based on access to information. These references to pre- World War II Europe are only relevent because the right wingers are following Hitler's position that an ignorant population is easier to manipulate. No wonder they see critics as " appeasers ". Meanwhile, GWB tries to appear FDR like even as behind the scenes he tries get Congress to gut the 1997 U.S. War Crimes Act in order to protect himself, Cheney and Rumsfeld from possible future criminal prosecution and change the statutes to make his illegal surveillance program legal. But hey, that's the Patriotic Republican way, if you get caught breaking the rules, no problem, just change the rules.
the first 10 Amendments, not the first 12?
Basically, Gingrich wants to be Bush-act-alike president. He is a master at distorting events and facts to fit his rightwing agenda.