Gothamist: Republicans Pay Tribute to the Victims of 9/11

jpeditor

Thu, 11 Sep 2008 10:56:53 -0500

"Drilling for oil in the USA doesn't mean it is OUR oil... it goes to oil companies in the world market and we have to buy it like everyone else." So now you want it for free? Get a clue: the more oil there is in the market THE CHEAPER IT BECOMES.

robingee

Tue, 09 Sep 2008 20:21:53 -0500

Hello? I don't think Bin Laden is RIGHT. I am telling you that there are reasons WHY he led this attack, not just because they hate our freedom and lifestyles. But that's the simplistic explanation we GET. Iraq: read about the Downing Street Memo. Drilling for oil in the USA doesn't mean it is OUR oil... it goes to oil companies in the world market and we have to buy it like everyone else.

jpeditor

Tue, 09 Sep 2008 13:59:58 -0500

"The reasons that 9/11 happened were due to us having a military presence in the Middle East." Really? The Saudis, kuwaitis etc INVITED us there - as much as couldn't give two sh*ts for the arab world, you want us to take BIN LADENS perfernces over the Arab govts. "Bush wants us to believe it was because the militant Islamics "hate our freedom." It's more complex than that, and that is what Democrats want to explain; " "explain" the fact that islam has been at war with the Judeo-Christian world for 13 centuries. "But why Iraq? " Because EVERYONE in BOTH parties thought Sadaam was a danger: http://www.bercasio.com/movies/dems-wmd-before-iraq.wmv "Why not Saudi Arabia, since most of the hijackers were from there?" Because the green left won't let us drill for our own oil (hint, petroleum is used to make the computer you use and to deliver the food you eat, not just for the evil SUVs...).

ma bell

Tue, 09 Sep 2008 11:59:43 -0500

nice i found what you are referring to. his ratings beat him for a one week period in june for the first time ever. the catch? o'reilly was on vacation and wasn't hosting his show that week. big time win for olbermann! i never said billy boy was correct. in fact i think he's an idiot 3/4 of the time. but i think olbermann is an idiot 9/10 of the time.

robingee

Tue, 09 Sep 2008 11:41:37 -0500

ma bell - that was May 08, and in June Olbermann topped Bill-o; http://thinkprogress.org/2008/06/10/olbermanns-ratings-top-oreillys/ But even if Bill-o has more ratings it doesn't make him correct. The things he says are quite insane and easily disproved with facts. How can he be consistently wrong yet have so many viewers? It's a sad statement on our citizens. I am proud of the people who see and seek out the truth. www.sweetjesusihatebilloreilly.com

starrygordon

Tue, 09 Sep 2008 10:40:14 -0500

Robingee -- it is evident that most voters are too dumb to follow the complex reasoning you present.

robingee

Tue, 09 Sep 2008 09:31:18 -0500

"MSNBC and Barack Hussein Obama all think we got what we deserved on 9/11." That's not true. The reasons that 9/11 happened were due to us having a military presence in the Middle East. Bush wants us to believe it was because the militant Islamics "hate our freedom." It's more complex than that, and that is what Democrats want to explain; not just say "hate our freedom" - but explain all of the reasons and how we can resolve the problems. We went into Afghanistan, which is what we should have done. But why Iraq? Why not Saudi Arabia, since most of the hijackers were from there?

robingee

Tue, 09 Sep 2008 09:24:24 -0500

yeah you keep trying too, buddy

jpeditor

Tue, 09 Sep 2008 00:45:19 -0500

MSNBC and Barack Hussein Obama all think we got what we deserved on 9/11. The rest of us voting for McCain / Palin don't.

NannyState

Mon, 08 Sep 2008 22:25:10 -0500

Think of those guys at the top of NBC with their black S.U.V.s and hunting lodges in Jackson Hole. They are part of that conservative cabal that controls Big Media and while they toyed with the idea of an upstart ratings grabber like Olberman breathing new life into a cable outlet that has underperformed for so long that everyone has wondered when GE's "Number One or Number Two in its category or it's dropped" policy would kick in, these bastards have fallen back to the predictable NBC habit of eating their young. At least McCain is happier.

ma bell

Mon, 08 Sep 2008 22:15:14 -0500

yes i apologize. i meant demoted. again, you don't get demoted unless the powers feel that you don't get the ratings...which he doesn't. you must have another read on this, cause nielson says o'reilly trounces olbermann...no competition. http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/05/09/oreilly-vs-olbermann-through-thursday-may-8/3693 maybe next time buddy...keep trying

EastRiver

Mon, 08 Sep 2008 18:46:38 -0500

His show is still on and has higher ratings than O'Reilley. It does? I have heard Olbermann has higher numbers in the 18 to 30 demographic but that's all. He beat O'Reilly a few times in late spring when he had certain guests on his show like Scott McClellan. Do you have a source?

chuzzlewit

Mon, 08 Sep 2008 18:04:07 -0500

i think they're on to something here with their niftily post modern blurring of the lines between states of "war" and "peace" - who needs that kind of crispness in their lives anyway? let's just acknowledge the best we can do is a hazy general state of panic and violence, and let's call it "weace". that way we can be more specific when we invade countries and stuff like that -like "we are the americans, and we come to bring you weace!"

starrygordon

Mon, 08 Sep 2008 17:55:24 -0500

... Olbermann's "I'm sorry you had to see that" response struck me as way over-the-top and smarmy. I was there, I witnessed the attack on the World Trade Center, and I am really sick of people trying to exploit it. Had I been in Olbermann's place I would have said exactly the same thing, with absolute sincerity.

robingee

Mon, 08 Sep 2008 17:31:11 -0500

Olbermann wasn't fired, ma bell. He will just be a correspondent at the elections now, and not an anchor. Read a little. His show is still on and has higher ratings than O'Reilley.

arsguide

Mon, 08 Sep 2008 17:09:39 -0500

as jeffk said the real story is that they are tying 9/11 to the 1970 IRANIAN hostage crisis...so that americans will support miltary action by the US or israel against IRAN

takethecanoli

Mon, 08 Sep 2008 17:01:30 -0500

It's one thing to pay tribute to tragedy and its victims; it's another to shamelessly exploit it as nationalistic propaganda.

ma bell

Mon, 08 Sep 2008 16:49:08 -0500

what a load of crap. olbermann was fired cause nobody watched him. those with good ratings do not get fired no matter what their opinions are. o'reilly has said some pretty whacky stuff himself but since he draws a huge audience, he stays. olbermann simply was not a big enough draw. and you bash the repubs for showing a tribute to 9/11? what? i mean seriously? what? you can't come up with something better then bashing them for showing a tribute to 9/11 and saying that it will never happen again? seriously? come on people. your grasping at straws. stick to the bush bashing. at least that makes sense.

moocow

Mon, 08 Sep 2008 16:40:42 -0500

i always wonder what the rest of the country thinks about the fact that the two places the attacks directly affected are overwhelmingly blue states. and that nyc kinda hated/hates guiliani.

Gothamist_Cynic

Mon, 08 Sep 2008 16:27:26 -0500

it was pretty sickening to watch the republicans cheer after showing 9/11 footage at the RNC.

CR

Mon, 08 Sep 2008 15:31:45 -0500

Olbermann is sensitive as hell and not going to take it anymore!

The Man Bat

Mon, 08 Sep 2008 15:18:31 -0500

McCain's history of hot temper raises concerns WASHINGTON - John McCain made a quick stop at the Capitol one day last spring to sit in on Senate negotiations on the big immigration bill, and John Cornyn was not pleased. Cornyn, a mild-mannered Texas Republican, saw a loophole in the bill that he thought would allow felons to pursue a path to citizenship. McCain called Cornyn's claim "chicken-s---," according to people familiar with the meeting, and charged that the Texan was looking for an excuse to scuttle the bill. Cornyn grimly told McCain he had a lot of nerve to suddenly show up and inject himself into the sensitive negotiations. "F--- you," McCain told Cornyn, in front of about 40 witnesses. snip Six people present have written statements describing what they saw. According to the accounts, McCain waved his hand to shoo away Jeannette Jenkins, whose cousin was last seen in South Vietnam in 1970, causing her to hit a wall. As McCain continued walking, Jane Duke Gaylor, the mother of another missing serviceman, approached the senator. Gaylor, in a wheelchair equipped with portable oxygen, stretched her arms toward McCain. "McCain stopped, glared at her, raised his left arm ready to strike her, composed himself and pushed the wheelchair away from him," according to Eleanor Apodaca, the sister of an Air Force captain missing since 1967. McCain's staff wouldn't respond to requests for comment about specific incidents.

jeffk

Mon, 08 Sep 2008 15:04:59 -0500

Billy, you should focus on the bigger story - that the video purposefully attempted to tie the Iran hostage crisis to 9/11. I thought the video was a sickening exploitation of of that day, all in the name of stoking our fear and quietly laying the groundwork for the war with Iran that this nation's right wing can't wait to start.

S.D.

Mon, 08 Sep 2008 14:47:00 -0500

Actually, I think Olbermann's and Mathews bickering got them both pulled.

handsomedevil

Mon, 08 Sep 2008 14:38:39 -0500

I saw this video and Olbermann's response to it on YouTube. Overall, it's a fairly benign treatment, much less aggressive and partisan than other statements at this year's RNC (and certainly miles from RNC '04). Olbermann's "I'm sorry you had to see that" response struck me as way over-the-top and smarmy.

longacre

Mon, 08 Sep 2008 14:29:14 -0500

#1: The only reason Olbermann was there was MSNBC's attempt to sell itself as a liberal counterpoint to their right-leaning key rival, Fox News. I think they finally realized with that Olbermann quote, however, that they lost any moral high ground they had against Fox by putting commentators in a formal news anchor role.

fishfryin

Mon, 08 Sep 2008 14:28:52 -0500

i think the difference is that with a program like "the o'reilly factor" on fox news, it is unabashedly a bill o'reilly opinion show. yes, the tag line is "no spin zone" or whatever, but basically the opinionated nature of the program is not hidden; i think no spin may refer to him being a dick to everyone except young, good looking conservative babes. with olbermann, you have him hosting newscasts as well as a show which bills itself as a news rundown with witty commentary more than a soap box show. at the end of the day though, olbermann is just as opinionated as o'reilly. and there's nothing wrong with that, but if the network feels that it is awkward for someone like that to be hosting a newscast, especially one that focuses on his opponents, then i think that makes sense. it would be similar to bill o'reilly covering the DNC live

sinisterteashop

Mon, 08 Sep 2008 14:22:58 -0500

It's over and the Republicans lost. Even if they take the White House which they very well might do their bluff has been called and they know that the only thing they're capable of doing is taking the rest of us down with them as they get flushed down the toilet of history.

smallsnacks

Mon, 08 Sep 2008 14:22:52 -0500

honestly if you think that's the reason they pulled olbermann from the election coverage then you've got a little catching up on your tvnewser reading to do my friend.

fugothamist

Mon, 08 Sep 2008 14:07:44 -0500

fear fear fear amazing how many idiots buy into that crap from the repups

starrygordon

Mon, 08 Sep 2008 14:00:33 -0500

Olbermann isn't right-wing enough for the MSM. The requirements seem to be pretty strict.