To all you southerners out there, feast on this:
There’s a 30 percent chance of snow. Wind isn’t supposed to be a factor.
Last night, one could not help but feel a subtle vibration as the Earth jolted from the collective jumping with glee by conservatives around the country. Keith Olbermann is shutting down Countdown.
Of course, we at TheLobbyist celebrated a little as well.
It sounds to me that the problem was working with Olbermann. His ratings, while trailing behind nearly every Fox News program, were better than any “news” program at either MSNBC or CNN according to Drudge:
THURS. JAN. 20, 2011
FOXNEWS O'REILLY 2,918,000
FOXNEWS HANNITY 2,079,000
FOXNEWS BAIER 1,940,000
FOXNEWS SHEP 1,786,000
FOXNEWS BECK 1,780,000
FOXNEWS GRETA 1,460,000
MSNBC OLBERMANN 1,106,000
CNN PIERS 1,025,000
MSNBC MADDOW 976,000
MSNBC O'DONNELL 855,000
MSNBC SCHULTZ 760,000
CNN COOPER 740,000
MSNBC HARDBALL 700,000
TMZ reports, “Sources connected with the network tell us … Comcast honchos did not like Keith’s defiance and the way he played in the sandbox.” Sounds to me like he was just as painful to work with as he was to watch.
In the end, at least we know who we can blame for the era of Olbermann… damn you Pat Sajak!
Speaking as a conservative, all I can say is…YAY. Keith Olbermann is, finally, off the air at MSNBC. The earlier link from Hot Air has the details as well as the video of Olbermann’s announcement as they broke last night.
Unfortunately, via Daily Kos, it appears the arrogant jerk that runs Young Turks (a liberal YouTube show) will become the new 6 p.m. host for MSNBC as Lawrence O’Donnell moves to 8:00 and Ed Schultz moves to 10:00. Question: Why not have Maddow take 8:00? Her ratings are good; she has a huge fan base on the lft; and she is a talented host with (unfortunately for conservatives) a lot of basic intelligence (she was the first openly-homosexual Rhodes Scholar from America). I rarely agree with her, and find her mocking, condescending attitude annoying, but she’s a good host.
For what it’s worth, Olbermann’s departure announcement was extraordinarily classy, both for him and in general. Check it out at the first link above.
Those of you that know I am from Atlanta and that I am a big time football fan probably could guess that my heart was smashed to tiny little pieces last week when the Green Bay Packers embarrassed my beloved 13-3 Atlanta Falcons in the NFL playoffs. Those that follow professional football understand the significance of home field advantage in the NFL. And while the winning percentage of the home team drops from roughly 70% to about 51% during the playoffs, the opportunity for a team to have home games and a friendly crowd on their march to the Super Bowl cannot be over looked.
My colleague James DeLong has an interesting piece up at Digital Society today regarding what amounts to NFL home field advantage in the court system. Verizon has recently field the first suit against the FCC’s new Open Internet rules regulating Net Neutrality on privately owned networks. DeLong explains the ins and outs of the importance of the forum in which a case is heard. The quirks are funny, but DeLong breaks down the importance and discusses which Court may get to hear the appeal.
Wanted to share a quote from my friend and colleague James DeLong on the free culture movement. I find it to be right on target and it needs to discover new eyeballs,
The movement has a blind faith that the crowd will provide, but offers little explanation how an internet-or a society-built on its premises would result in high quality physical or intellectual products. . . . No one in its world must make a living, or worry about a return on investment. Large companies don’t help solve problems in organizing human effort; they are malevolent entities. . . . The towering importance of markets as institutions that facilitate human cooperation is not part of their intellectual or moral arsenal. . . . Free and easy with the fundamentals of economic thought, blind to the illuminations of history, and enamored with the wisdom of crowds (which easily turns into the madness of mobs), the movement floats off into abstractions about net neutrality, universal generativity, communitarian sharing, and semiotic democracy.
A journo group has decided that the terminology “illegal immigrant” is not politically correct. It may be technically accurate by definition, but it could be conceived as “hurtful”. You know what’s hurtful? When I lived in Australia if you were caught in the country illegally you were detained in a camp and then deported. You know why? BECAUSE IT’S ILLEGAL! This is how Australia protects it’s borders and hasn’t had anything blown up.
It will always be my position that anyone that wants to can come to our country. But they must do it correctly and legally. This is because it introduces the immigrant to our language, our history, our laws, and our culture. It makes for a more lawful and prosperous society producing respect and greater opportunity.
And bare in mind that I have multiple relatives and extended family that have married into my family from Honduras and Mexico. All have done it correctly and have become citizens of these United States. And your welcome to ask them how they feel about those who skirt the process that they went through.
The phrase illegal immigrant is meant to reflect exactly its definition. It means you cheated the system, you broke the law, you are not supposed to be here, from wherever you are, point blank. The only reason for a drive to make the phrase un-PC is to take the sting out of the reality of the word and increase the prospect of amnesty.
There’s really not much to say here. CBS News was doing a special on book covers last week and they slipped this doozie in the mix:
The real cover on the bottom.
No liberal bias in the media.
I am a Cowboys fan… Dallas Cowboys. Let me give you a quick synopsis of what that meant this past year:
Dallas Cowboys start season as Super Bowl contenders, and Jerry Jones hints constantly at looking forward to the Cowboys playing in the Super Bowl at the brand new Texas Stadium (which, of course, is bigger than YOUR stadium).
Dallas Cowboys go 0-2… win 1 game, then lose the next 5.
1-7 for the team that had high hopes. Many wept, Redskins fans rejoiced; we crumbled.
I now get to see what it felt like to be a Skins fan, and watch your rivals crumble under the weight of their own egos and expectations (Well, I got to twice, when the University of Texas precipitously fell to the bottom of the Big 12 South; below Baylor!). Did anyone pay attention to the events of tonight on Capitol Hill?
I am watching the Democratic Party collapse tonight. I’m popping popcorn, drinking a Shiner, and laughing at what I am hearing and reading. Democrats were short of the 60 votes they needed to try and pass the DREAM Act in the Senate, so they shelved it. Bear in mind, it is being placed on hold temporarily because the democrats have before the end of the year to try and legislate themselves some-million votes nation-wide. Nevertheless, a victory for Republicans. Next, Democrats failed to get the 60 votes needed for a procedural motion on the 2011 Defense Authorization Bill, which included the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell provision. Since that failed, Senators have promised to re-introduce a free-standing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell bill on the floor; but this is not exactly a morale booster for Senate Democrats today. Finally, Democrats are none-too-pleased with the President and his reaching across the aisle on the issue of tax cuts. How mad could they be? Well, Rep. Shelley Berkley acknowledged that someone in the Democratic Caucus hissed “F*** the President” as they debated the bill. As Ron White says: there’s some good news. The outcome is that the Democratic Caucus came out and announced their stance on the bill, which follows what was said inside the caucus in the end.
Democrats seemed poised to enter into the wilderness as they relinquish control of the House. Perhaps Sam Tannenhaus will write a book about the death of legislative liberalism? But for right now, kick back and enjoy the new “Best Show on Earth,” because in two years, that might be us again…
Those that know me know that I am not a fan of Wikileaks. I am in full favor of the beat down of Julian Assange and fully believe the guy is a traitor to allied nations in the war against terror. And while in advance of the most recent leaks, I obviously wouldn’t have supported them, David Frum has made the case post leak that the latest leaks actually improve the positioning of the allied and U.S. case against Iran instead of hurting us in the worlds eyes and protecting Iran as it is assumed Assange was hoping.
Based on the information that is coming out, I have to agree with Frum. This doesn’t mean that there isn’t ogles of information contained within these leaks that could lead to the capture or death of many of our informants in the Middle East. It makes me ill to think that Assange knows that he is sending men and possibly their families and friends to death every time he releases these documents, and this just doesn’t seem to be a factor in him keeping secret documents…well, secret.
In the grand scheme though, this will likely pull in international support to put more pressure or possibly use military action on Iran. Check out Frum’s post here and you can decide for yourself.
From those of us at thelobbyist we wish you and your families and friends a great Thanksgiving. Enjoy your turkey and football, and please try not to kill anyone while shopping tomorrow.