Hey, at least DU has a cause

[prolesunited]

We can't unite to get Dems elected, but we'll get Olbermann back on the air. At least we have our priorities in order.

[Heidi]

1. Recco-dang-mended.

:kick:

[EFerrari]

2. (Shhhhhhh. Sit back and enjoy the truce.)

lol

:)

[Heidi]

7. There's a truce???

Goodness gracious! I do declare: where _are_ my manners? :rofl:

[EFerrari]

13. I even let the cats out this morning!

:rofl:

[polichick]

3. You're giving a message board far too much importance. nt

[Heidi]

5. For some people, it's a community, not just "a message board." (nt)

[polichick]

8. Same difference - disagreeing on Dem strategy in a community...

...or on a message board has no significant impact on election outcomes.

[prolesunited]

6. I'm not saying the message board has the power to do all that

Just that is where the attention and energy are focused.

[polichick]

10. There's room for all of it - the Olbermann thing may turn out to be...

...as critical as the election:

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/11/05/burke-comcast-msnbc/

[leftstreet]

4. Keith Olbermann / Lewis Black 2012

[sabrina 1]

9. I don't know about you, but everyone I know on DU

voted for Democrats. You didn't?

As for Olbermann, he got many Dems elected and exposed the lies of the Republican party for years. In fact my Republican sister and husband started listening to him a while ago, and learned some facts which made them think twice about the things they had heard from rightwing media.

Do you think we should return to the days of no Liberal voices correcting the lies from the right? Should we NOT have a free press and leave it all to Fox and the rightwing noise machine?

We can walk and chew gum at the same time, can you not?

I think a free press is a huge priority that we have neglected to insist on, and look at the results.

Hard to understand why a few people here don't agree how important a free press is if we are to have good government, elections where people are informed so make better choices.

But hey, if your priorities are to falsely accuse your fellow DUers of not supporting Democrats and write a whole OP about it, that's YOUR choice. Do you think that will unite people, btw?

Oh yes, and unrec'd because you made a false statement regarding your fellow Duers. People disagree over issues and still do. That doesn't translate into not supporting good Democratic candidates, which many worked hard to do.

[prolesunited]

12. This is *exactly* what I said, right?

"Do you think we should return to the days of no Liberal voices correcting the lies from the right? Should we NOT have a free press and leave it all to Fox and the rightwing noise machine?"

Although I value a free press, I also value an unbiased press and if there are conflicts of interest, they are known to those involved. I realize not all in media are held to the same standards, but it would be nice if some media outlets had standards and enforced them. Fox news is not the standard to emulate.

And feel free to unrec, but there are some DUers who did not vote for Dems and did not support the Democrats. I never said all.

I could waste more time pointing out all of the logical fallacies of your post, but I have better things to do today.

[sabrina 1]

14. You are focusing on the glass half full.

If a few DUers didn't vote or whatever, that is their right. Maybe they live in districts where there was no one they could feel right about voting for.

Why focus on the small minority and not the whole picture? Democrats lost the Independent vote mostly. And young people. That is a fact, now the question is what to do about it, not to cry over a few people on an internet board who may or may not have voted. Maybe they are Independents also.

If there were logical fallacies in my post, which is entirely possible, they were prompted your dismissive attitude towards people attempting to stop the Big Corps from once again silencing progressive voices.

They did it before when Republicans were in power, starting with Donohue. We didn't do anything then, mostly because we didn't have enough people online, nor did we understand what was going on. But if we had done something back then, before the purging of liberal voices was complete, we might not have had a war or Republicans in power in 2004 etc. But we didn't, it wasn't a 'cause' as you put it. And then they went on and totally silenced those who tried to report the truth, one after another. That is what my question to you was about. Do you want that to happen again, or this time do you want to show them they won't get away with again? I'm for showing them we are no longer going to tolerate their censorship.

To stop censorship and fascism and corruption in government you must have a vibrant, free press. We don't, we have a few voices telling the truth (as much as they are allowed) and it's worth while to many Americans to try to preserve that little oasis of truth.

You chose to make fun of people of trying by being snide. I chose to respond to what you wrote. Now you are upset that you were 'mis-interpreted'. Fine, whenever you decide to attack people, you should be prepared for a response and if you are not clear about what you want from them, you will be interpreted accordingly.

I, eg, assumed you didn't want people fighting to preserve liberal voices in the media and that you believed DU was not supportive of Democrats. If that's not what you meant, you were not very clear in your presentation. But attacking people as a whole, those defending the freedom of the press, and DUers who actually did vote and work for Democrats, is not the way to start a conversation that might unite people.

[prolesunited]

19. I may have made huge leaps in my conclusions

but it's all your fault that I'm riled up. That's what I got from this.

Anyway, the sky is blue and air is crisp -- a beautiful day for a walk. Perhaps some fresh air would do you some good as well.

Peace.

[Goldstein1984]

11. Keith Olbermann speaks for me much more than my

Democratic senator from Alaska.

I voted Democrat in a last minute WTF moment, but it was a vote of resignation--a vote to get a life sentence instead of a death sentence. The burden is on Democratic leader wannabees to inspire voters, not on the voters to dig for some reason to be inspired by the uninspiring.

I'm hungry for a nice organic veggie omelette made with eggs from free-range chickens and cheese from BST- and antibiotic-free cows. The Dems keep serving me the same old caged-hen eggs, feedlot bacon, and white toast with trans-fat margarine that the Republicans serve. (I haven't had breakfast yet, so that's the metaphor that comes to mind.)

Thus, the enthusiasm gap translating into a voting gap that Alan Grayson says cost him and other Democrats the election.

[treestar]

22. He doesn't have a vote in Congress

He doesn't have to follow through on anything.

He's had less influence than any Democratic Senator you'll ever elect.

[Goldstein1984]

26. You need to read Howard Zinn's "Voices of a People's History.."

if you haven't already.

A great many people have had a great deal of influence without every having held elected office. The power to change people's minds isn't granted only to politicians.

Olbermann doesn't determine what I think, but he certainly provides information and opinion that I take into consideration. My Democratic senator does not.

[Nite Owl]

15. Actually I think most of us did

vote to get the dems elected. It's just that some weren't very happy about doing it. I held my nose to vote for our Blue Dog rep but he lost anyway. I don't know anyone who didn't vote for him here in my circle of friends but no one was happy about it.

[HereSince1628]

16. I think many of us were united in electing dems, even united in fighting lost causes

but yes, this is a bonding moment. Sort of like both Kennedy assasinations, the assasination of MLK, the shuttle disasters and the attack on the world trace center.

[prolesunited]

18. Not even in the same category

You realize Olbermann is still alive, right?

[HereSince1628]

20. Oh, dear, another case of not putting in the SARCASM icon...

In times of trouble, I really need to be much more careful.

[Davis_X_Machina]

17. I'm with..

....Coco KO!

[treestar]

21. Entertainers can say things that real politicians can't

And they don't have to do anything to follow through.

That's why they get to be all heroic when the politicians can't.

[jpgray]

23. These are fora that convulsed themselves over how polite we should be after Reagan's death

Literally hundreds of threads of scolding, posturing and ultimatums on the most peripheral and practically meaningless of issues. What DU takes personally is not necessarily going to make any sense whatsoever.

I think the rationale for firing Olbermann is meager at best, even if he violated the letter of his contract. His is advocacy journalism, and there is no larger violation or betrayal of trust in his donations. This is more a case of his bosses not liking him or his attitude than of upholding journalistic integrity, since there was never any basis on which one could see Olbermann as neutral or disinterested. It's a pious posture more than anything else, as I see it.

That said, this is only my second post on the issue, and it's definitely one too many. :hi:

[sabrina 1]

24. If you think think this is a trivial matter, then you must not be

familiar with the history of GE's influence of MSNBC and NBC, as well was even FOX who through Bill O'Reilly of all people, revealed some of their dealings in Iran, prompting them to complain vehemently to Rupert Murdoch, asking him to silence his 'news' people regarding their sleazy business dealings abroad.

Like squabbling children, Murdoch agreed providing GE would exercise its influence on MSNBC'S Keith Olbermann, asking them to curb his criticism of Fox and O'Reilly.

This story is about far more than one TV Host being terminated. It is about the complete corporate control of our media. I could go on and talk about how MSNBC hired a Corporate lobbyist, to fill in on Countdown for Olbermann when he was on vacation, and how, when liberals online including Glenn Greenwald who has done the best real journalistic coverage of this danger to our democracy, informed Olbermann of the background of his fill-in host, Olbermann promised, and kept his promise, not to allow him as a host any longer.

Olbermann has long been a target of GE and Fox, because apparently he has been effective in turning back some of their propaganda.

There are few remaining challengers to the Corporate State on our media, all have been fired or not hired in the first place.

If you are above those fighting to try to retain some truth in our media, that is your right, but to put down those who maybe, are not just 'fans' of one TV host, or 'obsessed' with the latest 'outrage du jour', but actually informed and outraged over what has been and is happening to our access to real news can't be taken too seriously until you explain why, considering the overt efforts to silence anyone who is a threat to corporate power over every aspect of this democracy, this is a trivial matter. Maybe if this kind of outrage had been displayed when the first real journalist was let go, the direction of this country would have been entirely different. But there was no outrage back then, so it became easier and easier to take over and use our media outlets for the purpose of Corporate PR and Propaganda.

I suggest you look up the GE/MSNBC/NBC Olbermann, Donohue, Banfield history before deciding what this is all about.

[jpgray]

27. I'm quite familiar, thanks

I just question the need for eighty billion threads that say the same thing. People obviously have the right to post whatever they want, but if I were czar of DU, I would rather have the threads with useful information, petitions and contact info remain kicked than get buried under a flood of meaningless speculation and posturing.

[sabrina 1]

29. Okay, good point! n/t

[JVS]

28. Shit on Reagan!

I hope that fucking dog is enjoying hell. Wait no, I hope he finds it horrible!

[SidDithers]

25. K&R...nt

Sid