Censoring Sarah Palin: Meltdown with Keith Olbermann Part 19

by David Forsmark  •  Dec 13, 2009 at 9:15 am
Cross-posted from NewsRealBlog.com

http://www.davidforsmark.com/2009/12/censoring-sarah-palin-meltdown-with-keith

A week after Keith Olbermann said that the First Amendment should not apply to Glen Beck, Olbermann and constant guest Chris Hayes of the Marxist mag The Nation, excoriated the Washington Post for accepting an op-ed written by Sarah Palin.

OLBERMANN: Why did "The Washington Post" let us get lectured about science and politics by someone who quit her only state office, and has a pastor who runs these precautionary exorcisms on her so she can stave off witchcraft.

HAYES: I thought it was a really atrocious decision on the part of "The Washington Post" to run this op-ed…

Even for these two, this assertion is absurd. It's impossible to imagine a time in our history when a newspaper would not accept an editorial from the immediate past VP candidate, much less a newspaper struggling for readership rejecting one from a political figure who is riding a huge wave of popularity and publicity.

But then, Keith's plummeting ratings show him in a kamikaze death-dive, and his delusional challenge of "Follow me!" to the WaPo shouldn't surprise anyone.

Media critics have long noted that Keith is not a big fan of debate. There was more vigorous debate in the Reichstag. He doesn't just pick guests who agree his general ideology, they must agree with him on nearly every detail. That's why his show is a monotonous revolving door of about 10 guests.

Try to find a Countdown that doesn't include at least 2 of the following; Chris Hayes, Howard Fineman, Eugene Robinson, Laurence O'Donnell, Ariana Huffington, Jonathan Alter, Richard Wolfe, or left wing Senators Sharrod Brown, Ron Wyden, Jay Rockefeller, or Sheldon Whitehouse,

The show is so monotonously one sided, in fact, that Keith felt it necessary to apologetically explain, after the President's Afghanistan speech, why he would actually bring two people on his show " who otherwise are near-perfect political matches" to debate it. I guess dissent is now the lowest form of patriotism.

OLBERMANN: The rift is perhaps so profound that it merits something unusual here—a debate of sorts involving two people who would otherwise not have much to debate about…Good evening to you both. Thanks for trying this.

Warning, loyal locksteppers, actual dissent from the Progressive radical party line may appear in this segment!

Whatever substantive problems one might have with, say Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity, you have to look long and hard to find a program which does not contain at least 2 guests who vehemently disagree with the host, and at least one debate between guests.

Back to Hayes and Olbermann. While a mocking segment on Palin is an almost nightly staple of the show, Olbermann made a special emphasis of religious mockery in this show—something he has studiously avoided up to know.

Keith's tactic was to tie her to a Kenyan Pentacostal preacher who happened to be speaking at a meeting she attended, who called her forward, and prayed over her. The speaker used the language of God's protecting Palin in her efforts, including from demons. It was a one time, unplanned event, and Palin politely participated.

Not exactly the same thing as sitting at the feet of an anti-American radical for 20 years and having him baptize one's children—but I digress.

The pattern in the show became, Keith calls Palin a religious nut, Hayes smacks the Washington Post for allowing the religious nut on their editorial page.

OLBERMANN: Why did "The Washington Post" let us get lectured about science and politics by someone who quit her only state office, and has a pastor who runs these precautionary exorcisms on her so she can stave off witchcraft.

HAYES: I thought it was a really atrocious decision on the part of "The Washington Post" to run this op-ed… But to give over your op-ed page to someone who makes, essentially a conspiracy claim, it would be like if they turned it over to someone who wanted to argue that 9/11 was an inside job. "The Washington Post" would never, in a million years, do that and they shouldn't be doing this.

Non-editor's note: I bet if ANY former VP candidate from one of the two major parties wants to send a 9/11 truther letter to this site, we will be glad to print it, and expose their insanity for the world to see…

OLBERMANN: From Mrs. Palin's point of view, from the GOP point of view, is this at all about getting elected anymore, or is this just kind of political cover for big business? Keeping the country safe from polluters for another hour, another month, another year, whatever it is they can manage? [Who're YOU callin' a conspiracy theorist Willis?]

HAYES: Luckily, they go hand in hand. I actually think what's motivating Palin-and you can actually see, she has moved, you know, in the direction of the conspiracy theorists on this issue. What's motivating her is the fact that the polling on this is really disturbing, because it has become an article of faith among the right wing base that this is a grand socialist conspiracy to usher in state control…

Yes, how could anyone see socialism in either a bill, or an EPA announcement that gives government absolute power to regulate energy use? That doesn't affect every aspect of our economy– does it?

OLBERMANN: What is the Palin explanation for polar ice melting, which she acknowledges. If it is witchcraft, why has she not sent Pastor Muthy to fix it. A slightly more serious version of that, and if this is not man-made, if it is part of the right-wing agenda, if it all should be theocratically interpreted, if it's all in God's hands, how come Sister Sarah, with her direct line to God, has not instructed God to fix this?

HAYES: And the editors of "The Washington Post" didn't see fit to make any kind of intervention, to at least have a logically consistent piece of work on their pages.

But the First Amendment, healthy debate, and the like are pretty small potatoes WHEN THE WOLRD IS ABOUT TO END, and THE SKY IS FALLING!

HAYES: You know, I don't know what the right-wing government's plan is. But I will say, on an extremely serious note, that this-you know, we've talked about this in a million different ways-and Al Gore-and there are a lot of messengers who are better at this than I am. But it's hard to over-state the stakes right now, in Copenhagen, in the climate change legislation moving through Congress. We are at a sort of pivotal moment in the fate of the Earth, but also as a test of the moral fabric of American democracy. And history is going to look extremely, extremely unkindly on this op-ed and the people that are using their platform to sort of propagate this very monstrous deception.

Wow. You're in trouble once the Revolution comes! Ve haff vays of making you NOT talk… No totalitarian impulse to see here, folks, just move along.

receive the latest by email: subscribe to david forsmark's free mailing list