You know, Keith Olbermann, former sports reporter and ESPN anchor, has got himself a pretty good gig going. He has his own show, "Countdown with Keith Olbermann", on MSNBC; a platform for engaging in passionate commentary; and lately, vastly increasing street cred on the left (here's a good example) with his attacks on President Bush and other conservatives (often Bill O'Reilly, though not always) with his daily "worst person in the world" segment.
So maybe Mr. Olbermann thinks he's counting down the sins of President Bush, or of the Right. But who's keeping track of the sins and errors of Mr. Obermann? (I'm not talking about loud, rather personal attacks---you can get that for example here). I mean a careful look at the problems with his thinking, and his errors. I hereby volunteer.
Let's start here. A few weeks ago, our friend Keith was railing against Michael Chertoff, President Bush, and Homeland Security in general for supposedly infringing upon our freedoms for no reason. But Mr. Olbermann in his argument tries to have it both ways. First, he suggests: "Not only has there not been a terrorist attack stopped in this country, but your good old Homeland Security hasn’t even unraveled a plausible terrorist plan." So according to Keith, yes, there have been no terrorist attacks in this country since 2001? Big deal---the Bush administration deserves no credit. But then later, in the same commentary, Olbermann writes of "...the ominous truth that if this country is victimized again by al-Qaida, the personal responsibility for the failure of our misplaced defenses would belong to President Bush and President Bush alone..."
Wow. So if there are no attacks, well, the terrorists must not have attempted any...but if there are attacks, it's all your fault, Mr. Bush.
Mr. Olbermann, sir---you really must try to be more logical and consistent in your arguments. The above is a classic heads-I-win-tails-you-lose fallacy. It is unfair to grant the Bush administration no credit for the safety of this nation since 9/11, but to promise to place all blame for future attacks right at its door.
Ah, but we are not finished for today. A few weeks prior, Keith, you wrote this piece, in which you made this remarkable statement: "The extraordinary Karl Rove has spoken of “a permanent Republican majority,” as if such a thing—or a permanent Democratic majority—is not antithetical to that upon which rests: our country, our history, our revolution, our freedoms."
Mr. Olbermann, sir, surely you cannot be serious. Do you really not understand the nature of American politics? Do you really not understand what all American political leaders and strategists seek to do? Why, they seek to win every election. They seek to create a majority, one that will last and will provide the margin of victory for their party in the current campaign, and into the foreseeable future. It's what politics is about--winning elections. Are you really unaware, Mr. Olbermann sir, of what Franklin Roosevelt and the Democratic Party sought to do in the days of the Great Depression? (I suspect you aren't--read this.) President Roosevelt and others in the Democratic Party were able to use the Depression, and some of the legislation Democrats passed through Congress during it, to put together the "Roosevelt coalition" of African-Americans, farmers, urbanites, and union members. It produced darn near a permanent majority---from 1932 through 1968, Democrats won 7 of 9 presidential elections, and controlled Congress for all but 2 of those years. Was that majority offensive to you? And are you saying you don't want antiwar Democrats, now, to be seeking a permanent majority? That you don't wish them to seek to defeat conservative, pro-Bush Republicans in 2008 and into the foreseeable future? Surely, sir, you jest. Permanent electoral majorities are very difficult to achieve. But it is ultimately what every political strategist seeks, including those who believe as you do. Or maybe you somehow don't think party politicians should seek to win every election?
Please, sir--think more deeply.
More to come--this will become a regular feature (Mr. Olbermann gives us lots of material).
