The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Holy Guacamole! Keith Olbermann Invokes Dred Scott Analogy?

Posted on | January 23, 2010 | 45 Comments

Instapundit linked this at Hot Air — MSNBC’s Hyperbole Czar reacting to Thursday’s Supreme Court decision —  but neither Insty nor Allah mentioned what is arguably the most offensively extreme sentence (skip to 0:36 if you don’t want to watch the whole thing):

“This is a Supreme Court-sanctioned murder of what little actual democracy is left in this democracy. It is government of the people, by the corporations, for the corporations. It is the Dark Ages. It is our Dred Scott.”

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot? The Court struck down part of the McCain-Feingold regulations that didn’t even become law until 2002 and Olbermann compares that decision to the 1857 declaration that blacks had no rights under the Constitution?

It’s nuttier than a Snickers bar, a rhetorical overreach so disastrously ill-considered as to automatically discredit whatever legitimate argument Olbermann was making — except, of course, that Olbermann doesn’t make arguments at all. What he does is to engage in dramatic denunciations based on unexamined assumptions — e.g., in this case, that corporations are inherently evil — and invite his viewers to share his exaggerated outrage.

Matt Welch of Reason magazine notes that defenders of McCain-Feingold don’t even pretend to take seriously the free-speech arguments of the law’s critics. Rather, the advocates of regulation begin with the same assumption that Olbermann employs, chiefly because the automatic conflation of Republicans and “Corporate America” is so fundamental to the progressive ideology that if liberals ever began to question it seriously, their entire worldview would collapse.

If “Corporate America” is such a malevolent force in American politics as liberals think it is, there is no reason for them to employ rational arguments on behalf of any measure intended to restrict or punish that malevolence — and nothing to restrain the lunatic rhetoric of Olbermann.

Category: Media Bias, MSNBC

Comments

45 Responses to “Holy Guacamole! Keith Olbermann Invokes Dred Scott Analogy?”

  1. Terry
    January 23rd, 2010 @ 6:27 am

    If you havent seen Jon Stewart destroy Olberman check it out, hilarious!

    http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/bighollywood/2010/01/22/video-jon-stewart-destroys-keith-olbermann/

  2. Terry
    January 23rd, 2010 @ 1:27 am

    If you havent seen Jon Stewart destroy Olberman check it out, hilarious!

    http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/bighollywood/2010/01/22/video-jon-stewart-destroys-keith-olbermann/

  3. Soloman
    January 23rd, 2010 @ 6:44 am

    Amazing. The leftists have no faith in the capacity of the individual to discern right from wrong and make an educated decision.

    And Bathtub Boy has simply become a flame-thrower. He saw Beck use crazy tactics and gain big ratings; he thinks he can do the same. Difference is Beck has substance and makes coherent arguments. Olbermann just rants.

  4. Soloman
    January 23rd, 2010 @ 1:44 am

    Amazing. The leftists have no faith in the capacity of the individual to discern right from wrong and make an educated decision.

    And Bathtub Boy has simply become a flame-thrower. He saw Beck use crazy tactics and gain big ratings; he thinks he can do the same. Difference is Beck has substance and makes coherent arguments. Olbermann just rants.

  5. Miss Sharon
    January 23rd, 2010 @ 7:08 am

    Well he got something right. “This Supreme Court-sanctioned murder”| on the anniversary of Roe v Wade.

    He should reject that evil corporate paycheck he receives to spew such nonsensical vitriol so freely! The man is neither bright nor clever.

  6. Miss Sharon
    January 23rd, 2010 @ 2:08 am

    Well he got something right. “This Supreme Court-sanctioned murder”| on the anniversary of Roe v Wade.

    He should reject that evil corporate paycheck he receives to spew such nonsensical vitriol so freely! The man is neither bright nor clever.

  7. ClericalGal
    January 23rd, 2010 @ 8:04 am

    I just saw Olbermann’s entire tirade on Mediaite.
    http://www.mediaite.com/tv/is-keith-olbermann-losing-it/
    He goes into this elaborate scenario about how corporations are going to take over America because of this decision, ignoring the fact that he himself works for a corporation. He even mentions Haliburton and WalMart! And he compares First Amendment lawyer Floyd Abrams, who is Jewish, to Nazi collaborator Quisling. Abrams is the father of Dan Abrams, the founder of Mediaite and former co-worker of Olbermann. I think Olbermann might have finally gone too far this time, but I not holding my breath that MSNBC will discipline him.

  8. ClericalGal
    January 23rd, 2010 @ 3:04 am

    I just saw Olbermann’s entire tirade on Mediaite.
    http://www.mediaite.com/tv/is-keith-olbermann-losing-it/
    He goes into this elaborate scenario about how corporations are going to take over America because of this decision, ignoring the fact that he himself works for a corporation. He even mentions Haliburton and WalMart! And he compares First Amendment lawyer Floyd Abrams, who is Jewish, to Nazi collaborator Quisling. Abrams is the father of Dan Abrams, the founder of Mediaite and former co-worker of Olbermann. I think Olbermann might have finally gone too far this time, but I not holding my breath that MSNBC will discipline him.

  9. uberVU - social comments
    January 23rd, 2010 @ 3:32 am

    Social comments and analytics for this post…

    This post was mentioned on Twitter by WooHooYoo: Holy Guacamole! Keith Olbermann Invokes Dred Scott Analogy? : The Other McCain: http://bit.ly/7hkpSD #tcot #sgp…

  10. young4eyes
    January 23rd, 2010 @ 10:25 am

    Nice try.
    Olby, though melodramatic, compares the two decisions in the context of the severity of SCOTUS’ wrong headedness.
    Don’t look now, Stacy, but this is becoming an issue in quarters close to yours. Issues of transparency are being raised by many across the political spectrum.
    To boil this issue down to the lame meme that Libs think Corporations are inherently evil is to ignore the potential problems this decision creates.
    You would think that with all the uproar about “transparency” and ” lobbyists” and “special interests” that this decision, though lauded by many Cons in the House, would ring the alarm to all those angry teabaggers.
    Between you and Rush I can see that the new Con game is to defend the bad actors that your supposed “revolution” is railing against.
    What’s the matter? Populist angst not so appealing anymore?

  11. young4eyes
    January 23rd, 2010 @ 5:25 am

    Nice try.
    Olby, though melodramatic, compares the two decisions in the context of the severity of SCOTUS’ wrong headedness.
    Don’t look now, Stacy, but this is becoming an issue in quarters close to yours. Issues of transparency are being raised by many across the political spectrum.
    To boil this issue down to the lame meme that Libs think Corporations are inherently evil is to ignore the potential problems this decision creates.
    You would think that with all the uproar about “transparency” and ” lobbyists” and “special interests” that this decision, though lauded by many Cons in the House, would ring the alarm to all those angry teabaggers.
    Between you and Rush I can see that the new Con game is to defend the bad actors that your supposed “revolution” is railing against.
    What’s the matter? Populist angst not so appealing anymore?

  12. Joe
    January 23rd, 2010 @ 1:10 pm

    By everthing he does, Obama polies are very bad for middle class people.

  13. Joe
    January 23rd, 2010 @ 8:10 am

    By everthing he does, Obama polies are very bad for middle class people.

  14. Carol
    January 23rd, 2010 @ 1:49 pm

    young4eyes, what exactly are those potential problems that you believe justify the suppression of free speech? The SCOTUS did not strike down the disclosure requirement so I am not seeing a transparency problem. Just the opposite, you can tell a lot about a candidate by the source of funding he or she receives. As for lobbyists, are there good and bad lobbyists, as in union lobbyist = good, trial lawyer lobbyist = good, insurance lobbyist = EVIL?

  15. Carol
    January 23rd, 2010 @ 8:49 am

    young4eyes, what exactly are those potential problems that you believe justify the suppression of free speech? The SCOTUS did not strike down the disclosure requirement so I am not seeing a transparency problem. Just the opposite, you can tell a lot about a candidate by the source of funding he or she receives. As for lobbyists, are there good and bad lobbyists, as in union lobbyist = good, trial lawyer lobbyist = good, insurance lobbyist = EVIL?

  16. Matt
    January 23rd, 2010 @ 2:19 pm

    2. young4eyes “Olby, though melodramatic, compares the two decisions in the context of the severity of SCOTUS’ wrong headedness.”

    Yes, and it demonstrates perfectly why he’s “nuttier than a Snickers bar.” Consider the two decisions:

    Dred Scott: Denied the rights of people.

    Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission: SCOTUS reaffirms the 1st amendment, i.e., “Congress shall make no law.”

    It’s terribly ambiguous language for the liberal mind, I’ll concede, but at least most of this Court can read it.

  17. Matt
    January 23rd, 2010 @ 9:19 am

    2. young4eyes “Olby, though melodramatic, compares the two decisions in the context of the severity of SCOTUS’ wrong headedness.”

    Yes, and it demonstrates perfectly why he’s “nuttier than a Snickers bar.” Consider the two decisions:

    Dred Scott: Denied the rights of people.

    Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission: SCOTUS reaffirms the 1st amendment, i.e., “Congress shall make no law.”

    It’s terribly ambiguous language for the liberal mind, I’ll concede, but at least most of this Court can read it.

  18. Lunatics Call for Arrest of 5 Supremes on Treason Charges
    January 23rd, 2010 @ 9:23 am

    […] seems pretty upset that the 5 “Treasonous” Supremes have cut out the middle men, and inevitably Olby picks up the banalogy. How bad has it gotten? Grayson was verbally ass-raped by Chris Matthews yesterday, and Olby was […]

  19. Dave C
    January 23rd, 2010 @ 3:12 pm

    You would think that with all the uproar about “transparency” and ” lobbyists” and “special interests” that this decision, though lauded by many Cons in the House, would ring the alarm to all those angry teabaggers.

    Like the beaten woman who is crawling back to her abusing husband. You just don’t get it, do you, Y4E.

    Anyway, Corporations like GE and Viacom and Disney and Time/Warner shouldn’t be allowed to dump money into campaigns or try to shape a narrative of an election.
    Olby’s right about that.

  20. Dave C
    January 23rd, 2010 @ 10:12 am

    You would think that with all the uproar about “transparency” and ” lobbyists” and “special interests” that this decision, though lauded by many Cons in the House, would ring the alarm to all those angry teabaggers.

    Like the beaten woman who is crawling back to her abusing husband. You just don’t get it, do you, Y4E.

    Anyway, Corporations like GE and Viacom and Disney and Time/Warner shouldn’t be allowed to dump money into campaigns or try to shape a narrative of an election.
    Olby’s right about that.

  21. MrMaryk
    January 23rd, 2010 @ 3:18 pm

    @young4eyes:

    If you’re going to make a point, get to it. Who are these “bad actors” you say Stacy and Rush would defend?

    You wring your hands about the “potential problems this decision makes” – effectively and predictably you advocate an equality of outcome, and yet fail to understand that the First Amendment doesn’t carve out exceptions – it’s all or nothing, and let the chips fall where they may. There is no equality of outcome if one self-selected group of people cannot speak while another can.

  22. MrMaryk
    January 23rd, 2010 @ 10:18 am

    @young4eyes:

    If you’re going to make a point, get to it. Who are these “bad actors” you say Stacy and Rush would defend?

    You wring your hands about the “potential problems this decision makes” – effectively and predictably you advocate an equality of outcome, and yet fail to understand that the First Amendment doesn’t carve out exceptions – it’s all or nothing, and let the chips fall where they may. There is no equality of outcome if one self-selected group of people cannot speak while another can.

  23. MrMaryk
    January 23rd, 2010 @ 3:22 pm

    Anyway, Corporations like GE and Viacom and Disney and Time/Warner shouldn’t be allowed to dump money into campaigns or try to shape a narrative of an election.
    Olby’s right about that.

    Heh. Y4E, those companies are AKA respectively : NBC Universal (parent to MSNBC), CBS, ABC, and CNN. I imagine you would wish to carve out exceptions to those restrictions to these, but leave them in place for News Corp….

  24. MrMaryk
    January 23rd, 2010 @ 10:22 am

    Anyway, Corporations like GE and Viacom and Disney and Time/Warner shouldn’t be allowed to dump money into campaigns or try to shape a narrative of an election.
    Olby’s right about that.

    Heh. Y4E, those companies are AKA respectively : NBC Universal (parent to MSNBC), CBS, ABC, and CNN. I imagine you would wish to carve out exceptions to those restrictions to these, but leave them in place for News Corp….

  25. Proof
    January 23rd, 2010 @ 3:30 pm

    I always get the feeling that more people see this moron D’oh-bermann on blogs that highlight his idiocy than ever see him first run on MSLSD!

  26. Proof
    January 23rd, 2010 @ 10:30 am

    I always get the feeling that more people see this moron D’oh-bermann on blogs that highlight his idiocy than ever see him first run on MSLSD!

  27. Richard McEnroe
    January 23rd, 2010 @ 4:22 pm

    #14 Proof — that’s actually correct.

    Stacy, you’re almost correct. Lefties think corporations are inherently evil unless they’re being shaken down for donations to lefty campaigns and PACS, or hiring members of lefty groups to keep them sweet.

  28. Richard McEnroe
    January 23rd, 2010 @ 11:22 am

    #14 Proof — that’s actually correct.

    Stacy, you’re almost correct. Lefties think corporations are inherently evil unless they’re being shaken down for donations to lefty campaigns and PACS, or hiring members of lefty groups to keep them sweet.

  29. CGHill
    January 23rd, 2010 @ 4:28 pm

    McEnroe wins the thread, I do believe.

  30. CGHill
    January 23rd, 2010 @ 11:28 am

    McEnroe wins the thread, I do believe.

  31. Rich Fader
    January 23rd, 2010 @ 4:32 pm

    As I said the first time I saw he’d said that…”Really?” I mean, why not toss in a Nuernbergergesetze reference while we’re at it?

  32. Rich Fader
    January 23rd, 2010 @ 11:32 am

    As I said the first time I saw he’d said that…”Really?” I mean, why not toss in a Nuernbergergesetze reference while we’re at it?

  33. Ui2
    January 23rd, 2010 @ 4:47 pm

    “I’d suggest a rebellion but the corporations make all the guns and bullets.”

    Yes, and their war council meets monthly in an underground bunker, where they keep the frozen corpse of Walt Disney.

    1. Corporate stockpiles of weapons are about as commonplace as unicorns having a sleepover.

    2. You can’t rebel against anything precisely because you don’t have any guns.

    2. The corporations are already under attack by the federal government.

  34. Ui2
    January 23rd, 2010 @ 11:47 am

    “I’d suggest a rebellion but the corporations make all the guns and bullets.”

    Yes, and their war council meets monthly in an underground bunker, where they keep the frozen corpse of Walt Disney.

    1. Corporate stockpiles of weapons are about as commonplace as unicorns having a sleepover.

    2. You can’t rebel against anything precisely because you don’t have any guns.

    2. The corporations are already under attack by the federal government.

  35. Ui2
    January 23rd, 2010 @ 4:56 pm

    …and…

    2. I liked Olberman when he actually worked for Disney, talking about such pressing matters as balls going through hoops.

  36. Ui2
    January 23rd, 2010 @ 11:56 am

    …and…

    2. I liked Olberman when he actually worked for Disney, talking about such pressing matters as balls going through hoops.

  37. Rich Fader
    January 23rd, 2010 @ 5:36 pm

    He actually worked at a couple of Los Angeles stations before that, KCBS and KTLA (the Tribune station, formerly owned for many years by Gene Autry…yeah, that Gene Autry). He was an entertaining, intelligent, funny sports guy. So I’m surprised as anybody that the guy turned into such a douche.

  38. Rich Fader
    January 23rd, 2010 @ 12:36 pm

    He actually worked at a couple of Los Angeles stations before that, KCBS and KTLA (the Tribune station, formerly owned for many years by Gene Autry…yeah, that Gene Autry). He was an entertaining, intelligent, funny sports guy. So I’m surprised as anybody that the guy turned into such a douche.

  39. Bob Belvedere
    January 23rd, 2010 @ 6:13 pm

    1) The people who run our big corporations are, almost all to a man, Leftists these days. The fact is that, while I think Richard is right that most Leftists still think corporations are evil, most of the ones in positions of power have realized and have gone on to take advantage of the fact that the heads of the big ones are Lefties. They have joined together to bring about a Command Economy. This is nothing new: the big business owners in Italy and Germany mad the same devilish pact with their fascist governments in the 1920’s and 1930’s.

    2) As for Olbergrupenfuehrer Keith: I usually don’t even mention him on my site because I do not like to attack the obviously mentally ill [I’m serious; the man is ill].

  40. Bob Belvedere
    January 23rd, 2010 @ 1:13 pm

    1) The people who run our big corporations are, almost all to a man, Leftists these days. The fact is that, while I think Richard is right that most Leftists still think corporations are evil, most of the ones in positions of power have realized and have gone on to take advantage of the fact that the heads of the big ones are Lefties. They have joined together to bring about a Command Economy. This is nothing new: the big business owners in Italy and Germany mad the same devilish pact with their fascist governments in the 1920’s and 1930’s.

    2) As for Olbergrupenfuehrer Keith: I usually don’t even mention him on my site because I do not like to attack the obviously mentally ill [I’m serious; the man is ill].

  41. Keith Olbermann battles sanity and loses
    January 23rd, 2010 @ 6:38 pm

    […] Hat tip transcript:  Robert Stacy McCain,  The Other McCain. […]

  42. Roxeanne de Luca
    January 24th, 2010 @ 1:20 am

    Dred Scott’s basic holding was that one class of human beings were not “persons” who were given Constitutional rights and protections. (IIRC, in Dred Scott, the Supreme Court made the rather cowardly decision to get out of the entire slavery issue by simply refusing to rule on the case: it determined first that Mr. Scott was not a “person” within the definition of the Constitution, and, as such, could not bring the case into federal court. Therefore, the Court threw the entire thing out on standing grounds. As a very cold comfort, Scott could re-file his claim in state court and go through the entire process again, just not in federal court, but, understandably, did not and died shortly thereafter.)

    Beyond the fact that the cases are more opposite than analogous (Dred Scott being the denial of Constitutional protections to a certain group, whereas Citizens United affirms those protections and limits censorship), it irritates me to no end that these liberals equate everything that they don’t like with pre-1960s treatment of African-Americans. Don’t like Obama’s socialism (like, apparently, 52% of Massachusetts)? You’re a cross-burner. Care about the structure of the Constitution and the limits of government control? Bring back slavery! It’s like the news took Teddy Kennedy’s 1987 (IIRC) speech about Judge Bork (“In Bork’s America, blacks will sit at segregated lunch counters and rape won’t be a crime”) and applied it to every single thing that makes them sad.

  43. Roxeanne de Luca
    January 23rd, 2010 @ 8:20 pm

    Dred Scott’s basic holding was that one class of human beings were not “persons” who were given Constitutional rights and protections. (IIRC, in Dred Scott, the Supreme Court made the rather cowardly decision to get out of the entire slavery issue by simply refusing to rule on the case: it determined first that Mr. Scott was not a “person” within the definition of the Constitution, and, as such, could not bring the case into federal court. Therefore, the Court threw the entire thing out on standing grounds. As a very cold comfort, Scott could re-file his claim in state court and go through the entire process again, just not in federal court, but, understandably, did not and died shortly thereafter.)

    Beyond the fact that the cases are more opposite than analogous (Dred Scott being the denial of Constitutional protections to a certain group, whereas Citizens United affirms those protections and limits censorship), it irritates me to no end that these liberals equate everything that they don’t like with pre-1960s treatment of African-Americans. Don’t like Obama’s socialism (like, apparently, 52% of Massachusetts)? You’re a cross-burner. Care about the structure of the Constitution and the limits of government control? Bring back slavery! It’s like the news took Teddy Kennedy’s 1987 (IIRC) speech about Judge Bork (“In Bork’s America, blacks will sit at segregated lunch counters and rape won’t be a crime”) and applied it to every single thing that makes them sad.

  44. Olbermann’s Secret Racism Decoder Ring : The Other McCain
    January 29th, 2010 @ 9:18 pm

    […] trip  night after night. A Supreme Court decision on campaign-finance laws? It’s Dred Scott! You wonder if he carries this tendency over into his private life.Waiter, I specifically ordered […]

  45. Obama: Supremely Indifferent to the Constitution at Haemet
    February 2nd, 2010 @ 6:24 pm

    […] Like Keith Olbermann’s Dred Scott analogy, Obama’s criticisms are constitutionally incorrect; unlike Olbermann, however, Obama made his statements while the Justices were sitting in front of him – and sitting there with little opportunity to respond.  Criticising the Supreme Court is one thing; criticising those who are expected to sit there and take it is quite another. […]