First off, as I feared, he made the lead story about him, and not the death of Ted Stevens, which was the headline on virtually every other News Organization across America, including MSNBC.com.
Now, granted, the late Sen. Stevens was a corrupt scumbag. He only got off because Attorney General Holder discovered his case had concerns over prosecutorial misconduct. (Note: Next time, if there’s a piece of evidence that the opposition is supposed to have, it’s best to let them see it.) Still, despite all the negative feelings I have about the man, he was still a U.S. Senator, he still deserved at least a moment on the show. It didn’t happen.
So let’s be honest, Keith made the Professional Left about Keith. He wasn’t claiming hurt feelings, but he was going to tell the President that he isn’t doing “it” right. I thought it was a wasted exercise, so I fast-forwarding through a lot of it. Still, there were two moments in the show that really got on my nerves:
First was this from Michael Moore:
I think that what's bothering them is that Liberals and the Left have been right from the beginning. From the beginning of this Administration, what did people on our side of the fence say? You should take over these banks temporarily and fire all the thieves who stole our money. But instead what did they do? They enabled them. They called for more offshore oil drilling. They expanded the war in Afghanistan. The stimulus package, they caved into the republicans. Everything that we've been trying to push them to do has now come back to bite them in a profound way to the point where they're very frightened, as they should be, about the election in a couple of months.
Michael, you weren't even right in this statement. How could you be right from the beginning.
First off, you didn’t need to take over these banks even temporarily. History has borne that out. First, there’s the matter of which banks to nationalize. Some banks were on their ass (Citi) others were half-dead/half-alive (B of A) only to be made worse by taking on other Banks. And the rest were generally healthy, but still being dragged down by the overall collapse. So the notion of nationalization being a magic bullet is something even Paul Krugman has backed off from (thought I still think he would have preferred it), and he knows more about the economy than you do, Mr. Moore.
Can’t argue with the Offshore Drilling comment. That was a political calculation. At the same time, we’re still going to need more oil in this country till at least 2025, and something needs to be done.
The Afghanistan comment is sheer asshattery. If Mr. Moore wasn’t paying attention to virtually everything the man said on the campaign trail, then that’s his damn fault.
The Stimulus Package. Again, let me quote Ruth Marcus:
Excuse me, but can these people not count to 60? Have they somehow failed to notice that Mitch McConnell and John Boehner have not exactly been playing nice? That while the left laments Obama's minor deviations from party orthodoxy, the right has been portraying him, with some success, as an out-of-control socialist?
I'm not even a fan of Ruth Marcus, this is how much Michael Moore pissed me off.
Again, his position is that he has all the answers, and they're all so simple, but he's never had to get a vote in his life.
What has been getting on my nerves about the "Professional Left" more and more is the notion that for some reason they can’t get off, that somehow, the alternative to weak legislation is better legislation.
No. In this Congress, the alternative to weak legislation is no legislation.
Next, Keith blathered with this:
The Professional Left didn't start the Health Care Negotiations by moving to the right of the Single Payer and then the Public Option, the Administration did. The Professional Left didn't try to grease some skids with the minority by taxing union benefits, the Administration did.
Again, I’m glad Keith enjoys his cheap shots as much as the next guy, but I was under the impression he had paid attention to the Health Care debate, not just its hyperbole.
The tax on Cadillac Plans was not about screwing the Unions, it was a cost containment measure.
And second, as much as I personally want frickin’ Socialized Medicine in this country, the actual enemy is already calling this quote-unquote half-measure socialism, a plan that relies heavily on the Free frickin’ market.
Again, what part of 60 votes does Keith not understand??!?!
There was never anything close to 60 votes for Single Payer in the Senate. You maybe had 43 votes, not even a majority. That’s 17 (or more) Democrats being against Single Payer. And if you don’t have 60 votes in your own caucus, you don’t have a proposal.
Mr. Moore, Mr. Olbermann...what exactly is it you want to do?
I think you need to remember that the midterm elections ain't a video game. You’re not “rewarding” President Obama with "points" (in the form of Democratic Represenatives and Senators) because he’s been such a good guy. You’re trying to get a Liberal Agenda passed, and what you think is going to happen to that Agenda if the GOP takes over Congress?
For all the money being spent and plans being made, the single action that matters most is people (like you) voting. If the people who showed up in 2008 carry vote in 2010, we're going to win, and keep making progress. If they don't, we won't. And for the record, I think the Professional Left is helping depress that cause.