Olbermann’s Hypocrisy

Admittedly, the partisanship, Leftist agenda, anti-Americanism, and rank hypocrisy of MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann is infamous but this latest rant takes it to a whole new level.

In his latest rant at Daily Kos, he had much to spew about the recent Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision by the SCOTUS.

Below is an excerpt from Olbermann’s hypocritical rant:

In short, there are now no checks on the ability of corporations or unions or other giant aggregations of power… to decide our elections.


They can spend all the money they want.

And if they can spend all the money they want — sooner, rather than later — they will implant the legislators of their choice in every office from President to head of the Visiting Nurse Service.

And if Senators and Congressmen and Governors and Mayors and Councilmen and everyone in between are entirely beholden to the corporations for election and re-election to office, soon they will erase whatever checks there might still exist to just slow down the ability of corporations to decide… the laws.

It is almost literally true that any political science fiction nightmare you can now dream up — no matter whether you are conservative or liberal — it is now legal. Because the people who can make it legal, can now be entirely bought and sold — no actual citizens required in the process.

And the entirely bought and sold politicians, can change any laws. And any legal defense you can structure now, can be undone by the politicians who will be bought and sold into office this November, or two years from now. And any legal defense which honest politicians can somehow wedge up against them this November, or two years from now, can be undone by the next even larger set of politicians who will be bought and sold into office in 2014, or 2016, or 2018.

Mentioning Lincoln’s supposed ruminations about arresting Roger B. Taney… he didn’t say the original of this, but what the hell:
Right now, you can prostitute all of the politicians some of the time, and prostitute some of the politicians all the time, but you cannot prostitute all the politicians all the time.

Thanks to Chief Justice Roberts this will change.

— Keith Olbermann
Daily Kos – Keith Olbermann’s Diary

The rank hypocrisy of Olbermann’s rant defies proper definition or description; American Standard English just doesn’t possess the nuance necessary to convey the depths to which Olbermann – albeit unsurprisingly – has, with great apparent passion and eagerness, sunk.

He has chosen to stridently complain about about Corporations being now permitted to make private expenditures of the wealth the have amassed by the special advantages which go with the corporate form to fund, create, and/or publish political advertisements during the various elections cycles. Yet Keith Olbermann earns his quite considerable salary by starring in political advertisements (Liberal infomercials, as it were) throughout the various election cycles – up to and including during the elections themselves – and is paid by a corporation through private expenditure of some part of its immense aggregations of wealth it has amassed by the special advantages which go with the corporate form.

Olbermann also conveniently “forgets” to mention that the Labor Unions also had their restrictions lifted and can also air political ads during the election cycles.

Whether you’re you agree with, are opposed to, or are, as I am, truly ambivalent towards the US Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision on Citizens United, the level Keith Olbermann’s hypocrisy should be shocking, galling, and cause for some form of punitive action.

Tags: | | | | | | | | |

10 Responses to “Olbermann’s Hypocrisy”

  1. zhann Says:

    I am confused as to your comparison. Maybe I am misunderstanding the Supreme Court decision a little, but your comparison of Olbermann’s salary to Corporate funding of candidates is a bit … odd.

    Personally, I think that Olbermann still has some work to do to reach the level of Beck or Limbaugh, but I am more liberal so that probably makes sense. Irregardless, I would find it even more odd to hear that Olbermann has exceeded the hypocrisy of Beck, for example.

    As for the Supreme Court decision, after all my previous rants, it should come as no surprise that I am extremely opposed, and to be honest ‘appalled’ doesn’t even begin to express my initial reaction. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised, but I had honestly thought that with so much opposition to corporate funding of our politicians, I was more expending more restrictions rather than the removal of all restrictions.

    In a sense, as far as I’m concerned, the USA has lost all traces of being a democracy, and has simply been converted to a puppet show for the masses, while the elite simply rape the poor.

    … a little dramatic, yes … but, honestly, I couldn’t believe this decision.

  2. jonolan Says:


    Are you operating under the misapprehension that Citizens United in any way changed campaign finance laws. If so, you confusion about my comparing Olbermann’s salary to “Corporate funding of candidates” makes sense.

    Thankfully, the SCOTUS’ decision had nothing to do with funding. It only removed the restrictions upon companies and unions from producing and/or funding independent political ads during the later part of an election cycle, something that MSNBC uses Olbermann to do during every major election.

    Now do you see the hypocrisy? Olbermann’s claiming democracy is dead because other people will now be able to pay people to do the same thing he does.

  3. Jay Burns Says:

    The population of the United States is ambivelant at best regarding elections. That is true. But do you really believe the VOTING population is really so stupid that they will march as sheep with which ever candidate spends the most money. Sure you could use election of Obama as evidence, but his massive spending spree was not what won the election. It was the message that won the election. A message of hope and change. Sure the candidate behind the message has turned out to be fraudulent, but that matters little.

    When elections roll around the people vote for the message not the person. The money coming in is more an indicator of the popularity of the message than anything else.

  4. Vishnu Says:

    Olbermann speaks nothing but truth. As he says, if that weren’t the case, why hasn’t anyone disproven him?

  5. jonolan Says:

    What is there to disprove? He hasn’t said anything with a factual basis to it. He has only wailed about and bemoaned what he – or his owners / producers – wants people to believe will happen.

    But you’re an attorney, Vishnu. While constitutional law is far from your professional specialty, you can certainly read and understand a case decision’s syllabus with greater speed and ability than I can. Why don’t you go here and research the underlying matter at hand.

    I would, in fact, be interested in your opinion after you’ve studied the case and the SCOTUS’ decision.

  6. Vishnu Says:

    Jonolan, I hope you didn’t miss the sarcasm.

    I am repeating a comment he made about Scott Brown in his most recent over-the-top rant. After calling him a sexist, racist, women beating, homophobe, pedophile, whatever (and in favor of using a curling iron on Nasty Pelosi to boot), his repsonse to critics was if it wasn’t all true, Brown would’ve disproven him. I laughed outloud when I heard it. He’s a complete dolt. I can’t for the life of me understand his appeal to anyone.

    I’ll be sure to look at your link when I get a chance.

  7. jonolan Says:


    I did, in fact, completely miss the sarcasm. I hadn’t heard the particular Olbermann rant in question and, hence, didn’t have the proper reference.

  8. Vishnu Says:

    Jonolan, I tried to use your link, without success. It appears to be broken. I’m interested though.

    As for Olbermann:


    Followed by this:



  9. jonolan Says:

    Sorry about that. I’ve now fixed the link – Citizens United. I had mistyped the href statement. 🙁

    And now, thanks to those links you’ve posted, I get the sarcasm – and a whole new “appreciation” of Olbermann’s perniciousness. To be fair though, I’ve heard similar vitriol spew from his Conservative counterparts which, much like Scarborough, I think can often cheapen the debate.

  10. Vishnu Says:

    And of course. . . highlight the profound hypocrisy.

Leave a Reply