RUMOR: Keith Olbermann to join CBS Pre-Game Show

[Kelly the Dog]

I used to like Olberman, especially when he first came on the scene as a sports guy, and now I pretty much hate him. Way overboard and way too smug and smarmy to put up with the once in awhile funny things he says. But IMO it would be stupid to put him on a Sunday NFL pre-game show regardless of how good he may or may not be on it, like Rush. Because too many people hate his guts right off the bat. And it's not a "any publicity is good publicity" thing. A minor overall but significant number of football fans simply won't watch the show with him on it.

[RayFinkle]

Kieth is going to be a co-host on NBC's Football Night in America.

[ThreeBillsDrive]

I used to like Olberman, especially when he first came on the scene as a sports guy, and now I pretty much hate him. Way overboard and way to smug and smarmy to put up with the once in awhile funny things he says. But IMO it would be stupid to put him on a Sunday NFL pre-game show regardless of how good he may or may not be on it, like Rush. Because too many people hate his guts right off the bat. And it's not a "any publicity is good publicity" thing. A minor overall but significant number of football fans simply won't watch the show with him on it.

 

As long as Collinsworth is on the team, I can live with Olberman. I've always liked Collinsworth and his intelligence regarding the game. I think he got the shaft at Fox when he was pushed out of the Joe Buck / Troy Aikman team. Fox wanted its all-American Dallas QB boy on their #1 team. No room for Collinsworth's intelligence.

[Kelly the Dog]

As long as Collinsworth is on the team, I can live with Olberman. I've always liked Collinsworth and his intelligence regarding the game. I think he got the shaft at Fox when he was pushed out of the Joe Buck / Troy Aikman team. Fox wanted its all-American Dallas QB boy on their #1 team. No room for Collinsworth's intelligence.

I personally will probably like him on it, because he likely will be smart enough to keep his political leanings out of the sports broadcast. I think he's pretty good the few times I heard him on Dan Patrick's show and just talks sports. I am a democrat but I really can't stand listening to him on his political show because he's just stupid, unreasonable, and way over the line. I was just looking at it as a bad marketing move by NBC (I knew it wouldn't be CBS because his MSNBC show has been doing "relatively" well lately).

[clownments22]

As long as Collinsworth is on the team, I can live with Olberman. I've always liked Collinsworth and his intelligence regarding the game. I think he got the shaft at Fox when he was pushed out of the Joe Buck / Troy Aikman team. Fox wanted its all-American Dallas QB boy on their #1 team. No room for Collinsworth's intelligence.

 

I noticed this with CBS too, all the actrual sports broadcasters are getting pushed out of the way by former players so we can see boomer esiason talk about how terrible the bills are.

[Johnny Coli]

I personally will probably like him on it, because he likely will be smart enough to keep his political leanings out of the sports broadcast. I think he's pretty good the few times I heard him on Dan Patrick's show and just talks sports. I am a democrat but I really can't stand listening to him on his political show because he's just stupid, unreasonable, and way over the line. I was just looking at it as a bad marketing move by NBC (I knew it wouldn't be CBS because his MSNBC show has been doing "relatively" well lately).

I find him to be intelligent, quite balanced, and think he doesn't go far enough.

 

I think he'll be great, and probably won't use it as a political stage at all.

[MattyT]

I noticed this with CBS too, all the actrual sports broadcasters are getting pushed out of the way by former players so we can see boomer esiason talk about how terrible the bills are.

Collinsworth is a former player...

 

http://pro-football-reference.com/players/CollCr00.htm

[Fewell733]

Even though I'm a big Olbermann fan, I hope he doesn't go political for the football gig. Politics and football shouldn't mix. Olberrman knows this though, since he actually has a large background in sports broadcasting.

 

What did ESPN expect Limbaugh to contribute anyway?

[RuntheDamnBall]

What did CBS expect Limbaugh to contribute anyway?

Nothing. He worked for ESPN. And absent the politics, his football viewpoints were as retarded as those of [insert any ESPN whipping boy here].

[Fewell733]

whoops, yeah ESPN not CBS

[Buftex]

I personally will probably like him on it, because he likely will be smart enough to keep his political leanings out of the sports broadcast. I think he's pretty good the few times I heard him on Dan Patrick's show and just talks sports. I am a democrat but I really can't stand listening to him on his political show because he's just stupid, unreasonable, and way over the line. I was just looking at it as a bad marketing move by NBC (I knew it wouldn't be CBS because his MSNBC show has been doing "relatively" well lately).

 

 

I happen to like Olberman...and I loathed him on ESPN. You know that he is not being braught to NBC's pre-game show to just give strong sports opinions. They already have Costas for that. There is no other reason, than for him to be controversial. They want him to look in the camera every Sunday and say things like "Mr Goodell, why are you letting the Buffalo Bills leave WNY, does tradition mean anything to the money men at the NFL offices?" That kind of stuff...not "Is Lee Evans the best wide reciever that we have never heard of?"

 

There is no point in having Olberman, other than to ruffle feathers...haven't we had enough of this? I like KO, but keep him off the broadcast...give me bland, boring and pointless, over controversal just for the hell of it, anyday!

 

Message to all sports media, everywhere: STFU!

[Kelly the Dog]

I happen to like Olberman...and I loathed him on ESPN. You know that he is not being braught to NBC's pre-game show to just give strong sports opinions. They already have Costas for that. There is no other reason, than for him to be controversial. They want him to look in the camera every Sunday and say things like "Mr Goodell, why are you letting the Buffalo Bills leave WNY, does tradition mean anything to the money men at the NFL offices?" That kind of stuff...not "Is Lee Evans the best wide reciever that we have never heard of?"

 

There is no point in having Olberman, other than to ruffle feathers...haven't we had enough of this? I like KO, but keep him off the broadcast...give me bland, boring and pointless, over controversal just for the hell of it, anyday!

 

Message to all sports media, everywhere: STFU!

I don't know. You may be right but I have a completely different take. Olberman wasn't all that controversial when he was at ESPN, he was just a smart aleck, and irreverent, and sometimes funny and usually pretty entertaining. IMO, Chris Berman and he were the ones that put ESPN on the map as something other than normal sports broadcasting. It became entertainment as much as sports (One could argue he and Berman are the curse of sports broadcasting, too). He wasn't even all that controversial in political broadcasting until after the war when he started calling Bush and O'Reilly the worst person in the world. I think they are bringing him on to be entertaining, and funny, and irreverent, and perhaps a little controversial but that doesn't necessarily mean in a political way. And not to just ruffle feathers.

[X. Benedict]

I don't know. You may be right but I have a completely different take. Olberman wasn't all that controversial when he was at ESPN, he was just a smart aleck, and irreverent, and sometimes funny and usually pretty entertaining.

I don't watch Countdown - and I liked him on ESPN - keep it to the sport and I won't mind, he's got to be better than Jerome Bettis.

[Fewell733]

I don't know. You may be right but I have a completely different take. Olberman wasn't all that controversial when he was at ESPN, he was just a smart aleck, and irreverent, and sometimes funny and usually pretty entertaining. IMO, Chris Berman and he were the ones that put ESPN on the map as something other than normal sports broadcasting. It became entertainment as much as sports (One could argue he and Berman are the curse of sports broadcasting, too). He wasn't even all that controversial in political broadcasting until after the war when he started calling Bush and O'Reilly the worst person in the world. I think they are bringing him on to be entertaining, and funny, and irreverent, and perhaps a little controversial but that doesn't necessarily mean in a political way. And not to just ruffle feathers.

 

totally agree.

[N.Y. Orangeman]

Being from Buffalo originally, and in my estimation 75% of the folks in buffalo and this board have left wing liberal political ideology, I have but one thing to say. You deserve exactly what you get. A Poor economy, lousy and overpaid education systems, unions that are overpaid and under worked, huge taxes, poor service, and a stagnate economic development effort. Buffalo has always been a democratic bastion and look what it has done for the past 50 years. Nothing.

 

So keep on electing those great democratic senators and local leaders you have and see more people leave in the future. I love coming to WNY for a visit and make a few games a year at the Ralf and I never see any progress. No new buildings, no development, just the same old city. Anyone from Buffalo traveling the country will see mass development all around with real economic growth. Buffalo - zippo.

 

It's really ashamed Buffalo has become what it is, but you have no one to blame but yourselves by continually electing democrats that keep taxes high, pursue poor economic development reforms, and are under union control and influence.

 

So you can continue to feel sorry for yourselves and blame the President and the republicans for all your woes, but just look in the mirror because that’s where the problem lies.

 

Keith Olbermann is tool and will be another disaster as he's always been.

 

 

You are a prince. Throwing all political debate aside, instead of celebrating your apparent success, you come in here and blast the current WNY population.

 

Please don't tell people you were born in Buffalo; it makes the rest of us former WNYers look terrible.

[JimBob2232]

Kieth is going to be a co-host on NBC's Football Night in America.

 

Okay, so its NBC...eh well. I was close!

[OCinBuffalo]

Jeez...I can't believe I am having to defend that piece of crap Rush Limbaugh....do you see what is wrong with this statement? Limbaugh never said "blacks don't make good QB's"...never! If you remember, at the time, Donovan was playing horrible football, and it was the talk of all the football commentaters. Limbaugh was simply saying that he felt the PC media had made Donovan out to be better than he was, because they had an agenda to create a black QB superstar. He never said anything about other black QB's....never ever! He was critiquing the media, more than he was Donovan.

 

What I found funny was that when the story broke, even McNab realized this. He thought it was no big deal, and wasn't offended by it at all. It wasn't until the story was picked up by every other media outlet, and stretched until all context of the actual statements were lost, that Donovan started to play the role of the victim. This kind of thing happens far too often.

 

Belive me, I am not shedding a tear for Rush Limbaugh...I can't stand him...but he is every bit a "victim" in that situation as Donovan McNab or "all black QB's" were.

Mark this day down. And admittedly "left-leaning" poster who focuses on the actual facts(not the politicized spin/manufactured facts) of the case first, then on their conclusion about said facts. There are a lot of people on this board who could learn a lot from Buftex (ehem, MG). Start with the truth and go from there, I like it.

[Steely Dan]

Limbaugh is not only stupid, repetitive, and lacking in substance when it comes to politics...but he was also stupid, repetitive, and lacked substance in his brief flirtations with NFL tonight.

 

There simply arent enough knuckle dragging red necks to have made him a viable sports anchor for long...the fact that he made stupid (and extremely racist) remarks that would lead to his termination has nothing to do with a liberal media bias

 

Not only was Limpbaugh say McNabb was being propped up as much better than he is because of the "liberal" media but, by inference you could say he was saying the same about a lot of African-American atheletes. Remember this is the guy who asked a caller to remove "the bone from their nose". You should have put racist on your list.

 

Olbermann's show is entertaining. He does get things wrong but compared to Limpbaugh, Hannity, Coulter, Savage, Orally and Drudge. For every one mistake Olbermann makes I believe the others, on an individual basis, make about 50.

 

His commentary's are right on most of the time like;

 

Olbermann: the beginning of the end of America;

 

olbermann says Bush playing american christians for suckers;

 

Olbermann Hammers Rumsfeld;

 

As for what have the dems done lookie here. They've freed the moderate Republicans suffering under the totalitarian Ultra Conservative wing of the party.

 

 

By RAYMOND HERNANDEZ

Published: April 7, 2007

WASHINGTON, April 6 — If the Democratic ascendance on Capitol Hill was supposed to usher in dark days for Republicans, it is hard to tell from talking to moderate ones like Mike Ferguson, who represents a suburban district in central New Jersey.

 

As the new Democrat-led House rushed to complete its business before adjourning for spring break this week, Representative Ferguson was marveling at the many bills that had been passed in Congress’s first 100 days, including one that would make it easier for unions to organize and another that would increase the minimum wage.

 

“Under the Republican majority, those bills would have never gotten to the floor,” he explained before heading back to his district. “Now they have been brought to the floor, and I’ve voted for them.”

 

Mr. Ferguson’s enthusiasm captures a peculiar political reality in the Capitol: many Republicans from swing districts in the Northeast are finding that life under Democratic rule has its advantages.

 

During the 12 years that Republicans controlled the House, moderate Republicans were the stepchildren of their party, expected to vote with their conservative leadership on crucial issues, even if it meant taking positions that could anger centrist voters back home.

 

In fact, the Democrats made some of their deepest inroads last year in the Northeast. A total of 10 Republican incumbents in the House were defeated in four states — New Hampshire, Connecticut, New York and Pennsylvania — where the challengers aggressively tried to tie the incumbents to President Bush and his conservative allies on the Hill.

 

Now, with those losses still fresh in their minds, Republican moderates remaining in the House are vowing to pursue their centrist positions more assertively, even if it means endorsing Democratic initiatives.

 

And the new Republican House leadership, concerned about losing even more seats in 2008, appears to be showing a pragmatic streak by allowing moderates to stray more freely from the party fold.

 

“If there’s a good idea, we should work to get it done, regardless of whether it’s a Republican or a Democrat who came up with the idea,” said Mr. Ferguson, who was re-elected last year with just 49.5 percent of the vote.

 

Since taking control of the House in January, Democrats have pushed through bills that would raise the federal minimum wage, overturn President Bush’s restrictions on embryonic stem cell research, cut interest rates on college loans and implement Sept. 11 commission security recommendations.

 

Many moderate Republicans joined the Democrats in supporting those measures, including Representative Christopher Shays of Connecticut, who won his own re-election campaign with 51 percent of the vote.

 

“Democrats basically grabbed the center and ran with it politically,” Mr. Shays said, adding that he would continue working with the Democrats provided they did not veer from the political center.

 

Representative Peter T. King, a Republican from Long Island who regularly sides with conservative Republicans on abortion and immigration issues, said there were “definitely positives” in the direction in which Democrats had taken the House.

 

“For a pro-labor Republican like me, it’s been very beneficial,” he said.

 

In a measure of how competitive the Northeast could be next year, White House political strategists have put together a list of vulnerable House Republicans that includes five from the region: Mr. Shays, Mr. Ferguson, Representatives John Randy Kuhl Jr. from New York’s Southern Tier, James T. Walsh from the Syracuse region and Jim Gerlach of Pennsylvania.

 

The list was obtained and circulated by Congressional Democrats, who are making plans to single out Northeastern Republicans for defeat in 2008, in the hopes of completing what many in their party see as an inevitable Democratic realignment in the region.

 

In Mr. Walsh’s 25th Congressional District, for example, Dan Maffei, a Democrat who came within about 3,400 votes of defeating Mr. Walsh, is planning to run again next year and has been meeting with party leaders and donors in Albany and Washington.

 

And in the neighboring 29th Congressional District, Eric Massa, a Democrat, has told party leaders in Washington that he plans to challenge Mr. Kuhl, who defeated him last November with just 52 percent of the vote.

 

In a recent interview, Mr. Maffei argued that his prospects of winning in a Democratic state like New York were greatly improved in 2008 because the presidential election would draw thousands of additional voters to the polls, most of them Democrats.

 

“The climate of a presidential year will carry us,” said Mr. Maffei, who announced his candidacy on Friday.

 

Yet, paradoxically, the agenda that House Democratic leaders have been advancing over the last few weeks may actually give moderate Republicans political cover — certainly more than when conservative leaders ran the House.

 

In Mr. Walsh’s case, he has already sided with Democrats on several major pieces of legislation, including a nonbinding resolution opposing President Bush’s call for sending additional troops to Baghdad.

 

Mr. Walsh’s assistants say the votes reflect a centrist point of view that Mr. Walsh has held for years, but Mr. Maffei has described Mr. Walsh’s votes as opportunistic.

 

“It has nothing to do with ideology,” Mr. Maffei said. “It’s purely political.”

 

The House’s Republican moderates are a relatively cohesive bunch of about 30 lawmakers who meet as a caucus (called the Tuesday Group) each week to discuss issues like health care and jobs.

 

Recently, eight members of the group called on President Bush and Democratic leaders on the Hill to make climate change a top environmental issue this session. Increasingly, moderate Republicans have been reaching across the political aisle without fear of retribution from their own leaders.

 

The situation is a far cry from previous Congresses, when the Republican leadership squelched internal divisions and passed bill after bill on party-line votes, including budget cuts to popular programs. The leadership also pushed ideologically freighted legislation that had little chance of becoming law.

 

Last summer, for example, the Republican House leadership embarked on a legislative drive to highlight conservative causes like gun rights and new abortion restrictions. The effort was aimed at rallying conservative voters in advance of the fall elections. But moderates complained that it threatened their re-election prospects.

 

This is not to say that the Republican leaders are completely passive these days. They managed to hold their party together in opposition to a recent Democratic proposal to bring most American combat troops home from Iraq next year. The proposal passed on a vote of 218 to 212, with all but two Republicans opposing it. All of the Northeastern moderates voted against the measure.

 

But by and large, Mr. Shays said, leaders of his party are giving members greater leeway to pursue divergent views more assertively.

 

“You don’t have a Tom DeLay coming in with an ideology,” he said, referring to the former Republican majority leader whose tight control over rank-and-file members of the House earned him the nickname the Hammer.

 

“They’re picking their battles,” Mr. Shays continued. “Leaders are not trying to push their own individual agenda or their own individual ideology.”

 

Mr. Walsh said that part of the reason Republican leaders had loosened their grip was that they no longer had the burden of producing the 218-vote majority needed to govern in the House.

 

“When you are in the majority, you have to produce votes; so there’s tremendous pressure,” he said. “That’s not the case today. It’s a very different environment.”

 

But Mr. King said Republican House leaders had another reason for going easy on members.

 

“They don’t want to lose seats,” he said. “They’re not pushing members to take suicidal votes or take a bullet for the team.”

_______________________________________________________

 

You Dubya apologists should just give it up. Even some Republicans are coming back to the middle ground. They're even admitting the prior congress and senate were controlled by the ultra-conservatives. The Dems have been the centrist party for 15 years. The Republicans have just used shrewd tactics to make people think anything to the left of ultra-conservative is liberal. Finally, it looks like America is seeing through the ruse and moderate Republicans can return to the center again. Thank God! Even Limpbaugh admits he was a water carrier for those guys and he's releived he doesn't have to do it anymore.

 

Keep your morals consistent. If it was an outrage for Clinton to lie about a BJ, then why isn't it an outrage to lie about the reasons for going to war, about Al Qaeda being affiliated with Saddam Hussein, about the dismissal of Federal Judges, outing a CIA operative, how a former gay escort got a Whitehouse press pass, the military records of former brave soldiers, the number of times they said "stay the course", how safe it is in an Iraqi marketplace, and on and on and on.

 

Why isn't there outrage from the right over Republicans believing holding power is more important than stopping a potential child molestor?

 

If the wife of a Clinton opponent was a CIA agent and was outed during his administration the Republicans would have been screaming treason and wanting Clinton dead. Why no outrage here? Because a Republican is doing these things? Don't be an apologist for anyone's side. Demand investigation into these things. If they are or aren't true. Proving what really happened will shut the other side up. If Whitewater was worth investigating these things are FAR more important to investigate.

 

I love how the Republican Chickenhawks have the military snowed that they are the best for them and yet can't get them enough armor or bullet proof vests. Can't take care of them when they return in an adequate way and cut benefits for soldiers while cutting taxes for the top 1% more than anyone else. The Republicans have very little respect for the military. Bush ducked Vietnam as well as most of the other ultra conservative pinheads. They slammed Kerry's military service making up lies to put it down. They compared Max Cleeland to Osama Bin Laden. If the Democrats treated Bob Dole like the Pubs are treating democratic war heroes there would have been (and rightly so) a huge outcry about that from the right.

 

Here's a great piece from this website; http://www.veteransforamerica.org/print_blog.cfm?bID=867 This is what real veterans with respect for the military believe.

 

It is my belief that there has been a trend of slander towards veterans . Not because of the content of their message but because of their political affiliation. I don’t believe it is honorable to attack a veteran and attempt to discredit his service simply based on his political views. By throwing out nonsense that individuals undeservingly received Purple Hearts discredits not only the veteran , but the integrity of the medal and the award process itself. Though I may disagree with a veteran ' s goals and /or beliefs I will never lower myself to “swift boat” a veteran ' s service.

 

One more thing. I love the slams against the "liberal media and college professors". They are saying that the people who earn their living by studying subjects carefully and closely for their jobs skew liberal. So the people who know most about the subjects skew liberal. I'd agree with that and tell you it's not a bad thing because their experts on these subjects.

 

CNN is moderate. They have Glenn Beck and Nancy Grace on their channel. What "liberals" does fox noise have?

[Fewell733]

Though I totally agree Refynman, that was an awfully long post. Yikes, it might be a new record.

[Steely Dan]

Though I totally agree Refynman, that was an awfully long post. Yikes, it might be a new record.

 

The article took the most space but I thought the whole thing needed to be put there.