Sajak, that is. Mr. Sajak was kind enough to issue an apology recently for Keith Olbermann. Why, you might ask? Many years ago, Mr. Sajak often had Olbermann on his show as a sports analyst. He enjoyed his wry sense of humor and intellect. Hey, so did I, in all honesty.I used to DVR “Countdown,” wouldn’t miss it. That was then, this is now, and no way in hell will I give him the traffic.
As for Mr. Sajak, the same thing. This was then. To give you an idea, this is what Keith used to be like:
Funny, right? Perfectly entertaining. But something happened in 2008 that just seemed to send him off the rails. Mr. Sajak seems to feel the same way, given he issued an apology, which he did through Ricochet.com:
[snip] Keith tended to wear out his welcome at stations and networks, and he bounced around to several places before he found his niche at MSNBC. When he first went on the air there, he was actually quite entertaining. He was wry and amusing, and he looked at the news at a kind of cockeyed angle that I enjoyed.
I’m not sure how he morphed into the bitter-sounding, hate-mongering name-caller he’s become, but I’m sorry he did. I liked the guy, and he was always a good guest. Maybe it’s just show business and trying to find a place in it and building an audience, but I don’t know. We were never friends away from the show, so I can’t even guess what drives him.
I do know that to whatever extent the political well has been poisoned, Keith has dumped more than his share of venom into the water. I’d like to think he knows that and maybe even regrets it. I liked the Keith Olbermann of 1989. This tape reminded me that I miss him. (Click here to read the rest.)
Well, you will get zero argument from me that Olbermann dumped more than his share of venom into the political well. The extent of his poisonous ranting has been well documented.
But you know Mr. Olbermann was not going to take this lying down. Why should he? He is probably one of the few people who can be suspended from work, and make his employers apologize to him in order for him to return. Go figure. Anyway, the long and short of Olbermann’s retort is that Sajak did not introduce him to a national audience. Yeah, okay, Keith – whatever you say (am I alone in not believing what he says? Yeah, didn’t think so.).
I appreciate Mr. Sajak’s taking the time, and bearing the responsibility, for apologizing for unleashing Olbermann onto the national scene, but it isn’t his fault. We don’t blame the Wheel of Fortune man. How could he possibly know that the funny, quirky sportscaster he had on his show was going to turn into someone who said crap like this:
Yikes. And anyone who listened to this man during the 2008 Primary knows for Olbermann to throw the terms “sexist” at someone else is just laughable. Laughable. The manner in which he has talked about both Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin make him the last person in the world to be taken seriously hurling that charge at another. Who could forget statements like this from the lips of Mr. Olbermann, “Right. Somebody who can take her into a room and only he comes out.” So, this man, who is threatening violence against a woman, and not just any woman – a sitting US Senator, thinks he can call anyone else a “sexist”? Yeah, that would be laughable if it wasn’t so despicable.
Again, anyone who watched him during the 2008 Primaries/Campaign know the type of rhetoric to which Mr. Sajak was referring. He couldn’t know, couldn’t possibly know, that this is who the once-funny sportscaster would become…
While we are on the topic of ranting hosts from MSNBC(O), I would be remiss to leave out Olbermann’s counterpart, Rachel Maddow. I cannot help but wonder, how is it that people who actually work in the media, on television, are not aware that there is video documentation available to either support or dispel their assertions? I continue to be amazed that so many of these people seem to forget this, as illustrated above.
In the case of the Rhodes Scholar, Rachel Maddow, you would think a Rhodes Scholar, of all people, would know there will be video archives of programs on her own network, especially since she likes to use video archives of other cable news, like, say, Fox.
Evidently not. Recently, Ms. Maddow had a little holier-than-thou moment in which she asserted that guests on Fox News shilled for money, thus engaging in politics, something people at MSNBC(O) would NEVER, EVER do. Oh, no, in her most sanctimonious tone, she claimed MSNBC(O) was all about news, not politics, according to this very good Johnny Dollar piece. Would you find someone on MSNBC(O) shilling for cash for their political careers? Absolutely not. How dare anyone even suggest such a crazy thing! No doubt Ms. Maddow would say something along those lines, given her umbrage at Fox allowing such a thing on its programs.
The thing is, she would be wrong in a big way, as this video by Johnny Dollar makes clear:
So, not only is this Rhodes Scholar unclear on the concept of having video tape of her own news outlet, but of the term “HYPOCRISY.”
Honest to pete, how in the world can she be so freakin’ hypocritical, so pompous, and not see it? Or is it that she just doesn’t care that she’s a big liar? I guess being a Rhodes Scholar doesn’t automatically imply one is ethical, so there is that. But really, her sanctimonious, arrogant, condescending attitude toward Fox for the very same thing guests on her network have done – with impunity, especially Alan Grayson (and THANK YOU, FLORIDA for not voting this man back in), is just absurd.
But you know, Ms. Maddow does seem to be in the right place there at MSNBC(O). Any network that employs the King of Pomposity, Keith Olbermann, and Angry Man, Ed Schultz, would be a great fit for the condescending hypocrisy of Rachel Maddow.
Keep it up, Rachel. You’re making Fox look better and better.