Political Punch

Olbermann is a sports-talk reject - who has a far-left schtick to pander to those who employ him.

Why do you have to distort everyhting, Tapper? How much do you get paid by the RNC?

Just as Cheney did, pre election, when he said that there would be another terrorist attack if the dems won. Perhaps he knew this because the current admin might very well be the puppetmasters of the terrorists. The right sometimes posits that there hasn't been another attack since 9/11, I don't believe for a second that a chronically inept FBI, CIA, and NSA, all of a sudden got their act together. Don't forget, Bin Laden was once CIA, one doesn't simply retire from the mob when one knows too many dirty secrets, if he really hated Bush, why not sing like the proverbial canary...

Yes plain a simple Yes, Keith is calling Rudy a terrorist and by saying that voting for the dems is a vote for the terrorist that is what rudy is becoming when you use speech saying America will get attacked if they take power and a vote for them and not only them but any other cand. is a vote for terrorist other then ME is not only bin ladden like but any other power hungry nut job hitler said the same, not word for word but my way ir you will die is the bottom line either way ! castro , chavez all ofthem and any other tyrant you want to name hell america fell for it in 04 but thankfully not in 2006 and they won't in 2008 !!!!! rudy has just killed his campaign he was a mayor on the way out with noting but police corruption and brutality to his credit until 9/11 and he waves that in your face everytime he can because he has NOTHING else.

It is interesting to me that Rudy is only repeating exactly what good ole Harry Reid said would happen only a few short days ago. Why should he be labeled a terrorist just repeating what some jerk already said. I also think Keith needs to go back to sports and leave politics to the big boys/girls.

Hmmmmmmmmmm....if a terrorist is someone who tries to instill fear in a population--be it violently or verbally--in order to attain some sort of political goal, i.e. influencing people's voting habits, then yes, Olbermann is well within his rights to call Guiliani a terrorist.

I for one am quite frankly sick and tired of being told that voting for a Democrat is tantamount to giving into terrorism. As Olbermann quite rightfully pointed out, this country was under Republican control on 911 and they hardly 'saved us' from the attack, so they have little credibility when saying, 'only we can protect you.' Thank God people like Olbermann are calling them out on this, while the mainstream media, it seems, sacrifices truth and courage in exchange for the privilege of doing the Hokey-Pokey with Karl Rove at White House Press dinners!

Using terror (AKA fear) for political reasons sounds like terrorism to me... Am I missing something here?

Olbermann has become a insanely hysterical mouthpiece for the far "surrender" leftwingers as Rosie has become. Both are loud obnoxious bores whose only talent is coming up with conspiracy theories to batter the President and his administration. The politics of destruction is being lowered to new lows by these types of media pundits.

".....we will remain on offense and will anticipate what they (terrorists) will do and try to stop them before they do it."

It was a REPUBLICAN President who receieved a briefing titled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US" THAT shows me how much republicans care.

Why would Giuliani's beliefs about what would happen if a Democrat wins be any more offensive than what the Dems have said since 2000 about Bush, Cheney, all Republicans, Conservaatives, Christians or Right Wingers? the double standard makes me sick. He's entitled to his opinion as much as Hillary, Edwards, Kerry, Gore, Pelosi, Reid & Kennedy are and I haven't heard anything polite or any retractions from them.

Olberman is the man !! Anyone who criticises Republicans are questioned but this far right wingers on FOX can spew their hate everyday. Thanks Keith for putting Rotten Rudy where he belongs,he has milked 9/11 more than anyone else.

By way of spreading fear to reach your desired end-result.

Olberman's (latest) rant is similar to much of the rhetoric regarding "fear" and "terrorism". When I hear those of the far left use these words, it's almost like they have the opposite meaning. When the left uses fear (global warming, electronic surveillance paranoia, economic anxiety), it's not fear but "inconvenient truth". But when someone addresses responding to actual, objective instances of death and destruction, the responders are the ones "spreading fear" and called "worse than the terrorists". It's so absurd I sometimes feel like I'm living in a Kafka novel.

I don't think that Mr. Olbermann is calling Mr. Giuliani a terrorist, but Mr. Olbermann is indeed calling him on his scare tactics and politics of terror. Like the current president has done since 9/11, Mr. Giuliani is pandering to what he perceives as his base, where he obviously feels he has an advantage in "security issues." Unfortunately, he fails to recognize that these security issues confront all of us, and not just as Repubs or Dems. For "America's Mayor" to assert that the Dems would surrender to terrorism or "go on defense." is as divisive as it is asinine. Each Dem presidential candidate was right to take him to task on such a overwhelmingly idiotic statement. Mr. Giuliani may just do himself and his campaign in if he keeps spouting such inane comments!

LOL...I like that. Tapper: Politico @distorts the truth@ and Drudge is a @media whore@

Well thank you for reporting on Olbermann cause I can't stand to watch him anymore. He's gone from passionate critic to emboldened ego case. I watched about 30 seconds of his anti-Giuliani piece - the "who is this guy" part of the segment in which he criticized Guiliani for NYC's faulty communications devices. It seemed like one of his dumb rants, so I changed the channel.

So this is what the fuss is about? I don't agree with his aggressive stance, but I don't find his rhetoric to be out of bounds. I mean, it's not like he's falsely suggesting that Iraq is producing weapons of mass destruction or that Sadam Hussein is behind 9/11. There's nothing fundamentally dishonest about what Guiliani is saying, is there? If you ask me, Giuliani's rhetoric is a vast improvement, but that's not saying much.