Tag Archives: rachel maddow show

Rachel Maddow: ‘I’m Not Here to Cheerlead for Anybody’. She’s a Drum Major Instead.

News organization or theater of the absurd? You decide. During an interview with her MSNBC colleague Ed Schultz on his radio show Nov. 30, broadcast from MSNBC studios in New York, Rachel Maddow said this about liberals in media — read more

Excerpt from:
Rachel Maddow: ‘I’m Not Here to Cheerlead for Anybody’. She’s a Drum Major Instead.

Maddow Laments That Five Pro-Life GOP US Senate Candidates Have No Rape/Incest Exception

Wow, I didn’t realize this until watching radical left MSNBC host Rachel Maddow’s September 16 rant bemoaning the “great, unacknowledged, big honking policy issue of this year’s elections nationwide.” That is, at least 5 Republican , Tea Party -backed US Senate pro-life candidates oppose aborting innocent babies whose fathers are sexual criminals. With Christine O’Donnell of Delaware newly added to the list, the roster includes Sharron Angle of Nevada, Ken Buck of Colorado, Joe Miller of Alaska, and Rand Paul of Kentucky. This is as it should be, which I’m thrilled to know. This must have pro-aborts quaking. They have managed for decades to get Americans to go along with 100% of abortions by appealing to their compassion for mothers impregnated by rapists and family members, whose abortions account for no more than 1.5% of all, according to Guttmacher . Many pro-life politicians, including President Bush , have caved on this point, which is contradictory. Either all preborns are human beings, or they’re not. If they are, they must all be protected. In fact, abortion protects rapists, particularly friends and family. A prime example would be the imaginary victim Maddow described, a “14-yr-old girl who is raped by your uncle, or by your father.” Even Joycelyn Elders , President Clinton’s pro-abort attorney general, stated pregnancy is evidence of sexual abuse. Abortion destroys the evidence. Who doesn’t think the 1st thing a victimizing uncle or father would do is take the pregnant 14-yr-old for an abortion? Click to enlarge… Almost every time I write on the topic of rape and pregnancy I refer to this excellent article pointing to the only study ever done on this topic. It found first that 75-85% of mothers impregnated by rape do not abort. Abortion should not be presumed in these cases. It concluded that mothers who abort their babies following rape are psychologically worse off than those who did not. One reason is abortion is also a violent act; many rape victims reported they felt like it was “medical rape.” Mothers who did not abort felt they were helping good come from evil and in a sense conquering their rape. Themselves having been victimized, they did not want to victimize their baby. This is yet another great political development in a year full of great political developments in our fight to protect innocent preborn life.

Link:
Maddow Laments That Five Pro-Life GOP US Senate Candidates Have No Rape/Incest Exception

Bill Clinton Fires Back at Rachel Maddow Riff Describing Him as ‘Best Republican President’

When lefties turn on each other … never a pretty sight. Former president Bill Clinton, he of the elephantine memory, still nurses a grudge against MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow for a crack she made about him way back in March. In an appearance with former British prime minister Tony Blair in Philadelphia on Monday, Clinton said that “one of the leading television commentators on one of our liberal cable channels said I was the best Republican president the country ever produced, which would come [as] quite a surprise to the Republicans, half of whom still think I’m a closet communist,” according to Politico . Politico also quoted Clinton as follows — “What she meant by that was I didn’t necessarily follow their ‘conventional wisdom’,” he said. “I said, ‘What do you mean?!’ ” “We had 100 times as many people move out of poverty during those eight years [I was president] than the previous 12 years because we had an earned income tax credit, not because we had another traditional anti-poverty program hiring people,” he said. “What gave birth to the Third Way in America was that the Democrats kept getting beat because people saw us as the party of big government, and our own political base very often was more concerned with means than ends,” he said. “I think the people on the right that say that, ‘government is the enemy, we don’t need it,’ are wrong, particularly in this economic time. And I think that people on the left that say, ‘the only way to deliver services or solve problems is with a bigger state,’ are not always right and are more often wrong than not.” While Clinton did not mention Maddow by name, it was apparent from the specifics of his remarks that he was referring to her. According to The Huffington Post , Maddow said this about Clinton on her MSNBC show March 31 — “What we ended up with is what we ended with, in my opinion, is the two terms of the Clinton administration, which is that Bill Clinton was probably the best Republican president the country ever had, if you look at the policies that he passed.” … a view shared by enough left-wingers in 2000 that they preferred inadvertantly helping elect Republican George W. Bush by casting their ballots for purist soulmate Ralph Nader instead of Clinton vice president Al Gore. The Huffington Post wasn’t alone in picking up on Clinton’s belated testiness in response to Maddow’s arch criticism. So did the satirical World Weekly News site, providing this unique take on what I devoutly hope is a burgeoning feud.

More:
Bill Clinton Fires Back at Rachel Maddow Riff Describing Him as ‘Best Republican President’

Matthews and Maddow Bash ‘Racist Tea Party Blogger’ Who Contributes to Democrats and Gay Rights Groups

Those crack researchers at MSNBC have done it again! Last week, hosts Chris Matthews and Rachel Maddow both did stories about a blogger whose travel instructions for folks going to Glenn Beck’s “Restoring Honor” rally got posted at the Maine Tea Party Patriots website. Included were warnings about what stops to avoid on the DC Metro. Predictably, the liberal blogosphere had a field day with this citing it as another “example” of racism within the Tea Party. There’s only one problem: the culprit, a Washington, D.C.-based realtor, is a major contributor to the Democrat Party as well as gay rights groups. But before we get there, here’s what Rachel Maddow reported Monday with the help of the Washington Post’s Eugene Robinson (videos follow with transcripts and commentary, h/t Seton Motley): RACHEL MADDOW, HOST: This weekend is the anniversary of “I Have a Dream” speech, one of the most famous speeches, one of the most famous moments in America history. This year, on the 47th anniversary of the speech, a FOX News Channel TV host has decided to use the anniversary as an occasion for a rally of conservatives in Washington at the site of the speech at the Lincoln Memorial. I don`t purport to understand revising civil rights history so people will think conservatives were form civil rights and not against. I do not purport to understand these revisionist efforts. I`m just telling you that`s what they`re doing. But a Tea Party group based in the great state of Maine has put out a guide for any Tea Party minded folks who might be planning on attending the rally in D.C. It`s sort of a tea partiers rough guide “I`m from out of town” guidebook for visiting our nation`s capital — parts of it at least, parts of our nation`s capital, very specific parts of it. Right before they list the exact home addresses for a number of Democratic politicians — nice — they give tea partiers traveling to D.C. for this big rally, they give them some safety advice for how a visiting tea partier protestor should visit our nation`s capital. Quote, “If you are on the subway, stay on the red line between Union Station and Shady Grove, Maryland. If you are on the blue or orange line, do not go past Eastern Market, Capitol Hill, toward the Potomac Avenue stop and beyond. Stay in northwest D.C. and points in Virginia. Do not use the green line or yellow line. These rules are even more important at night.” There is, of course, nothing wrong with many other areas, but you don`t know where you are, so you should not explore them. Do not use the green line or the yellow line. It is dangerous. It is scary. The whole lines. Don`t — don`t — if you`re coaching the turnstile and you feel like — is it nighttime? Yes. Don`t do it! As you can see, the green and yellow lines are two of D.C.`s central metro lines. In fact, you make it harder on yourself if you don`t take those lines, especially if you`re coming in from Maryland or, say, Virginia. I wonder if it`s rough for the people going, say, to the Pentagon, right? Not being able to ride the blue line because the yellow line is so scary. Protecting yourself from the evil green and yellow lines would also protect you, of course, from Howard University, the country`s most prominent historically black college — aahh! Or maybe it`s the U Street stop, the U Street stop where you`ll find Ben`s Chili Bowl, a historic restaurant that attracts luminaries and laymen alike with its sloppy beefy goodness, and at which I gained five pounds in two weeks while once renting an office across the street. Perhaps it`s another attraction only accessible on the yellow and green lines could be the National Archives where the Constitution is? Be afraid, Constitution is there, especially at night. Look at this other map of D.C. Here`s another map of D.C. You see the big rectangular part? If you follow the Tea Party tour guide, you will limit yourself to that little sliver — see that tiny sliver in the middle of it? Little tiny, little thing looks like a flag on its side — that`s it. That`s the part of D.C. you`re advised to segregate yourself within if you are visiting Washington, D.C. for the anniversary of the “I Have a Dream” speech. Joining us now is Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist of “The Washington Post” and MSNBC contributor and D.C. resident Eugene Robinson. Gene, thanks very much for your time. EUGENE ROBINSON, MSNBC CONTRIBUTOR: Good to be here, Rachel. MADDOW: If you avoided all the places in D.C. that the main Tea Party wants you to avoid, what would your experience of Washington, D.C. be like? ROBINSON: It wouldn`t — you wouldn`t see much of the city, obviously. You would — you`d spend a lot of time trying to get to places accessible only on the green and yellow lines by way of the red line, but only the red line to Union Station. So, I don`t know what you`re supposed to do when you get to Union Station. Get on a train and get out of town immediately. Look, this is — this is obviously “scaring white people” part two, and what they have done is essentially try to put off-limits any parts of the city where these main tea partiers believe you might be more likely to encounter, dare I say, black people. MADDOW: What are some of the things that you would miss if you were sincerely going to cut the green and yellow lines out of your life? ROBINSON: Well, let`s see. You couldn`t — you couldn`t go to the D.C. waterfront or the Arena Stage, one of the great theaters in the nation`s capital. If you took seriously their prescription about where to go on the red line, of course, you couldn`t go to Catholic University, to the National Shrine, the grandest Catholic basilica in Washington. You know, I could go on and on. You`d miss the whole U Street scene, which is the most happening nightlife and restaurant scene in town. And, of course, you would miss the newly gentrifying Eighth Street corridor, which is the kind of really hippest, most cutting edge part of town. But you don`t want to see any of that. You want to be afraid and you want to stay in this little — this little kind of safe zone. MADDOW: Well, you can tell my feelings about this by the way I introduced it. I know, rare. But it does seem particularly amazing to me to have this “stay away from all the parts of the city where you might encounter black people” instruction when they are going to a rally that is on the occasion of the 1963 march on Washington and the “I Have a Dream” speech. I have to ask your reaction to the overall setting here, hosting a sort of conservative take back civil rights rally on this occasion. ROBINSON: I have — I have two reactions, I guess, Rachel. Number one, you know, this is being put on by Glenn Beck, who I think his main purpose here is self self-aggrandizement on an almost Napoleonic scale. I mean, and so, I think that`s really a large part of what this is about. Now, a lot of people will come, be like a Tea Party rally, I think, in that there will be some racist elements, there will be some crazies, and there will also be a lot of people who are animated by perhaps a diffused sense of grievance who just happen to have picked the wrong pied piper. And so, those are the people for whom I guess I feel a bit sorry because I think in the end, Glenn Beck is out for himself and they`re going to be kind of left with their grievances unaddressed and feeling worse about the political process and worse about everything than before. MADDOW: And not to mention strict instructions not to visit the Constitution. ROBINSON: They`re not going to have any fun in Washington. Then again, we`ll all be able to eat the Ben`s Chili Bowl because there won`t be any out-of-towners there. So, there will be more for us. (LAUGHTER) MADDOW: You know, Mr. Silver Lining does it again. Well-done, Eugene Robinson. Thanks a lot, Gene. I really appreciate it. ROBINSON: Good to be here, Rachel. MADDOW: Gene, of course, is a Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist for “The Washington Post” and an MSNBC contributor. Yes, he sure is. Too bad neither Rach nor the Pulitzer Prize winner thought to look further into the background of the blogger before making fools of themselves. After all, as the Daily Beast reported Saturday, Bruce Majors throughout his life has almost exclusively contributed to Democrats (h/t Broliath ): According to OpenSecrets.org , he’s donated about $15,000 to Democrats since 2000, including a $10,000 donation to the DNC in 2000, a $500 donation to Howard Dean in 2003, and a $1,000 donation to John Kerry in 2004. His only recent contribution to a Republican candidate was $250 in 2002 to retired Rep. Jim Kolbe, then lone openly gay Republican in Congress.  Being a naturally suspicious sort, I decided to check OpenSecrets.org for myself. Here’s what I found : There could be many Bruce Majors in D.C. How do we know this is the same one? Well, this is what he told the Daily Beast: “I kind of wish I hadn’t given tens of thousands of dollars to Democrats, especially with the real-estate business what it is today,” he said. “Now I can only give a few hundred a year to libertarians to try to make up the balance.”  Majors says he also donated tens of thousands of dollars to the Human Rights Campaign, an LGBT advocacy group, and once won a role as an extra in the sitcom Will & Grace at one of their charity auctions. “I was going to a lot of lesbian cocktail parties raising money for Gore and then Kerry/Edwards,” he said. “I’m sure they’re all horrified this week.” With this in mind, do you think Maddow and Robinson would have been yucking it up at Majors’ expense if they knew he was such a large contributor to Democrats as well as LGBT causes? But the fun doesn’t end there, for on Tuesday, Chris Matthews covered the story with the Chicago Tribune’s Clarence Page: CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: Ahead of Glenn Beck`s rally this Saturday on the Lincoln Memorial, Tea Party activist Bruce Majors posted online a primer on how out-of-towners should navigate D.C. during that event. The guide was then circulated through a main Tea Party site. In this section of this blog, or whatever, entitled “Safety and Mores,” Major`s first sentence reads, quote, “D.C.`s population includes refugees from every country. Most taxi driver and many waiters, waitresses especially in local coffee shops, like the Bread and Chocolate chain, are immigrants. Frequently from east Africa or Arab countries. As a rule, African immigrants do not like for you to assume they are African- Americans, and especially do not like for you to guess they are from a neighboring country, for example, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Somalia.” Joining me to discuss the Tea Party guide to the capital, fellow D.C. resident, Clarence Page. You know, this is — I don`t know, I`m going to laugh, because it`s absurdity. CLARENCE PAGE, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE: This is absurd. MATTHEWS: But this is telling white folk how to get through an ethnically diverse town with a lot of African-Americans, which has been African-American in its majority I think since the Civil War. You know, I`ve lived there since I got out of the Peace Corps. These people need a special guide. It`s a regular big city, folks. Your thoughts? PAGE: I thought this was a satire, at first, though. MATTHEWS: Yes. PAGE: It looks like a liberal satire or stereotyped view of what Tea Party people think. MATTHEWS: Yes. PAGE: But it`s — it`s essentially a guide for — this is the sort of thing you hear from every small town person who is afraid of big cities. MATTHEWS: Yes. PAGE: Coming from a small town, I can say this. I grew up in John Boehner`s district, as you know. MATTHEWS: Right. PAGE: Middletown, Ohio. And I want to tell you, we`re not all hicks out there, Chris, but — (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: Use your common sense when you come to a big city. But here he is, here`s Majors, also outlined — he outlined that areas of this city we`re in right now to avoid certain metro rail lines that means subway lines and neighborhoods far from the Capitol and the National Mall. D.C. blog took Major`s restrictions and blog. Look how they showed it. They took it. Look at the map. They Googled the map and shown it. See the little blue area? That`s the only place in Washington, according to this blogger, it`s safe to go in Washington. I got to tell you. It`s an awful boring trip if you only do the — that`s basically the Washington Mall from what I can tell. PAGE: There`s also your neighborhood, in the pink zone, I believe. MATTHEWS: No. I`m up in the far northwest up there. But anyway. PAGE: Look how absurd this, though. I mean, the normal street life in D.C. is, you know, stay to the west of the park — MATTHEWS: Right. PAGE: — or Rock Creek Park. Now, east of the park has gotten largely gentrified. This city defies `60s stereotypes from the old Clint Eastwood movies. But this is still Dirty Harry city. (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: You and I know that the zestiest part of the town are the areas that are most mixed — PAGE: Oh, yes. MATTHEWS: — edgy, the most fun for young people. All the young people now live on 14th Street. PAGE: And he does give props to Silver Springs and some other nice suburbs and some neighborhoods (INAUDIBLE) Capitol Hill. Delicious. For the record, these weren’t the only mainstream media figures to take the bait. The Associated Press did a number of articles about Majors as well. Would he have gotten any attention if they would have known he’s lived in D.C. for thirty years and given so much money to liberals? Yes, that’s a rhetorical question.

Follow this link:
Matthews and Maddow Bash ‘Racist Tea Party Blogger’ Who Contributes to Democrats and Gay Rights Groups

Maddow Mocks Gov. Christie’s Math Skills Before Making Same Subtraction Error

Rachel Maddow on Wednesday mocked the math skills of New Jersey Governor Chris Christie only seconds before she made the exact same arithmetic mistake she bashed him for. In a short segment about the state of New Jersey losing some education funding as a result of errors made during the application process, the MSNBC host placed all the blame on the new Republican governor. To put a fine point on what Maddow claimed was Christie’s incompetence, she played a video of the Governor on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” earlier in the day misstating the number of points Ohio edged out New Jersey for this award. Hysterically, when the clip ended, Maddow made the very same subtraction error (video follows with transcript and commentary):  RACHEL MADDOW, HOST: Even while talking about the application process, Governor Christie has still been making some basic mistakes as evidenced by his appearance on this network this morning. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) GOVERNOR CHRIS CHRISTIE, (R-NEW JERSEY): We came in eleventh, ten people won, and we lost by 2.2 points… UNKNOWN MALE: Next year. CHRISTIE: …to Ohio. UNKNOWN MALE: Next year. CHRISTIE: If there’s more money. I doubt there will be. (END VIDEOTAPE) MADDOW: 2.2? According to the Department of Education, Ohio got 440.8 points in the final phase, and New Jersey got 437.8 points which is not three points. It’s 2.2 points. I don’t know if there was a math section, but if there is, I bet that’s Obama’s fault, too. Nice job, Rach. You really are the smartest gal in the class. Maybe more hysterically, the story doesn’t end there, for someone must have noticed Maddow’s error and decided to re-film this final section for the video to be posted at MSNBC’s website and possibly the reruns. See if you notice a little difference: MADDOW: 2.2 points Governor Christie? According to the Department of Education, Ohio got 440.8 points in the final phase and New Jersey got 437.8 points which using math – using my powers of math comprehension that’s three points not 2.2. I wonder if there’s a math component to the test. If there is, I bet that’s Obama’s fault, too.   Makes you wonder how many takes they needed for Maddow to finally get it right. 

Excerpt from:
Maddow Mocks Gov. Christie’s Math Skills Before Making Same Subtraction Error

Forced Bonhomie Between Rachel Maddow and NBC Colleague Richard Engel Results in Cringe-Inducing TV

Alas, it wasn’t supposed to end this way, MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow lamented to NBC foreign correspondent Richard Engel in Baghdad last week after the departure of the last American combat brigade from Iraq. Engel recounted his experiences covering the war, getting into Iraq on false pretenses just before the US-led invasion in 2003 and spending considerable time in the country thereafter (first part of embedded video) — MADDOW: So you were here throughout for the first five, six years of the war? ENGEL: Yes. I took little breaks but, straight, I was here 10, 11 months a year. MADDOW: So when you, thinking now in August 2010, this is ending. I mean, Operation Iraqi Freedom ends now and did you have any idea this is the way that it would end? ENGEL: It’s ending with a little bit of a whisper. MADDOW (plaintively): Yeah. … and not with that Saigon-style rout I so anticipated … ENGEL: I mean, if you remember back, the huge media coverage, there were cameras everywhere, there were hundreds of embeds. Well, look at the media circus now? (turns around, arms raised for emphasis) This is it. There’s nobody here. (turning to face Maddow directly) I mean, we’re on a big base. When the war began there were cameras and cameras (repeating himself) and embeds and hundreds of reporters (ditto) fighting with each other to be part of this. … unlike those who parachute in long after the dust has settled … MADDOW: Hmm hmm. ENGEL (apologetically, arms extended to Maddow, damage control instinct kicking in): I’m really glad that you came … … why would you think otherwise …? ENGEL: … and I’m glad we’re covering it, but there’s nobody here. MADDOW (wanly): Yeah. ENGEL: So it’s ending so quietly. So I didn’t expect that it would end like that. At the start of the next segment of her show on Aug. 19, Maddow lobbed a shot back across Engel’s bow (second part of clip) — MADDOW: We’re at the Palestine Hotel with (gesturing toward Engel) some jerk who we picked up on the street …  …. “nobody” here, huh …? The following night, on Aug. 20, Engel walked with Maddow through a Baghdad marketplace and stressed once more how he was really, really happy she was there (third part of clip) — MADDOW: Can we walk? ENGEL: Yeah, please do. … whatever … MADDOW: So when you, when you’re out in Baghdad, making this decision to take me here and do these things today … ENGEL (interrupting): I’m delighted that you are here … … again, why on earth would you think otherwise …? ENGEL: … I really am, we haven’t done this and we don’t do this enough … … Let’s mark our calendars and do it again, same time next decade …

Read more here:
Forced Bonhomie Between Rachel Maddow and NBC Colleague Richard Engel Results in Cringe-Inducing TV

Crash! Inconvenient Facts Demolish Rachel Maddow’s Premise on Rationale for Arizona’s Anti-Illegals Law

Rachel Maddow has nothing but contempt for the so-called Southern strategy by which Republicans have allegedly courted the votes of Southern white males through veiled or overt race-baiting. Which makes it all the more peculiar for Maddow to engage in a Southwestern strategy of slandering Republicans as racist toward Latinos in order for her to garner votes for Democrats. Here is the most recent example of Maddow doing this, on her MSNBC show Aug. 12 and 13. On both nights, reporter Morgan Loew of the CBS affiliate KPHO in Phoenix was one of her guests. On her Aug. 12 show, Maddow described how three inmates escaped from Arizona State Prison in Kingman, the latest in a string of break-outs from privatized prisons in Arizona stretching back to 1996. Maddow then segued to saying this (first part of embedded video) — MADDOW: After this incredible record of achievement, after all of these prison escapes from private prisons, how did the state of Arizona decide to proceed with the issue of prison privatization? Even as prison privatization declines around the country, even as state budget cuts make it so that many states are closing facilities or reducing their sentencing guidelines so that fewer people are in prison altogether, how did the state of Arizona decide to proceed? As Maddow says this, the graphics on screen show a photo of Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, a map of Arizona and the capitalized word “INCARCERATION,” with “INC” set off in red font. MADDOW: Last year Arizona state officials moved legislation to try to privatize the whole state prison system! Arizona planned to seek bids from private companies for nine of the state’s 10 prison complexes. It was the first effort by a state to put its entire prison system under private control. Great news for the private prison companies, right? Great news in particular for Corrections Corporation of America, which is the single largest private prison company in the country. CCA already runs six detention facilities in Arizona. They hold prisoners from other states at their facilities in Arizona. They also hold the federal contract to hold federal detainees in the state. Here’s where Maddow makes her shabby insinuation, one that backfired after what Loew would soon reveal — MADDOW: So, you know what would be awesome for a company like that? You know what would be awesome, it would be really awesome for the shareholders and everybody? If the state of Arizona started producing a whole lot more federal detainees, people detained on federal issues. Federal issues like, I don’t know, say, immigration violations? Footage is then shown of Brewer signing SB 1070, Arizona’s anti-illegals law, as Maddow says … — MADDOW: Imagine the boon to the private for-profit prison company that has the contract to house federal detainees in Arizona if Arizona came up with a wacky plan to arrest a lot more people for suspected immigration violations. Imagine how awesome a law like SB 1070 would be for an industry like the for-profit private prison industry in Arizona. Maddow proceeded to air a report by Loew for KPHO in Phoenix, detailing how Brewer’s deputy chief of staff, Paul Senseman, is a former CCA lobbyist whose wife still lobbies for the company; and Brewer policy advisor Chuck Coughlin owns High Ground Public Affairs consulting, which represents CCA. (To see the Maddow segment in its entirety, link here ). In Loew’s report, Brewer was quoted as saying that Senseman “does not advise the governor on these issues”; CCA stated that it “did not lobby at any time … anyone in Arizona on the immigration law.” To remind viewers of her insinuation about Brewer’s rationale for signing SB 1070, Maddow added this — MADDOW: Then again, why would you need to lobby when two of the governor’s top people are your lobbyist, your former lobbyist, and/or married to your lobbyist? But after Maddow introduced Loew, and Loew rehashed the details of his reporting on Senseman, Coughlin and CCA, Loew mentioned this awkward fact right at the end of his interview with Maddow (second part of embedded video, starting at 1:56) — LOEW: In addition, in Arizona we have a mindset among a couple of key legislators that privatizing the prison industry is a good thing. As you mentioned, they tried to privatize the entire system last year. The governor did veto that after the state corrections director sent her a letter saying, look, we can’t imagine having death row inmates in private prison systems and having death row inmates being taken care of by the lowest common bidder. Excuse me, did you say “the governor” — by whom you mean Jan Brewer, correct? — vetoed the bill to privatize nearly all of Arizona’s state prisons? Shortly before she signed SB 1070, the law that would create vast penal colonies of suspected illegal immigrants? Apparently Brewer missed the memo on this fine-tuned, lucrative conspiracy. Maddow’s flimsy premise having been demolished before her eyes — by a simpatico guest, no less — she invited Loew back the next night to harrumph about links between Republican state senator Russell Pearce, a major backer of SB 1070, and the private prison industry. (full segment from Maddow show linked here ). Once again, Loew served up an inconvenient fact right at the end of his discussion with Maddow (third part of embedded video, starting at 2:28) — MADDOW: Morgan, am I also right that in thinking that Russell Pearce was the man behind the effort last year to privatize all of Arizona’s state prisons? LOEW: He was. He sponsored that legislation and we looked through his legislative record and it looks like as far back as 2003 he was pushing legislation that was calling for the privatization of state prison beds, I think 1,000 beds back in 2003, another 1,400 before that. But the biggest one is the bill that you just referred to, which would have handed over our entire prison system to the private prison industry. Now, that bill was vetoed but another bill passed that essentially did the same thing. Last year, our prison system would have, in a sense, most of it, would have been handed over to the private prison industry, but none of those companies would come forward to bid on them. Once again, this fine-tuned, lucrative conspiracy — thwarted by the alleged conspirators. 

See the rest here:
Crash! Inconvenient Facts Demolish Rachel Maddow’s Premise on Rationale for Arizona’s Anti-Illegals Law

MarketWatch Writer Praises Maddow as … Wait for It … ‘Voice of Reason’

I’m fairly confident but not certain this didn’t initially come from The Onion — a fawning profile of MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow written by MarketWatch’s Jon Friedman. “This is the rare 21st-century TV news star,” Friedman writes, “an un-self-absorbed celebrity.” “Maddow, 37, is the voice of reason at MSNBC,” Friedman elaborates. “Notable for their verbal brawn, the hosts of cable news shows often behave on air as if they’re competing for a gold medal in preening. Maddow gets her point across in a restrained but emphatic way. She doesn’t feel a need to outshout her guests.” Here is my favorite paragraph in Friedman’s soliloquy, which ought to have been subtitled, “Not incidentally, I agree with her politics” — The tone is unique. Maddow says she presents ‘essays, which have a thesis, facts, analysis and conclusions. That way, I think, I don’t invite pounding on the table or yelling at people.’ Allow me to provide an example, from Maddow’s trip to Afghanistan last week. During an interview with Brigadier General Ben Hodges on the costs of reconstruction and how they’ll be covered, Maddow said this (first part of embedded video) — MADDOW: People needed to provide policing, basic services, the kind of government jobs that you’re talking about, obviously you need good, committed Afghan nationalists essentially to do that. You need people who want to do it for their country, people who are brave and willing to see that transition through. Who’s going to pay their salaries in the long run? HODGES: Well, that’s a great point. I think, you know, Afghanistan does not have oil but they certainly have incredible mineral wealth, potential … MADDOW (after interview, raising finger for emphasis): Afghan mineral wealth. It’s not quite in the category of the mythical Caribbean walrus from BP’s oil spill response plan, but maybe it’s close. Followed by Maddow contradicting herself less than two minutes later in her July 7 broadcast while being led through a Kabul marketplace by NBC foreign correspondent Richard Engel (second part of embedded video) — ENGEL: They have turquoise, rubies, emeralds. Obviously, recently the country’s been famous, in the news recently because they discovered all these minerals in the mountains, a trillion dollars or more … MADDOW: Well, they discovered, discovered … ENGEL: …. They’re still in the rocks … MADDOW: We’re talking about them again. We’ve sort of always known that Afghanistan had incredible mineral wealth. ENGEL: Yes. MADDOW: I mean, everything from lapis to lithium. Hmm, would these be examples of Maddow’s “voices” of reason? Or how about when she suggested to Hodges — on the July 4th weekend, no less — that America’s presence in Afghanistan was “inherently corrupting” ? As any devout left-winger will tell you, this describes America’s presence anywhere — including America. Or when Maddow claimed this past Sunday on “Meet the Press” that shelling out more unemployment benefits is “the most stimulative thing you can do” for the economy. That being the case, imagine the phantasmagorically stimulative effect of laying off most federal workers and paying them unemployment benefits instead. In fairness to Friedman, he does couch his description of Maddow — she is “the voice of reason at MSNBC .” That she is — at least compared to the bellicose buffoonery of Ed Schultz, the pompous self-importance of Keith Olbermann, and the manic meanderings of Chris Matthews. 

Read the original post:
MarketWatch Writer Praises Maddow as … Wait for It … ‘Voice of Reason’

Imagine If a Conervative Had Said It: Child- and Cop-killer Edition

Remember when media liberals were insisting ( falsely, by the way ) that RedState’s Erick Erickson had advocated shooting a census taker? Well imagine that a journalist had approached, say, Dick Armey and the following exchange had ensued. Then try to imagine what the media’s response would be. JOURNO: Obviously you don’t believe in killing census workers. ARMEY: Umm, not in that context, no sir. No, no. JOURNO: Okay, in what context? ARMEY: Just for the sake of this interview, no context. I don’t believe in that. There are too many other government forces out here that are much more powerful that I as a man would focus on. I wouldn’t focus on the census workers, sir, I’d focus on the police. Replace “census workers” with “babies” and “government” with “white,” and you have the exact statement from Malik Zulu Shabazz, leader of the New Black Panther Party, made in an interview with Mediaite’s Tommy Christopher (video below the fold). “So,” writes Tabitha Hale at RedState, “just for the sake of this interview, killing white babies is not okay. But those other times, in the proper context? It’s totally okay. You know, as long as the crackers are out of the way.” Mark Potok, please call your office . Oh the howling that would ensue if any Tea Party leader, let alone the head of a prominent organization like FreedomWorks, made a statement like that. “Killing census workers is not as productive as killing cops,” is what it would, rightly, be boiled down to. Shabazz is saying that he considers violence towards police officers to be a more productive activity in battling white people than killing their children. Phew. What a relief. Where is the media on this? Where is Chris Matthews to devote an entire hour-long special to the dangers of militant black supremacy groups, as he did with the Tea Party? Where is Rachel Maddow to devote an hour of her time to warning viewers that violent rhetoric can incite violent action, as she did in the context of the Oklahoma City bombing, naturally blaming it on conservatives? Where is Joe Klein to remind us of the definition of sedition — “conduct or language inciting rebellion against the authority of the state, in his words — and to accuse these groups of ” rubbing right up close ” to doing just that? Where are the host of media personalities who painted the Hutaree militia and a vague threat of “right-wing extremism” as the biggest threat to American peace since 9/11? They are all silent, because accusing the New Black Panthers of fomenting violence does not fit the narrative — it does not serve their political ends. And this is not some obscure member of the group holding a sign demanding that we “water the tree of liberty” — to use a Tea Party equivalent. This is the leader of a prominent (for a wacky fringe group) organization issuing a thinly-veiled endorsement of violence against police officers. The lack of condemnation even remotely similar to the hit jobs on the Tea Party movement is quite telling.

Continued here:
Imagine If a Conervative Had Said It: Child- and Cop-killer Edition

MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow Dismisses ‘Fake’ ‘Platitudes’ of Conservative Mount Vernon Statement

Liberal MSNBC host Rachel Maddow on Monday mocked the Mount Vernon Statement, a conservative declaration of principles as ” a grandiose fake-parchmenty-looking thing .” The anchor first described the document as endorsing “the rule of law, and individual liberty, and opposing tyranny in the world, and the defense of family, neighborhood, community and faith.” [Audio available here .] Maddow then dismissed, “In other words, such generic ‘I love my mama’ platitudes that even a pinko-Commie-liberal-elite-infidel like me would be happy signing on to all but one paragraph of the whole Mount Vernon Statement.” (At one point, Maddow appeared to be mimicking the tone and voice of the late William F. Buckley.) The left-wing host didn’t explain which paragraph she objected to, perhaps it was the one about “limited government” or “market solutions.” However, if it has caught the ire of MSNBC, conservatives might want to learn more about it. To view the entire document, go here . To see prominent conservatives, including MRC President Brent Bozell, read the Mount Vernon Statement, see a previous NewsBusters blog. A transcript of the segment, which aired at 9:05pm EDT on June 21, follows: RACHEL MADDOW: Republicans have made a bunch of efforts in the last year to nail down exactly what it is they want to tell the American people they stand for. Remember the pizza party that Eric Cantor and Mitt Romney hosted last year? That was supposed to be the kickoff for the Republican Party`s new National Council for a New America. The plan was for Republicans to travel around the country, soliciting ideas from average Americans. Eric Cantor pulled the plug on that big idea last month after holding just one pizza event in the whole year, one little pizza party. And then there was this idea-soliciting effort from House Republicans – Americaspeakingout.com, an online forum for Americans to provide new ideas for the Republican Party platform. As the Associated Press noted this weekend, that effort is also not bearing much fruit for Republicans. If you go to the “Liberty and Freedom” page, for example, right now, you can see that the top suggested ideas are “Please protect my right to play poker,” and “Eliminate `don`t ask, don`t tell.`” Also, “Keep the Republicans out of our bedrooms” and “Ban handguns” and “Drop the idea that we`re a Christian country.” You think the Republican Party is ready to run with those ideas? From Americaspeakingout.com, their big ideas generator? Then there was You Cut, the House Republican project to let the American people literally set the legislative agenda for Republicans. People would vote online on what federal spending programs should be cut, and then House Republicans would propose those cuts, thereby slashing federal spending by 0.017 percent. The anti-spending Cato Institute here ridiculing House Republican for their effort to exchange their own initiative, their own leadership, for a meaningless social media gimmick. Then there was the Mount Vernon Statement, a grandiose fake-parchmenty-looking thing that conservatives signed on to as their statement of Constitutional conservatism for the 21st century, endorsing things like the rule of law, and individual liberty, and opposing tyranny in the world, and the defense of family, neighborhood, community and faith. In other words, such generic “I love my mama” platitudes that even a pinko-Commie-liberal-elite-infidel like me would be happy signing on to all but one paragraph of the whole Mount Vernon Statement. And if I fit into your definition of conservative, your definition of conservative is probably broken. It`s one thing to have the luxury to work out your principles in the abstract, to have your pizza parties and your parchmenty statements that talk about loving America and hating foreign aid or whatever. It`s all well and good until what you want government to do actually gets put to the test, like say when a giant, totally unforeseen catastrophe happens, like what is happening right now in the Gulf — the biggest environmental disaster ever in our country, plainly and inarguably caused by an oil company screwing up. It`s exposed deep rifts and deep disagreements among conservatives, among Republicans, about what to do and why.

Read more here:
MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow Dismisses ‘Fake’ ‘Platitudes’ of Conservative Mount Vernon Statement