The IUSB Vision Weblog

The way to crush the middle class is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation. – Vladimir Lenin

CNC: Rachel Maddow Ratings Down 20%. Predicts show cancelation.

Posted by iusbvision on July 8, 2009

[Welcome Gateway Pundit readers! – Editor] a popular cable news industry blog, now predicts that MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow will be canceled since the ratings are so low that it has fallen behind CNN’s Lou Dobbs re-runs.

I have watched Rachel Maddow. She has a cute smile and a very entertaining rhetorical style. She has spunk and in spite of the bad hair and wardrobe she is a likable character to be sure. Where Maddow falls down is on the substance. Once you have seen her show for a couple of weeks you have seen it all.

Maddow spins hard for the left, much like Sean Hannity does for the right, and while spin has its place, the spin still has to be directionally accurate and has to hold up so anyone doing 20 minutes of internet or public records research to see if it mostly holds up and more and more this is where Maddow gets in trouble.

We have taken Rachel Maddow to task a couple of times (1, 2), only to realize that correcting her could turn into a full time job. Apparently her viewers are figuring that out.

UPDATE – Phil Donahue made more ratings at MSNBC than Olby, but for MSNBC it is not about ratings. It is about the billions in contracts that GE has with the government and the kick backs GE sends to the Democrats, PAC’s and their lobbyist clients. It is about Obama taking the missile shield away from our allies in Eastern Europe and the next day Russia announces that it is doing new business with GE. GE has also been doing business in Iran using a subsidiary.

We quoted this article because it was interesting, not because we think MSNBC will yank Maddow. MSNBC’s ratings are so bad, and have been for so long that it has become rather obvious that GE is running it at a loss (and we define loss as at below opportunity costs) to keep the Democrats happy and the fat contracts flowing.

UPDATE II – Maddow claims that The Constitution does not have a preamble… – LINK.

UPDATE III – The editor’s favorite clip of Rachel Maddow in action!

UPDATE IVAndrew Breitbart takes on Maddow, leftist academia and “post-modernism” at CPAC

UPDATE VWatch Rachel Maddow Lie About Tax Cuts and Reconciliation

45 Responses to “CNC: Rachel Maddow Ratings Down 20%. Predicts show cancelation.”

  1. Mike Wallens said

    Now that the god awful Iraq War is off the headlines, Maddow and company have no cause that resonates with anyone other than the hard left. Goodbye to Rachel, say hello to Dan Abraham, Joe Scarborough, Phil Donahue and all the other ex MSNBC prime timers.

    [You mean the war that we won in spite of the far left investing themselves into America’s defeat using many of the the same arguments that Saddam Hussien was using with the zeal of his own defense attorney? – Editor]

  2. […] […]

  3. Mad at maddow said

    Why can these people report non-facts? Will she talk about Diane Watson’s racist comments and her “brightest leader I ever met-Fidel Castro” comment? How do these people get away with this anti America rhetoric? Wake up America. Get to a Tea Party.

  4. Brandon said

    I am so pleased to hear her ratings are floundering. This gives me hope that there are still reason based, sensible people in the world. Her show is horrible, and she caters to the obama administration blindly. she will try her best to make obama look good despite any situation. people are tired of this rhetoric. so long rachel, i’ll be glad to see you go.

  5. Paul said

    Hmm, her ratings are down and Fox’s are up? Just shows how low the IQ is of the average American.

    [It is too bad that you seem to lack the substance to make a real argument other than a trolling remark, but that is what we have come to expect. – Editor]

  6. Eric Heinemann said

    I watched MSNBC with the election of Obama, but mostly for their criticism of the prior administration. Upon realizing they were only political smear campaigners and soon after reasearching that Rockefeller was pro-socialisim (proof is in the artwork surronding the NBC building with the pro- EL DUCHE and U.S.S.R. artwork), I’m shocked she feels she can insult christians for their beliefs. Understand that MSNBC and the NBC network is pro-socialism to put it lightly. 10’s of thousands died Ms. Maddow in the fight against communist oppression and your career is a complete fraud and your shown no less than the Rockefellar foundations puppet. Shame on you!

  7. Rachel is gifted and our family loves her show said

    If you think a show needs canceling, please start with “morning Joe”. He is so arrogant and way too far to the right.

    [This really does speak a great deal about you. Joe is a moderate Republican. The simple truth is that those who you consider the far right are the same people that are closer to the views that the nations founders had. Here in America the nations founders established the center. Economic and religious freedom with self restraint for all. And while it could not be implemented perfectly, they continued to push towards that goal and as a result they unleashed the creative genius of man more than any other country on Earth. Centralized control over the economy and our lives is not what made America great, it is freedom from those things that did. So if you have any notions that you are the “center” it shows that denial is much more than just a river in Egypt.

    I linked to some of our other coverage of Rachel Maddow’s spin, if you are feeling spry please try to demonstrate with evidence that can be verified how I am mistaken – Editor]

  8. Callie said

    I watched her show for about 10 minutes. Feeling the urge to upchuck, I changed channels. I’ve seen nasty, but with Rachel, that word is too tame.

  9. kevin whittaker said

    please don’t best three hours on television hardball keith O and rachel M not too keen on ED

  10. The Bagman said

    How much money would you be willing to put on Maddow’s getting cancelled in the next, say, six months? Year? Would you give me odds? I’d love this, since you’d lose lots of money.

    Feel free to post your response here, in my comment, in an “editor’s note,” since the inability to allow someone to disagree with you in comments speaks to a profound insecurity with your position.

    [Do you realize how silly you look in trying to make a bet with someone when you do not post your name or email address? If you were to win a bet who would we send it to…..captain keyboard commando?

    Anyways on to the substance…..

    Phil Donahue made more ratings at MSNBC than Olby, but for MSNBC it is not about ratings. It is about the billions in contracts that GE has with the government and the kick backs GE sends to the Democrats AND their lobbyist clients. It is about Obama taking the missile shield away from our allies in Eastern Europe and the next day Russia announces that it is doing new business with GE. GE has also been doing business in Iran using a subsidiary.

    Actually, we quoted this article because it was interesting, not because we think MSNBC will yank Maddow. MSNBC’s ratings are so bad, and have been for so long that it has become rather obvious that GE is running it at a loss (and we define loss as at below opportunity costs) to keep the Democrats happy and the fat contracts flowing. How does it feel to be such a corporatist schill?

    By the way, any examination of the comments section will find several people who disagreed and posted, unfortunately for us none of them could make a very good argument. Just once we would like to find a leftist/corporatist with the brains to offer a substantive challenge. So far no such luck and with all due respect at this juncture you don’t appear to be too promising. – Editor]

  11. thor71 said

    Hah – talk about not reporting the facts – How do you square the topic of this thread with the below ratings?

    Even though MSNBC’s August 2009 ratings are not surprisingly down, compared to the August 2008 convention and election coverage, Rachel Maddow’s show has continued to grow. Maddow is up a whopping 61% among views 25-54, and 92% in total viewers over last year. Maddow’s show continues to become a force on MSNBC.

    I’ll tell you how – you can’t, because it wasn’t accurate. Nice try Cleetus.

    [“Maddow’s show continues to become a force on MSNBC”

    That is like being all state from Rhode Island.

    But since I am big on substance – here is TV Newser from September 29, 2009.

    Q3 Cable Ratings: FNC Shows Fill Top 10; #3 Network on Cable; Beck Grows Timeslot 136%
    Tuesday Sep 29, 2009
    If you’ve been following the cable news ratings, and we know you have, you’ll know Fox News has been dominating, even more than usual, in 2009. In the just-finished third quarter, Fox News beat CNN and MSNBC combined in Total Viewers and the A25-54 demo in both total day and primetime viewing. FNC is also the only cable news network to post across the board gains vs. Q3 ’08.

    • In Total Viewers, FNC was up 2% in primetime and up 8% in total day.

    • In A25-54 viewers, FNC was up 5% in primetime and up 12% in total day.

    • FNC was the third-ranked cable network behind ESPN and USA.

    • FNC had the top 10 programs in cable news. “The O’Reilly Factor” has been the #1 cable news show for 106 consecutive months. From 4pmET to 11pmET, all of FNC’s programs showed growth, most double digits:

    Rank/Show — Total Viewer / A25-54 demo growth
    2. “Hannity,” — 9% / 17%
    3. “Glenn Beck,” — 89% / 136%
    4. “On the Record,” — 16% / 21%
    5. “Special Report” — 20% / 34%
    6. “The FOX Report” — 9% / 18%
    9. “Your World” — 16% / 27%

    And for the month of September, FNC claimed the Top 13 programs in cable news in Total Viewers, which hasn’t happened since Nov. 2004. It was the network’s best month for the year in today day with Total Viewers and A25-54 viewers. Also, “America’s Newsroom” (9-11amET) with Megyn Kelly and Bill Hemmer had its highest rated month (and quarter) in A25-54 viewers.

    You lose. – Editor]

  12. thor71 said

    And jesus – reading the “editors” replies are a hoot as well. Some of these are priceless

    “The simple truth is that those who you consider the far right are the same people that are closer to the views that the nations founders had”

    According to who? List your (objective) sources and reasons why you believe this.

    “Do you realize how silly you look . . ”
    “This really does speak a great deal about you.”
    “It is too bad that you seem to lack the substance”

    Do you know what “ad hominem” means? If not, I highly recommend you look it up.

    [One can definately tell that you watch MSNBC.

    You pulled the “color” snippets out of context while deliberately leaving out and avoiding the substantive arguments and facts right next to them.

    Olby would be so proud…./sniff

    – Editor]

  13. Joey Tranchina said

    Why is this old and inaccurate trashing of Rachel Maddow at the top of the Google listing? Is is because someone is willing to pay or to manipulate search to put dated & inaccurate data on the top of the search-heap?

    Unlike Fox Faux News, RM does not require that you address her errors; she does that herself on her web page… nobody’s perfect but a few of the talking heads on TV have respect for facts.

    The passionate support of the American public for the obvious distortions of Fox News does not bode well for the future of your country. I think the failed educational system in America has made American voters too ignorant to guide the country to survival.

    Just like communism, conservatism has failed to meet the needs of the people. Conservatives talk about “Liberty,” but, in the end, they support the crushing oligarchy of the state-industrial complex, which makes a mockery of individual liberty. This is just foolish and childish doctrinaire-conservatism by obsessed little people with no lives to protect. In the health-care debate they support insurance companies not patients and assert that the problem is government; in the Ponzi schemes of Wall Street, they blame the poor people who got bad loans with escalating rates but not those who sold obscure derivatives with fraudulent ratings; in Afghanistan they see only military solutions, while they have squandered and exhausted our military in unnecessary wars. America is an idiocracy which I fear even a decent force as strong as President Obama will not be able to save from its own ugly, bigoted, cowardly and self-destructive impulses. RA,RA RA.

    PS. Please, PLEASE run Sarah Palin for President. She is proof of the extent to which you are delusional. As Republican grown-ups have publicly stated, a Palin candidacy would destroy the GOP. Please, America could use the clarity. Palin / Bachmann 2012.. Prediction: They would not carry three states.


    This is a typical example of the far left’s thinking. As you can see it is packed with emotionally derived platitudes designed to satisfy his emotional hang ups.

    I could debate this man point per point and completely dominate him on the substance and it would be easy. But with people with this degree of emotional attachment facts mean little, but who knows, there is always hope that Joey actually cares about the issues he is talking about instead of just satisfying his hostility.

    I will address a couple of his points for entertainment purposes.

    “they blame the poor people who got bad loans with escalating rates but not those who sold obscure derivatives with fraudulent ratings”

    No Joey, if you bothered to read the voluminous writing we have done on this very site on this subject. We blame government who at first forced lenders to give bad/high risk loans to Democrat constituency groups (and by the way they are trying to do it AGAIN with the Community Reinvestment Modernization Act which we wrote about) and then how government regulation actually incentivised the practice through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. We wrote about how the Sarbanes-Oxley law fixed the mark to market rules for those mortgage securities to make the problem worse.

    Joey, I invite you to read the material we have under our “Mortgage Crisis” category for yourself as it is packed with verifiable evidence. However Joey no one is fooled. I realize that you are not the least bit interested in examining any material that could burst your emotionally created world view.

    Joey did say one thing that interested me,

    “Conservatives talk about ‘Liberty,’ but, in the end, they support the crushing oligarchy of the state-industrial complex, which makes a mockery of individual liberty.”

    Oh how I wish he actually meant that. If he did he would be looking at the legislation, the lobbyists, the earmarks for lobbyist clients and the government picking winners and losers in the banking and financial industry and see that the ‘corporatism’ problem in the government is far, FAR worse in the Democratic Party than it ever has been with the GOP. That little deal Obama cut with big Pharma, the recent tobacco legislation. The amendment Chris Dodd slipped in the stimulus bill in conference that protected the bonuses of AIG, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and others all because those people receiving the bonuses were Chris Dodd’s largest donors.

    We have written about it at length and Michelle Malkin just wrote a book that catalogs it.

    Joey, if I thought for one minute that you were capable of taking one piece of advice from anyone at all, it would be this. If you were truly concerned with the merging of corporate power and state power to harm the consumer and harm liberty I would hope that you would start with the party that is in power currently.

    PS – If you also really cared about corporatism you would recognize that Sarah Palin tore down the Republican machine in Alaska that was rife with corporatist corruption. You would also realize that Michelle Bachmann has been one of the most vocal opponents of just the very thing you are complaining about. It is a shame that you are too blinded by hate to see that. – Editor]

  14. Joey Tranchina said

    As to the exalted ratings for FoxNews, people for decades paid to get into side-shows to see “The Geek” bite the heads off of live chickens. They paid; they watched; but, after the disgusting performance, they did not invite the geek home for dinner.

    [Actually, it’s Rachel Maddow who isnt being invited for dinner as her ratings are in the tank. But that doesn’t matter a bit as MSNBC’s model isn’t designed to generate ratings. MSNBC exists to please members of the government so that GE can get its multi-billion dolllar contracts lubed up and approved, not because their model for television is a profitable one.

    Joey, how does it feel to be a duped corporatist schill? – Editor]

  15. diane dearinger said

    I cannot even comprehand not seeing Rachel five nights a week. I look forward each night to be enlightened to the days events in such a refreshing way. Her integrity, her knowledge, her ease at handling herself with even the best of adversaries, provides such a quality hour to my day. I never cease to be amazed by her. I will quit watching MSNBC if she leaves the programming lineup.

    How can the ratings be correct? I know many people who love watching her as well–we are all amazed. Not everyone has email. Should they send letters?

    Frustrated at the possiblity,

    Diane Dearinger

  16. John Shaw said

    Ms. Maddow is a gift to TV journlism. Please do not deny us that gift. She is not afraid to confront both left and right view points. Keep her at her seat. In fact, strap her down so she can’t get away. She is a brilliant interviewer. Thanks. Johh Shaw

    [Hi John,

    Perhaps you know “diane” who commented below (comment 15), or more likely you are the same person posting with multiple names as you both are using the same IP address and the same Comcast account near San Francisco (Glenwood/Felton).

    I can understand you not spelling the word journalism correctly but to misspell your own name in the post is really quite telling. Nice try – Editor]

  17. Rik said

    Absolutely right, when first I saw this show I thought it a retaliation show to republican oriented talk shows. Second time it was wearing thin. In a sentence: a one trick pony. So biased it is unbeleivable, I am from Ireland and consider myself pretty liberal although I hate labels but this show is just ludicrous. I am calling this show out as I would hope republicans would call out shows that are overly biased toward their views. This show won’t last long probably. Gives democrats and liberalism a bad name.

    [Hi Rik,

    Thanks for your post and I have a few points to make myself. While there are still many authentic “liberals” still in the United States, none of them are in the Democratic Party leadership. Joe Lieberman was the last authentic liberal left in the Democratic leadership and he was driven out of the party by the new leftists that have taken over the party. There are many people in the Obama Administration and in the Democratic leadership that sing the praises of Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, Daniel Ortega, Chairman Mao, Zelaya, Marx, etc etc. Any genuine liberal would be repulsed by the far left, just as you are. – Editor]

  18. Richard H said

    I know that I have tried to give Rachel’s show a chance. It’s been very hard for me to even relate to some of her incredibly bias opinion’s. Im an Independent, like to see what both side of the fence are saying and make a decision. Frankly, I dont think I have seen one topic that wasnt complete garbage and completely bias, oh wait, she did get angry about dont ask dont tell not being taken care of and fails to remember that the nation is fighting 2 wars and incredibly worried about “health care reform”. It seems to me that the Obama administration writes for her. Between her and Kieth I can’t figure out if they are talking down to me or trying to convince me, it appears to be both. The tactics of the two shows are if you agree then you are a genius and completely original, if you dont you are a bigot and a zombie. I dont know who can stand to watch the shows they are as it was said the Shawn Hannity or Glenn Beck (without the tears) of the left. There was a time when NBC had something the Man’s name was Micheal Savage, whom I enjoy for his real emotion and comments, they at least seem genuine. Hope they ax the show soon, I would rather have Rachel in an unemployment line then belittle the masses with her propaganda.

    [I am with you on Savage, while I disagree with him at times and he certainly can be intemperate, at least you know from him its the best truth he is capable of. He is a smart and entertaining guy even though I think he can be a little far out from time to time. Hannity is a little too partisan and takes too many ad-homonym shots but when I do watch him it is because he has a guest I want to hear. Hannity himself no longer makes me think, he no longer tells me anything I don’t already know. As far as Beck, the left deliberately mis-characterizes him and smears him. Beck is insightful and has proved himself to be accurate on what he reports even though he cries on TV.

    MSNBC exists to help keep Democrats happy for GE. MSNBC’s business model is not optimized to get the largest audience by a long shot. Thanks for dropping by. – Editor]

  19. […] than Joy Behar, and yet there are some out there who think what she has to say means something. Knowledgable media sources have noted she has fallen behind even Lou Dobbs re-runs and is set for […]

  20. Mjdzfun said it any wonder? She just announced on her show last night that John Boehner is confused about the preamble of the Constitution.
    Rachel, nnnn, not, nope…BOTH the Constitution AND the Declaration of Independence have preambles. Easy enough to fact check. Let’s see if she corrects herself on tonight’s show after the janitor points out her mistake to her.

  21. Charles said

    The far left get their news from the guy who hangs out a the coffee shop. Independents and moderates don’t want to watch this stuff.

  22. Joey Tranchina said

    You wrote: “Joey, if I thought for one minute that you were capable of taking one piece of advice from anyone at all, it would be this. If you were truly concerned with the merging of corporate power and state power to harm the consumer and harm liberty I would hope that you would start with the party that is in power currently.”

    This is absurd.

    [So by your own statement, it is absurd to start looking at the party in power. Ok therefore the opposite must be true, thus you believe that the first thing to do is look at the party who is all but powerless in the government right now, the party who doesn’t control the legislative or media policy agenda. While I have no doubt at all that you see this as “perfectly logical”, thinking people know that you are just pulling an emotionally generated partisan play with no substance to back yourself up. – Editor]

    Both parties are riddled with corruption. There are also strong forces in both parties who oppose corruption. To claim that either political party is the solution to the ingrained systemic corruption in our political system is baseless partisan blather. All those who oppose this degenerate state of our political machines, might want to get together to seek solutions. I do not know how to do that with this faux conservative Supreme Court that equates bribery with “speech.” Any one-party solution to the problem of political corruption in America is worse than naive; it is insultingly stupid.

    [And after your partisan play, you claim to try and assume the high road by talking bipartisan and decrying the “one party solution”. Well Joey, if you are so skeptical of the “one party solution” than why is examining the corporatist/corruption problem on the party in total power first so absurd?

    The obvious answer is that your rhetoric here is just that. Your defense of the one party rule (by the far left) and admitted acceptance of “a few radicals” as you wrote at Huffington Post shows that what you said here isn’t anything close to sincere.

    By the way, I never claimed “a party” is the solution to the corruption in our political system. Of course since you have carefully avoided discussing the merits of any substantive arguments on this blog & in my previous comments to you, I am not at all surprised that now you are just making things up as this is typical behavior for an emotionally attached partisan like yourself. – Editor]

    If I could pass any law that would offer the possibility of change, it would involve the public financing of elections by a proportion of the votes all parties received in an average of the prior two elections. This system would give third parties the opportunity to move up with the wise use of campaign funds. There would be no limit on the amount of work-hours that citizens would be able to contribute the the party or the cause of their choice. That would be the first of a two part plan; the second part would be simple. From the day public funding began it would be a felony, with a mandatory minimum five year sentence, for any national politician to accept a “free” cup of coffee.

    [I am sure that you would want public financing of elections, this always leads to leadership of parties that are the most ideologically extreme, it also leads to rules and the misapplication of the rules by government that supports parties that seek to increase government power. There is example after example of this in Europe. Judges get appointed who rule for parties that they support even if the facts go the other way. I wrote a massive paper on this for my political parties class and this can be demonstrated with relative ease.

    In your far left world, government is the bank, the dealer, and controls the rules of the house. – Editor]

    Do you really think you can change America’s political system while our elected representatives are bought and traded like baseball cards? I don’t.

    [As I stated previously with substance that you ignored, we should elect people who have proven records of fighting corruption (like Sarah Palin), not Chicago style politicians who surf the most corrupt machine in the country. Do you honestly believe that Obama was the Chair of the Blagojevich re-election campaign because he was such a clean boy scout? – Editor]

    So much partisan caca… No one who supports Sarah Palin can be serious about fixing anything in politics. The woman is an under-educated, untraveled, incompetent and narcissistic buffoon. I didn’t need to quote David Brooks to come to that conclusion; that is essentially what I wrote within a week after John McCain nominated her, in what was the terminal mistake of his political career. The nomination of Governor Palin marked Senator McCain as unfit to hold the highest office. Palin has the Reagan disease — the inability to distinguish fact from fantasy. President Reagan got away with it, because he was consummately skilled at inspiring confidence; Sarah Palin is not. Those who advance her candidacy, advocate for the destruction of the Republican Party or worse for the country.

    As to Michelle Bachmann, she is such an obvious and repeated liar that no one who cares about integrity in politics can or will ever take her seriously. Anyone who claims that those concerns make me a “Liberal” is an idiot.

    [Wow, with all that name calling and not a single verifiable fact to back it up and then to completely pretend that all of the substantive aspects of her career I mentioned the last time you posted was just never stated shows me that your analysis is incompetent at best and shows no ability to function in the arena of verifiable facts and ideas.

    I have seen your comments on other web sites. You are a hater, who has not posted one verifiable fact in every comment that I was able to find. Every political web site gets haters like you to visit them from time to time. People like you are all the same, rank emotionalism consumes your very existence and verifiable facts are avoided because the truth often affords you a reality not to your liking. In short, you simply do not have what it takes, intellectually and psychologically to function in the arena of verifiable facts. Posters like you are also lazy because you are completely unwilling to do the homework to really do anything but spout partisan platitudes that cannot withstand 10 minutes of substantive scrutiny. All the while, you take great pride in your own ignorance. IF you think that there is anything unique about your mindset than you have fooled yourself again, because like I said, haters like you are a dime a dozen and your behavior is in lock step with each other.

    Since verifiable facts are what you hate I am going to give you some more to pretend that don’t exist.

    FACT: The economy under Reagan was the greatest post war boom till that time. Interest rates and unemployment fell to acceptable levels. In fact 8 of the top 10 economic indicators recovered and government revenue doubled in spite of lowering the top marginal tax rate from 70% to 28%.

    FACT: Reagan was re-elected by a huge landslide and Soviet military officers stated on the record that it was his actions that brought the Soviet Empire to its knees.

    FACT: When Reagan was getting missiles in Europe the far left was playing the appeasement card and opposed SDI and almost very new weapons system and was proposing a nuclear freeze.

    FACT: At election time, Sarah Palin had five years more experience in elective office then Barack Obama. Palin brought down a massive corruption machine that involved energy companies and the Alaska Republican Party. In fact Alaska’s corruption was so bad before she cleaned it up that only Chicago, New Orleans and New Jersey were worse.

    FACT: Palin played the crucial role in sending people in her own party to justice (Stevens would have went to jail but the prosecutor blew the case), fined or forced from office. She forced through new ethics laws and totally reformed the bidding, contracts and appropriations process that was wracked with cronyism. Obama was a long term member of the most corrupt political machine in the country and did nothing to clean it up.

    FACT: Palin was a very popular city councilman, and mayor who oversaw the tremendous growth of Wasilla from a village to the fourth largest city in the state and helped found its police department and all of the modern city services the city enjoys now.

    FACT: Palin took on her own incumbent governor and defeated him, stopped many wasteful appropriations, sold the governor’s jet, fired the personal chef, expanded state services while cutting the state budget by 10% and sent more money home to the Alaska citizens.

    Fact: Even with four to five kids trailing along with her she cut Governor’s expenses from the previous governor by 80%.

    FACT: The Alaska Governor is the only governor that gets regular national security briefings and has a role in defense policy because of the unique position Alaska is in our national defense.

    FACT: Sarah Palin is a recognized authority on energy policy.

    FACT: No one outside of the fast contracting influence of the New York Times (that will likely soon go out of business) cares for what David Brooks has to say. His career is one of a serial name caller (like you) with little to no real substance on policy. Within the Republican Party I have more influence and certainly far more credibility than David Brooks has. David Brooks only gets media attention by the far left elite media because he claims to be a Republican who trashes other Republicans. If he stopped trashing Republicans he would be ignored by the elite media too. Remember when David Frum & Brooks tried to get their “New Majority” site going. It got next to no hits and no support. By contrast Michelle Malkin’s online ventures get millions of hits every day as does Sarah Palin’s Facebook blog.

    FACT: Barack Obama voted present over 130 times as a state senator in Illinois. Was a high profile cog in the corrupt Chicago machine, and used his spot in the US Senate to run for president and held exactly ZERO hearings for the foreign policy subcommittee that he chaired. He milked his Senate seat. Now Obama is breaking his campaign promises at a furious pace. – Editor]

  23. Joey Tranchina said

    Your statement:”There is example after example of this in Europe. Judges get appointed who rule for parties that they support even if the facts go the other way. I wrote a massive paper on this for my political parties class and this can be demonstrated with relative ease.”

    My first responses: Bush v. Gore… or is amnesia an essential element in you political platform

    #2 Americans would be very lucky to live with the sort of judging that is normal in Europe, Do you know anything, outside of your blog-bubble about the criminal assembly-line injustice, in grossly overburdened American courts? Do you know, for example, that America has a higher percentage of its citizens in prison than any nation on earth, including Russia, Iran and Communist China? Do you know for example, that it is normal in many districts in America for prosecutors to have conviction rates in the 95-97% range, when virtually every study in criminology indicates that about 80% of people who are arrested are guilty of the crimes for which they are charged? Can you see the obvious injustice in that disparity? It’s funny to hear about the dangers of one party rule from people who were silent when the Republican congress was rubber-stamping the whims of the imbecile president W and vice-versa that president, who could not find his veto pen, was enabling the unwise decisions of a profligate Republican congress.

    FACT: your points about Senator Obama are old news. Every politician breaks campaign promises; the things that your sort of Republican seems most upset about is the promises that he is working very hard to keep. Your calling him “high profile cog in the corrupt Chicago machine” is typical of a McCarthyite smear, It’s called guilt by association. Unless you have some evidence of personal corruption, it is the sort of charge that discredits its maker more than it tarnishes its intended victim.

    The following statement is not as partisan as you would like to imagine it. I have supported many Republicans — eg. I supported the 2000 John McCain of the “Straight Talk Express,” but not the pathetic shell of that man who ran in 2008 — but I will tell you in writing: If America ever elected Sarah Palin as President, I would hand back my passport. To me that would be a sign that America had given in to its worst impulses and was willing to turn its future over to a demagogic know-nothing with ugly fringe opinions… I would not be a citizen of a country that had the future that a Palin presidency would surely create. I say that believing that there is absolutely ZERO chance that the American people would ever be that stupid and with the fond hope that the extremist wing of he GOP will get the opportunity to run that foolish experiment,

    PPS. I am not an idle name-caller. As I said, Michelle Bachmann is, in indisputable fact, a serial liar. Would you like a list of the lies that she has told on tape and then denied along with the list of absolutely psychotic claims that she has made? If Palin and Bachmann are the best the GOP can do it should go away and make room for a principled Libertarian Party with a splinter party of Fundamentalist whack-jobs, whose main agenda is to ridicule, attack and dispute other people’s rights, on the basis of their religion. A tactic that has diverted our eyes from the real issues of governance, while predatory scum have taken control of both political parties. There is no rational basis for making the attack on corruption — reform of which is essential for America’s survival — to be a partisan issue. There is every reason to attack influence peddling and the pandering to corporate profits over simple justice, no matter which politicians or parties are guilty. Our problem is that the system is so corrupt that it is impossible to get anything done without “playing the game.”

    Sarah Palin as shown in her book, is a “thin-skinned,”petty and vindictive score-settler…” To me, that sounds a lot like “Richard Nixon is the future of the Republican Party.” … and I just said “Good Luck.”


    I don’t hate you, but being totally straight with you is the very best thing I can do for you.

    You are very little more than an idle name caller.

    This is evidenced by the fact that when presented facts that blow your old arguments away, you change the subject to something else (like prisons) and proceed to trash people and attack their motives again without any verifiable facts to back yourself up. You have further demonstrated everything that I observed about you.

    You didn’t even have the courage to concede that your previous “argument” was simply bested by the facts.

    Your statement about myself referring to the Chicago machine as being corrupt is a “smear” – wow. I have seen denial of easily demonstrated reality before but this takes the cake. Do you really want to go there? The corruption of conflicts of interests and payoffs in this White House is SO very well documented. We have documented a great deal of it in our “Corporatism” category. There are already fully sourced books published about corruption in this administration and it is less than 1 year old.

    Do you really want to go back and examine Obama in the Chicago Machine? Shall we re-examine how he helped divert the Annenburg funds for the kids to his ACORN pals and others? We can bury you in a small mountain of verifiable facts starting with Chicago and moving forward. This information is not difficult to find and is easily available if you bothered to actually look into the guy you voted for.

    Joey, it seems clear that you really know next to nothing about Obama or his recent past and since you have no facts to present you cry “McCarthyism”….how lame can you get? This goes to show the lengths you will go to avoid serious substantive argument.

    Palin’s book has not been out for 24 hours yet and you read all 400 pages already?? Or is it that you are so eager to hate her for no substantive reason that you just couldn’t restrain yourself.

    Joey, you are a hater. You are lock step the typical, fact avoiding, internet hateful trolling poster which every blogger has seen a thousand times. You should show a residue of introspective and just accept it. You smear people, any and all facts that are contrary notwithstanding. You have demonstrated such an obvious lack of introspective that everyone but you can see that the only one here who meets your contextual definition of a McCarthyite is yourself. Pot meet kettle.

    If you want real thinkers to take you seriously you must abandon this rank emotionalism and embrace some Aristotelian logic & ethics in argument. Public schools and most colleges no longer teach this so I hope that you can learn this on your own. – Editor]

  24. Joey Tranchina said

    You “know” too many things that are not true to debate with you, Everything you claimed to know about President Obama’s involvement in “corruption” is in the realm of “facts” that only you and your fringe-friends accept. Your attempt at “Guilt by association” with obsessively documented but unsubstantiated facts, fits the definition of McCarthyism. If that is too complicated for you, let me just call it politically motivated slander, on behalf of a party whose utter irresponsibility and corruption put our country in the most precarious position (economically, militarily, internationally and ethically), in my lifetime.

    [Amazing, without even knowing what facts I am referring to, without naming them, you have declared that it is all “unsubstantiated” and backed it up with no other reason other than “because you say so”. The Chicago Tribune published many articles about some of Obama’s corruption, Michelle Malkin has a best selling book which the far left could not refute on the subject, there are other books about Obama in Illinois politics that came out before the election that were unrefuted, and that little bit about how the Annenberg money for the kids was used to help far left causes is only totally substantiated by the University of Chicago papers that they tried to hide.

    And not only did you not refute anything under my “Corporatism” category, I doubt that you even read it.

    You have not substantiated one claim you have made and the only factoid you mentioned was a poll from 3 years before an election which means nothing.

    What a pity it must be to be you. To fill up paragraph after paragraph and say nothing substantive at all. To watch me destroy your arguments one at a time, just to have you pretend that it didn’t happen only to change the subject and bring up something else of which you have no idea what you are talking about, like now the new boogie man is Karl Rove.

    And you dare call Sarah Palin an “ignorant twit”. Well at least she knows how to cut a wasteful budget, tear down a billion dollar corruption ring, fix a bidding process so it is not a crony process, cut the Governor’s expense budget by 80%, found a police department, get city services running smoothly from nothing and do so all while lowering property taxes. Palin has accomplished all of this.

    Joey, face it, you don’t care about verifiable facts. All you have is your hate, you call names, you make innuendo’s but never do you even make the attempt to back up your delusions with anything verifiable; it is obvious at this point that you are either just not bright enough to do so, or so emotionally disturbed that you avoid verifiable facts in fear of having your bubble busted.

    I tried you get you into the realm of substance and facts, but as they say, you can drag a horse to water but you cant make him think. I was hoping that you would respond to something substantive, but you have proven yourself to be just another ignorant internet troll.

    You couldn’t have any kind of serious conversation with me about the President’s history, Governor Palin’s, Cong. Bachmann’s, or Haliburton’s history because you have demonstrated after repeated attempts that you simply aren’t capable of it.

    By the way, you obviously couldn’t figure this out on your own so I guess I will have to spell it out for you. I didn’t say anything about Cong. Bachmann because you gave me nothing substantive to talk about or respond to.

    I have given you every chance to post a link, to make a real argument, quote someone or something to get into some substance, only to have you just ignore that and continue name calling. The most amusing thing is that I am confident that you have convinced yourself that you are a man of deep intellectual substance. – Editor]

    ACORN — an organization that engages in the subversive activity of getting poor people to register to vote — is not a swear word in my world. Compare ACORN’s obvious abuses of power with those… say of Blackwater or Haliburton, both of which companies have documented violations that are far more discrediting than the stupid and disgusting violations that ACORN employees perpetrated. Where is your outrage over blatant corporate fraud, war-profiteering there… aren’t those more serious crimes or is registering poor people to vote against your values? Your politically motivated assertions of voter fraud by ACORN have all failed. PS. Why isn’t Karl Rove in prison?

    Did I say that I judged Governor Palin by the contents of her book? I did not. I haven’t read her book and I won’t. There is no reason to read it. She is a nonentity in the real future of US politics. She will have a right-wing talk show where I doubt that her schtich will wear well. If you think that failed-ex-governor Palin is the future of the GOP, you are delusional.

    As to me being called a “hater,” by you, that’s a compliment. If I truly HATED the Republican Party, I’d be doing precisely what you do. I’d be advocating for a charismatic, but utterly clueless, extreme-right-wing fanatic, to rise up and divide the party, with fringe opinions (based-in primitive religious belief) that are shared and supported by only a permanent minority of the American people. Sarah Palin is not a serious candidate for any national office; she is not the rebirth of Ronald Reagan, for that America can be very grateful. She is a narcissistic, small-town, small-minded opportunist, with gigantic delusions of grandeur. The world would turn its back on an America that elected an ignorant imbecile like Mrs. Palin. She probably doesn’t think that matters but the fact is, there are hundreds of millions of people who don’t have moose to shoot for dinner, who do not dare to depend upon her values.

    “« USA Today/Gallup 43% say they would vote for Palin for President” ARE YOU KIDDING? Look at the polls in Alaska. To get elected to public office Palin would have to go back to Wasilla. I’m pretty sure she could be re-elected mayor. Her office would then be in a City Hall that James Carville appropriately described as looking “like a bait-shop in Louisiana.” Do you think Jesus will call Mrs. ego-trip will go there?

    I am perfectly happy to let my reputation rest on the opinions I have expressed here. I don’t need another clever, condescending response. Keep this post and read it back in 2012; then tell me the wisdom of your vision of America. I say that this ignorant twit, Sarah Palin, will have worn out her welcome and have no role in real-world politics. And, if by some major miscalculation (10,000 to 1 odds), Palin did get the Republican nomination, I say that the GOP will not carry six states.

    The only caveat to that is total economic collapse; we all know the history of fringe-right-wing parties getting elected by starving and terrified people. Sadly, we also know the outcome of that desperate judgement. Barring that insanity borne of desperation, Sarah Palin has no future in American Politics.

    PS. I did notice that you did not say anything about my comments on the liar & looney-tune, Michelle Bachmann. Since her lies are so explicitly documented there is hardly any point in attempting to deny it. That’s just as well.

  25. Joey Tranchina said

    “[By the way, you obviously couldn’t figure this out on your own so I guess I will have to spell it out for you. I didn’t say anything about Cong. Bachmann because you gave me nothing substantive to talk about or respond to.

    I have given you every chance to post a link, to make a real argument, quote someone or something to get into some substance, only to have you just ignore that and continue name calling. The most amusing thing is that I am confident that you have convinced yourself that you are a man of deep intellectual substance. – Editor]”

    Dear Editor: I just read a poll that 23% of those asked said that they would like to see Sarah Palin run for president. You can count me in that number. If she runs in 2012 — and baring a serious candidate — I will vote for her in the California Republican primary.

    [A new poll that came out today has her approval at 47% and now I will do something that you are incapable of doing – I will post evidence – – Editor]

    However, I did not come to debate you on Palin’s public record which is too obviously flawed to need my explication.

    [Of course you did, you came here obsessing about Palin. She is a politician with a long record of service, it only seems reasonable that her record be examined. Except you are not a reasonable person, you are a hater who trolls internet blogs.

    So tell me what part of her record do you find so flawed?

    Was it that she brought down one of the largest government corruption rings in the country, revamped a crony lined bidding process with new ethics laws, cut the governors expenses by 80%, cut the Alaska state budget by 10% while still maintaining service levels and sending more money back to the citizenry? Was it how she took Wasilla from a tiny village to the fourth largest city in Alaska and got all of its city departments up and running and lowered property taxes in the process? – Editor]

    I came to say that, at this point, anyone, who can not see that Sarah Palin is an incompetent, vindictive, demagogic, narcissistic, narrow-minded imbecile, is a fool.

    [This, coming from the guy who claims that he is not an idle name caller. – Editor]

    This is not a college dorm debate. We are discussing the future of a deeply troubled nation. Former Governor Palin does not have the minimal qualifications to enter that discussion; on top of that, her base is far too narrow to elect anyone, even a thoughtful extreme-right-wing candidate. I hope you get a chance to fun your candidate, because the idiot-wing of the Republican Party, for which you advocate, deserves to fail.

    [Of course it isn’t a college dorm debate, if it were maybe you could have access to some evidence, or something, anything to verify your outlandish claims. But nope – you avoid evidence, both mine and anything to back up what you say, like the plague. – Editor]

    I have written extensively about Michelle Bachmann’s lies; I have no need to re-litigate her litany of insanity, but for the sake of specificity, defend her comments on Hardball calling for an investigation of the “Un-Americanism” of members of the United States Congress. Which lie are you going to use? Are you going to repeat her lie that she didn’t say it; or her office’s lie that she didn’t mean it; or her apologist’s lie that the Devil, Chris Matthews, made her do it? Or are you going to admit that Michelle Bachmann is the most irresponsible member currently serving in congress… probably not… so, pick a lie.

    [Again no evidence, no links, no video’s nada… you can tell this guy is one of the 3 or 4 people that actually watches MSNBC cant you? I have only been asking him for something I can verify for days now. What else is an editor to do except ban this joker for trolling? – Editor]

    I think it is funny that you cite Michelle Malkin, who I stopped reading after she attempted to justify one of the great stains on the spirit of America and one of the great acts of unjustified cowardice in our history (i.e. the internment of Japanese Americans during WWII). Malkin’s ugly, fearful vision of America colors her reporting of facts; which may be why her book sold well but caused nothing to happen. You fallaciously and absurdly call me a “hater” then you quote this creep, Michelle Malkin… good luck.

    [Aha the old Malkin smear. Of course those who actually read the book know better. Malkin is of a tiny oriental minority herself. Her book is about the national security case that pushed the government to make such a policy. Malkin doesn’t claim that internment was some kind of great thing at all. What she shows is that in spite of the mistakes of that time there were real national security lessons to be learned from that time. For example, do you have any idea how many Japanese in the United States swore an oath to the emperor after Pearl Harbor? … of course you don’t…

    Of course you don’t care what the book really says. All you care about is smearing people.

    By the way Joey, I have written about the Kamatsu case as a bad ruling. Oh that’s right you don’t do evidence or research so I am going to have to explain that to you. It was the court case where the judges redefined the Constitution to make internment “legal”.

    Does the word “Moonbat” mean anything to you?

    Bye Joey! – Editor]

  26. tony hartmann said

    You do a fantastic job shooting down the fanatical unsubstantiated claims presented by the zealots who pollute the internet. Hopefully your efforts are not in vain and some of these people will come out of their ideological caves.

    [Thank you Tony! :-) – Editor]

  27. Matt said

    Great job refuting these morons on the left. They are the only people stupid enough to control California, default on all of their bonds and still think progressive fiscal policies work. Watch Moody’s take away the US’ triple-A rating. I give it 5 months.

    [Thanks Matt,

    If memory serves Moody’s warned that it will happen on the current course in 4-6 years, but your point is well taken as once you screw the bond holders confidence goes out the window. Notice how the Democratic Leadership didn’t bat an eye at the Moody’s news. I don’t like to castigate someones motives without substance as the left always does, but in this case the substance is clear. The far left leadership is using the Cloward-Piven / Saul Alinksy strategy to blow up the currency and enact sweeping central control of the economy. The more decisions that the Democratic Leadership make that no economist worth a darn would do, the more convinced I become that it is no accident.

    I do not make these statements in a vacuum as we, and many others, have documented the corruption and the dangers of the actions of the administration and the Democratic Leadership in detail. Now it is just a matter of educating the American people to what is going on as fast as possible. – Editor]

  28. Mark said

    Rachel Maddow will hopefully see the light and change her ways

  29. Vicki said

    I find her to be extremely unprofessional and obnoxious. Standards in journalism have certainly dropped. Maybe the reason she requires constant correction is that her show is not really about the facts–It’s about the spin.

  30. Steve said

    I will never watch MSNBC until they properly remove Rachael Maddow. I haven’t seen one report from her that holds any level of accuracy. Spins are a way of life now, we have to just bear with them but outright deception is not yet acceptable even with some of the media who disgraces reporting. Maddow has a cause but using the media to promote her own causes and feelings is a waste and shameful. I also have begun telling people to turn off MSNBC due to Maddow. I am not one to get engaged in anothers mess but she is so bad I feel obligated to speak up and let everyone know. What’s interesting, I haven’t yet been told by anyone they like her or agree with her or even that they belive her, she is the worst ever and needs to go promptly.

  31. Wil Burns said

    I love these generic comments about Maddow. OK, here’s a report of hers that was totally accurate, the links between Dick Armey and the astro turf health care protests at town meetings. Her analysis tonight on the new Surpeme Court decision on campaign financing was also trenchant. Now, Mr. Blogger, what’s fascinating about you is that you don’t assail anyone from the Right, so I’m sure you’ll be visiting your insecure vitriole upon me, so have at it!

    [Hi Wil,

    Dick Armey hooked on to the Tea Party movement and made some hey over it to be sure, he is probably sincere, but your statement assumes that there would have been no Tea Party movement without Dick Armey and that is where you go wrong. When Rick Santelli went off on Obama policy on CNBC his was the voice that kicked it off and there was no stopping it. Several credible polls show Tea Party polling ahead of Republicans and Democrats, and does anyone believe that it was Dick Armey who plotted it all? Big movements have all sorts of people latch on to them, and being a professor of environmental studies who thinks he knows something about politics, you should know this.

    Most Tea Parties banned any politicians from speaking including the ones I attended.

    Maddow’s analysis of the Supreme Court decision was likely the same partisan lies that Sen. Chuck Schumer put out. The simple truth is that our campaign finance laws not only benefitted one side over the other, both in the letter of the law and their enforcement, but the law was clear that some companies and organizations had limits on their political speech and some did not. The law, like so many made by progressives on both sides of the isle, tried to pick winners and losers, which is fundamentally unconstitutional under a little concept called “equal justice under the law”, which is why the Court tossed it out and right they should have.

    Last but not least, lets talk about astroturfing….

    You mean like this video where an SEIU/ACORN organizer is teaching citizens how to shout down people at town hall meetings who ask inconvenient questions – LINK.

    Or right after JP Morgan bank got TARP money from the government they turned right around and gave 5 million to ACORN – LINK.

    Or Like how Democrats were caught bussing in ACORN/SEIU people to townhall meetings – LINK.

    Or how SEIU union thugs have been violenetly attacking people speaking out against a government take over of health care – LINK.

    Or you mean ACORN protestors and other protestors who were supplied with high production value signs and equipment to make a show for the media as all of these pictures make so clear here – LINK.

    Or how ACORN invented a front group for “Anti-Capitalism” protests here – LINK.

    If you want to see some genuine Tea Party people, by all means take a look here LINK.

    Now Wil, I know that little things like these objective facts presented above mean little to you, being a retired professor of environmental studies as you are I know that your mission is to use environmentalism as a crutch to indoctrinate kids into Marxism and trick them into believing that if we just had a centralized planned economy with little freedom, that “elites” like you can be our saviors….

    People who have such a view almost always have a post modernistic philosophy, meaning that there is no objective reality and that “truth” is constructed between your ears and is presented in such a way that is convenient for you and your agenda. So I do not expect the facts to have any affect on you whatsoever, but others who see this will have another example of just how far academia has fallen.

    As far as your statement that I never turn my ample intellectual guns on people on the right; if you consider Mike Huckebee, John McCain and Mike Oxley as people on the right than perhaps you should use this site’s search feature and see what I originally had to say about their record.

    But no worries, we have ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, New York Times, Newsweek, LA Times, Washington Post, Associated Press, LA Times and most other newspapers, demeaning what you consider the right almost daily. If it is leftist propaganda you seek, you are in no danger of running out of a great supply of it any time soon.

    Since you are a big fan of Rachel Maddow, I thought that you might enjoy my favorite clip of her in action…

    – Editor]

  32. tio said

    Maddow and Olberman are never going to match Fox’s ratings monopoly on elderly shut-ins and those who demand rightwing ideological rigor in preference, where necessary, to mainstream scientific knowledge (witness Fox’s recent anti-global warming campaign based on snow in the Northeast!)

    MSNBC recognizes this, clearly. Maddow is one of their hottest properties ever. You figure it out.

    [So brave of you to post anonymously.

    Elderly shut ins?? Fox News has more Democrats watching AND more independents watching than MSNBC does. Fox News beats MSNBC in every demographic, including the coveted 18-45. The numbers are only posted regularly.

    Friends, this is another example of how the far left are “post-modernists” – meaning that their “reality” is a normative construct of their mind. There is no such thing as objective reality to people who think like this, there are no truths that are self evident. To them the truth is whatever suits them at the moment.

    In spite of objective reality, the individual who wrote the comment above really believes this and no amount of evidence will ever change that persons mind.

    As I stated before, the far left regards this level of intellectual dishonesty as a virtue. – Editor]

  33. […] Breitbart slammed failed MSNBC host Rachel Maddow at CPAC yesterday. The Politico caught up with Andrew for the interview: […]

  34. Dave said

    This is a bit off topic, but I understand that MSNBC has been criticizing the Tea Partiers for not featuring blacks?

    Interesting input for a network that doesnt have one black regular commentator, or contributor.

    [There have been plenty of black Tea Party people in video’s featured on this blog and on the Glenn Beck Program – Editor]

  35. […] Posts CNC: Rachel Maddow Ratings Down 20%. Predicts show cancelation.MSNBC's Rachel Maddow Doesn't Know The Constitution: Claims It Has No Preamble.Obama Sued Citibank […]

  36. […] Breitbart slammed failed MSNBC host Rachel Maddow at CPAC yesterday. The Politico caught up with Andrew for the […]

  37. Tory said

    So, when was Rachel Maddow supposed to be cancelled?

    [May I suggest that you reread the ENTIRE piece for comprehension? – Editor]

  38. […] Posts CNC: Rachel Maddow Ratings Down 20%. Predicts show cancelation.Obama Sued Citibank Under CRA to Force it to Make Bad Loans – UPDATEDScientific American thinks you […]

  39. […] a spending problem not a revenue one. Like I said before, correcting Maddow could fast become a full time job. Reducing the capital gains tax rate from 20% to 15% increased capital gains tax receipts by 79% […]

  40. Bryon Watkins said

    It just hit me. I was flipping through channels one day, and realized why so many men talk about Faux News. Look at the types of women they have as journalist. The short skirts, blonde hair, and decent looking (6 or 7 out of 10). Like they always say. Men are attracted to physical looks first. Not to be a pig or something, but it’s true, and I challenge any man to say differently. Then when I used to look at Faux, I also realized. They make a lot of opinionated statements with no substance behind it. Then about a year ago. I was surfing the T.V. channels again, and saw Rachel Maddow. I noticed things she says can be backed up everytime. When she’s wrong, which is very little, she corrects herself the next day. Now, from time to time, I want to see what opinions Faux News says, and when Hannity flat out lied, and said Clinton left George Idiot Bush Jr. a deficit. I stopped watching Faux except when I see Geraldo Rivera. One of very few who makes sense on Faux. In conclusion.

    I submitted before the conclusion. The best facts I loved of all were how Rachel proved, for days how the GOP Liars lied about the Stimulus which created many jobs in the Republican districts. Like Rachel also said. Hey current Washington D.C. GOP Liars. Don’t you know we fact check you idiots?


    I see you chose not to examine the facts in this very post, or the others that we have posted about Maddow. It would seem that you didn’t even read the post before you started typing.

    Now lets address the nonsense you just posted.

    Point 1 – On Hannity, are you telling me that when Clinton left office there was no national debt, Clinton did enjoy about 2 years of a yearly surplus but the debt was still there, a surplus that was brought about by tax cuts for economic growth and welfare reform that Clinton worked with Newt Gingrich and John Kasich on. Without the GOP Congress that would have never happened, which I am prepared to demonstrate if you are fool enough to challenge me on the point.

    Welfare Reform was a huge success and while Clinton first opposed it Dick Morris talked him into signing it and since it has become the shining star of his legacy. Obama opposed welfare reform and it was reversed in the stimulus package by the way.

    Point 2 – The “stimulus” was 787 billion dollars. About 4% of that was for projects that were as close to shovel ready as government can be, several of which were in some GOP districts, some were with Democrat Mayors in GOP districts, or Democrat Senators with GOP House districts in them.

    While you can be very proud of that 4% it does not justify what is still a very badly conceived spending bill that is being used a as slush fund to prop up states with large public sector unions (SEIU) and temporarily helped out states with Medicare expenses. Most of the stimulus is being held until election season.

    So while sometimes Maddow lies, most often she tells a half truth, or in this case a 4% truth and wiped her feet on it. Of course, since you didn’t address any of the facts we posted in the article or others on this web site, I have little hope that you would try to engage me on matters of substance, or that you are even capable of it.

    Your argument boils down to this, quite simply, if I wanted to add trillions to the debt in hopes of implementing the Cloward-Piven strategy, all I would have to do is sprinkle a residue of the money in opposing member’s districts so when they opposed the bill you could call them a bunch of hypocrits. Smart people see through that kind of nonsense. – Editor]

  41. I’m not going to spend any time prefacing with just how pro-American I am, or the extent to which I’ve culled out most of the lunatics from my life and stood my ground with them whenever they started spouting off their liberal bullshit talking points… but, that being said, Maddow did one piece which I not only found impressive, but that no one else on her side of the fence would even touch.

    This doesn’t exonerate her from the usual litany of clownish, buffoonery exemplary of her, Olbermann, Matthews and crew, but I do give credit where credit is due and I use that piece as a slap in the face to liberals who would call something like that “Faux” if it came from anyone on FOX.


    [Hi Sam,

    While Maddow does have a point about Obama’s reversal on this issue from the campaign, nothing she says about the Constitution can pass 10 minutes of historical scrutiny.

    Enemy combatants are not held because they robbed a 7/11 and committed a civil infraction (crime) they are held because they are a war threat, a security threat, and an intelligence asset. No country has every given enemy combatants civilian lawyers, civilian constitutional rights, and access to civilian courts, until now.

    The Eisentrager case makes it clear that enemy combatants are the purview of one man, the President, until such a time that a military court can determine if they have or have not committed war crimes.

    ONly now in a 5-4 decision has the court started to put its nose into what the court considered previously verboten, presidential war powers; as the Founders were very clear about this issue.

    Maddow would not have a chance in a debate against me or anyone who is trained in Constitutional law.- Editor]

  42. Risley said

    I don’t see Rachel going anywhere anytime too soon. Her coverage of the Gulf Oil spill is the best out there. She was talking about oil plumes weeks before ABC “broke the news” last week. You can’t touch her for intelligence and logic. However, it is nice to have hope, it keeps you going.

    [Thanks for the spambot post. Easy to spot because they don’t addrtess any of the facts or issues brought up in the post. – Editor]

  43. joshua said

    OK,OK,so if Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow had a love child it would look like Ed Schultz? Well..somebody ought to put a finger on that dyke! I mean come on! MSNBC has been having this tumor for years and they seem to be OK with it!Obviously ratings doesn’t matter to them nor do the contents of their reporting,do they actually listen to what their airing out!

  44. DSGB said

    Rachel Maddow is a loon… and she look like my fiancee’s Pomerainian… wait… I just received a bulletin that ALL Pomeranians are offended at that remark…. LOL

  45. Lenny said

    Rachal Maddow is a very confused individual, dose’t know if she is male or a female, thinks Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank, Jack Reed,John Kerry and Joe Biden are brilliant!!! I can’t believe anyone watches her show… She and MSNBC even though Keith Oberman was worth listing to..

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: