Maddow whips open a big can of con!

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 15, 2013

Introduces her dearly beloved: Last night, gullible viewers were getting hustled about last weekend’s DC protest.

We saw true believers get hustled on Fox—and on The One True Channel.

We’ll cover that topic in our next post. In this post, let’s note the way Rachel Maddow kissed the asp of her beloved last night.

Chris Matthews appeared on Maddow’s show to sell you his latest book. When Rachel teased his upcoming appearance, she of course described him as “the great Chris Matthews.”

It’s required by Hard Pundit Law!

We always cringe when they play us that way. Incredibly, though, this is the way Maddow introduced the great man when his segment started:
MADDOW (10/14/13): My beloved colleague and pal, Chris Matthews, has just published the best-timed book ever about the real legacy of Ronald Reagan’s approach to governance, specifically his contentious but civil working relationship with the legendary Democratic Speaker of the House, Tip O’Neill.

Joining us for an interview with the host of MSNBC`s Hardball, author of the new book Tip and the Gipper: When Politics Worked, Mr. Chris Matthews.

It is great to have you here tonight. Congratulations on the success of this book.

MATTHEWS: Thank you. Thanks, Rachel.
Good lord. You’ve never been hustled until you’ve been hustled by multimillionaires. To watch the full segment, click here.

Are viewers really supposed to think that Matthews is Maddow’s beloved colleague? We will offer a different guess:

That’s Rachel’s way of saying she thinks her viewers are pitiful/helpless rubes. In the mind of this cable host, they long to forge a tribal bond with imaginary friends.

We liberals are all great pals at The One True Liberal Channel! All the stars have been “great” for some time. Now, one has been bumped to “beloved!”

To state the obvious, that was a corporate sales pitch. Just a guess:

Research must say that we the rubes have been buying this big can of con.

Also proving how stupid you are: In her prologue to Matthews’ appearance, Maddow showed in one other way how stupid she thinks you are:
MADDOW: Anyway, the other thing that Ronald Reagan said that Ted Cruz repeats in his speeches now is actually quoting Ronald Reagan from the early 60s, from before he was elected to any office, when he was just an actor and a conservative activist. And he worked as a kind of spokesmodel with the American Medical Association, in a public campaign against a terrible new Soviet-style communist takeover of the American health care system...
Wow! Reagan worked as a kind of “spokesmodel?”

Set aside the little whiff of gender snark. When Maddow talks down to her viewers that way, she is saying it loud and clear:

Rachel Maddow doesn’t think her viewers are very smart.

16 comments:

  1. Your Emperor keeps getting results. One exhortation to leave Zombieland for the hate wars in Liberalworld and voila!

    "Rachel Maddow doesn’t think her viewers are very smart" warns BOB.

    Of course, according to the folks who brought you PISA, TIMMS, and PIRL ( did I mention all three?) comes evidence that, if BOB is right about Rachel, Rachel herself may be right as rain.

    http://skills.oecd.org/skillsoutlook.html

    Yes, OCED is out with a new test and American kiddos are not alone any more.

    Their moms, dads, aunts, uncles, and even PeePaws as old as BOB
    do poorly in math and reading compared to the rest of the world.

    Of course the HOWLER has yet to discuss, much less deconstruct the data. When this sad study about American adults was released, BOB had to focus first on what was really important: who covered it on CNN. Amanda Ripley.

    "We found ourselves inclined to dislike her air of certainty and high expertise. We found ourselves inclined to dislike her authoritative tone."

    BOB said this because, unlike Rachel, he respects your intelligence.

    KZ (Always selling his subject short)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It took me a minute to figure out you were talking about comparative education levels in wealthy nations and not Obsessive-Compulsive Education Disorder, which you seem to have uncovered in Bob's psyche.
      It was due to a typo, of course.

      Delete
  2. I don't see anything wrong with calling Reagan a spokesmodel.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Me neither, but I'm sure he's got a slant on it that makes us look like tribal fools.

      Delete
    2. And supplying the part that Somerby cut off, what "terrible new Soviet-style communist takeover of the American health care system" was Reagan the "spokesmodel" against?

      Medicare.

      Delete
    3. I value Bob's opinion and this blog tremendously (I read it more or less daily). And while I don't agree with urban legend's snark regarding Bob's perceived agenda, I feel the spokesmodel analogy with regard to Reagan's role is apt. I wish he would have made his disagreement with such a description more clear.

      Delete
    4. "Spokesmodel" is a weird term. Is it supposed to suggest that Reagan was some kind of Barbie/Ken doll figure in American politics? That's absurd. Reagan was a two term president, two term governor of the largest state, union president, had a regular radio commentary, traveled the country doing speeches for years (one pundit said Reagan's political success owed to being "marinated" in American culture) on top of his years as a successful movie actor.

      He was only a "spokesmodel" because he wasn't a lawyer? That's just silly.

      I believe he made speeches against Medicare at the time and I don't remember what his argument was, probably that it costs too much. Theres obviously a problem with Medicare that they can't raise the premiums without all hell breaking loose politically. I just got Medicare and its only $106/month. Crazy. I pay $930/month for my daughter's insurance and it has bigger out of pocket costs.

      Delete
  3. At the time Reagan made these statements, he was a former union leader. I'd guess that for a liberal, being a former union leader would be enough to give his statements some kind of status. Obviously, Maddow will never tell her audience about Reagan's union background

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And at the time Ronald Reagan violated the law by funneling money to the Contras by shipping arms to Iran, he was a former union leader. When Reagan cut and ran from Lebanon after the Marine barracks were blown up, he was a former union leader. When Reagan was lying about welfare queens and polluting trees, he was a former union leader. Heck, when he broke the ATCU, he was a former union leader.

      So what? Reagan's last union position was President of SAG in 1959. By that time he was already a rightwinger, nine years past his last public support for a Democrat. During his illustrious union career, Reagan informed on his fellow actors for the FBI and testified before HUAC. His toadying testimony before that latter body may be found online.

      What possible relevance does Reagan's position at SAG have to his nonsensical claims about Medicare?

      Delete
    2. Don't leave out Reagan's praise of the labor union Solidarity in 1990.
      Of course, his goodwill was based on Solidarity's actions against Soviet communism, unlike the American labor unions, which, as any fool could plainly see, were infiltrated by socialists and communists.

      Delete
    3. Aren't we glad Communism was gone? That was a very evil system.

      Delete
    4. deadrat,
      Now you've gone and shown neither Obama nor W was the worst President in the history of the U.S.

      Delete
  4. "And he worked as a kind of spokesmodel with the American Medical Association, in a public campaign against a terrible new Soviet-style communist takeover of the American health care system..."

    Rachel Maddow, making sexist comparison of Cruz to St. Ronnie's red baiting days.

    "But McDonough is also an on-line Javert. She only considers the possibility that fits the bright shining (and very dumb) New Stalinism.

    We hope McDonough is very young....

    Starting in the late 1960s, the rise of similar trends from the pseudo-left ushered in the age of Reagan. Who knows? Salon’s impressively scripted new breed may be laying the groundwork for groaning defeat over the next fifty years!"

    BOB, making ageist comparsion of a generation of writers to both Stalin and hippies who went ahead and made St. Ronnie's day.


    KZ

    ReplyDelete
  5. we indeed, see things differently, I must say I stand behind Rachel's view of this.

    ReplyDelete