Governor Ultrasound still hasn’t been charged!

TUESDAY, JANUARY 21, 2014

Once again, Maddow errs: Your Daily Howler just keeps getting those results!

We still haven’t reviewed Rachel Maddow’s biggest groaners from last week. But last night, thanks to our pushback, Rachel was pretty clearly on her best behavior.

Still, you can be sure that she will misinform you at least once every night. Last night, she mixed some snark with some misinformation concerning Ultrasound.

Why hasn’t Governor Ultrasound been indicted yet? We don’t know, but in a tease, Rachel softened us up with some snark:
MADDOW (1/20/14): All right. And then there`s a guy named Bob McDonnell. Remember him? If Bob McDonnell fell in the forest right now, would anybody hear it?

Stay with us.
Wonderful snark! Later, at the start of her actual segment, we all got misinformed:
MADDOW: Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell’s last day in office was last Saturday. In December, right around Christmas time, the Washington Post reported that the federal prosecutor who has been investigating Governor McDonnell had informed him and his lawyers that criminal charges are going to be filed against Governor McDonnell. Bob McDonnell will be criminally indicted, but! Merry Christmas!

According to the Washington Post, prosecutors decided to wait until the governor was out of office before they brought those charges.

Well, he’s now out of office nine days. Was the Washington Post right? Are those criminal charges forthcoming?

I don’t know. And neither do you.
We don’t plan to charge Rachel a fee for use of our “we don’t know and neither do you” hook. But in that short, inaccurate passage, Maddow misrepresented what the Post reported in December.

Again! We already went over this bullroar once, in real time.

Back in December, did the Washington Post report “that prosecutors decided to wait until the governor was out of office before they brought those charges?”

No! As we noted in real time, the Post reported something different. The Post reported that prosecutors might not charge McDonnell at all.

This is the start of the report Maddow keeps misrepresenting:
HELDERMAN (12/19/13): Federal prosecutors told Virginia Gov. Robert F. McDonnell last week that he and his wife would be charged in connection with a gift scandal, but senior Justice Department officials delayed the decision after the McDonnells' attorneys made a face-to-face appeal in Washington, according to people familiar with the case.

Dana J. Boente, the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, told the McDonnells' legal teams that he planned to ask a grand jury to return an indictment no later than this past Monday, people familiar with the conversations said.

McDonnell (R) and his wife, Maureen, would have been charged with working together to illegally promote a struggling dietary-supplement company in exchange for gifts and loans from its chief executive, the people said.

The plan to seek the felony charges this week changed, however, after attorneys for the state's first couple met with Deputy Attorney General James M. Cole on Dec. 12.

The attorneys argued that the governor had done nothing improper to assist businessman Jonnie R. Williams Sr. In particular, they focused on the credibility of a key witness, said a person familiar with the presentation. They also argued that if prosecutors proceeded with charges, they should wait until after McDonnell left office Jan. 11 to allow a smooth transition of power to Gov.-elect Terry McAuliffe (D).

Some element of the lawyers' arguments apparently persuaded the Justice Department to delay, according to people with knowledge of the case. The people spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the case.

On Friday, the day after the meeting, McDonnell's attorneys were told that the decision would be put on hold, the people said. A final decision about whether to press charges is now not expected before Jan. 2 and could come as late as February, they said.
How hard is that to comprehend? “A final decision about whether to press charges is now not expected before Jan. 2...”

Our italics. Just read what that said!

That Post report didn’t say that prosecutors “decided to wait until the governor was out of office before they brought those charges.” It said McDonnell might not be charged at all.

Indeed, the headline still says this:
“In probe of Va. Gov. McDonnell, prosecutors agreed to delay decision on charges.” It says they agreed to delay making their decision, not the date of indictment.

Maddow misreported this point in December. Last night, she did it again, laying a suggestion that the Post may have screwed things up—that the Post may have gotten it wrong. In truth, she is the one who keeps misstating what the Post really said.

Will McDonnell be charged? We don’t know and neither do you; you’ll note that the Post's February target date hasn’t passed. For ourselves, we almost never root for people to get charged with crimes, and this case doesn’t seem all that heinous, despite the cheerleading Maddow has done in the past year.

Maddow’s a different breed of cat. She frequently roots for people to get thrown in prison, preferably with their naked, shivering children along for the ride.

True Believers are like that. To us, Maddow seems like a bit of a tribal True Believer, a phase she may yet outgrow.

Whatever! But Maddow keeps misstating what the Post reported. We helped her with her comprehension back in December. Last night, she played us concerning this matter again, possibly not on purpose.

As she continued with her segment, she rolled her eyes at the oddball way some Democrats have apparently lobbied the prosecutors not to indict Ultrasound. She snarked and suggested that this had been a weird bit of behavior.

Granted, the snark was wonderful fun. But do you think she had any idea what she was talking about?

We don’t know if McDonnell will be indicted; also, we don’t root for indictments. Watching Rachel last night, we thought she might be hearing a lack of footsteps and maybe perhaps getting scared.

We don't know that, of course.

100 comments:

  1. "But last night, thanks to our pushback, Rachel was pretty clearly on her best behavior."

    Yeah right.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I enjoyed the shout out Rachel gave to TDH tonight on her show. What a class act.

      Delete
  2. "Governor Ultrasound still hasn’t been charged! " -- Bob Somerby, Tuesday, January 21, 2014

    "Former Va. Gov. McDonnell and wife charged in gifts case" -- Rosalind Helderman, The Washington Post, Tuesday, January 21, 12:19 PM

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Beat me to it.

      Delete
    2. In other words, Rachel Maddow keeps getting results!

      Delete
    3. Wow. If I were Somerby, I would be embarrassed, humiliated and sad.

      But Bob instead will likely double, triple and quadruple down and insist he was right all along.

      Delete
    4. Wow. But since you're clueless you should be embarrassed, humiliated and sad. But you're not.

      You think that TDH will multiple-down on his statement that he didn't know whether McDonnell would be indicted before he was indicted? Wow.

      Delete
    5. Bob could write, "It's possible the earth is flat. We don't know." And deadrat's response would be, "Well, he never said the earth wasn't round!"

      If this one doesn't take the blinders off, nothing will. But he sure is one loyal lap dog.

      Delete
    6. Don't singe yourself torching your straw man.

      I've commented on some things I think TDH is wrong about. If that's not good enough for ya, too bad.

      But I notice you didn't answer my questions. TDH says he didn't know whether McDonnelll would be indicted,and his headline implies he wrote it before the announcement of the indictment.

      Are you saying that TDH wrote his blog entry after the announcement? If you're not saying that, what's your problem?

      Delete
    7. More importantly, Rachel Maddow's show occurred before this announcement too. She had no basis in fact for reporting the way she did.

      Delete
    8. It is also possible that "I don't know" was the big lie Maddow told last night. We don't know.

      It is possible that Maddow had the proverbial "source close to the investigation" tell her yesterday that the indictments were coming down today, but she played her cards close to the vest, while still reminding her viewers about McDonnell.

      We don't know.

      Seems to me that bringing up this story again last night with no new developments would have been embarrassing had no indictments been forthcoming. But we don't know.

      Or . . . an even greater conspiracy theory. Maddow, aware of the impending indictments and weary of Somerby's incessant nonsense, baited the hook hoping he would bite. And he did.

      But that would require her giving an actual tinker's damn about Somerby, and she would be among a very small handfull of people walking the earth who did.


      Delete
    9. You don't get to "hint" at stuff just because someone tells you something off the record. Journalism has ethics. That is not OK under the ethics of the profession.

      Somerby is being ironic or tongue-in-cheek when he makes these remarks about producing change. If you weren't so busy maligning him you'd recognize that.

      Delete
    10. mm,

      I agree with you. If I'd listened to Maddow's original broadcast, I doubt I'd have even noticed the difference between "delayed the announcement" and "delayed the decision." But, you know, if it's such a small thing, why not get it right?

      I'm not with TDH on cheering indictments. I like it when bad things happen politically to bad politicians. TDH thinks that's a bad tribal urge that's eventually destructive not least to his own side. Sorry, I'm just that virtuous.

      I don't understand the "eclipsed" statement either. I suppose it's because TDH thinks Darlin' Rachel is taking millions and failing to live up to his standards while McDonnell and his wife were taking thousands and in return for what, exactly? (Don't get me wrong. I think the two are toast, if only for lying a bank. That's defined to be some serious shit. But that's not real corruption. I'm from Illinois. Corruption is selling US Senate seats.) McDonnell took an oath, and if misused his office, that's worse than any of private citizen Darlin' Rachel's malfeasance.

      Ad ad hominem attack is one based on the identity of the person under attack. You may not agree with TDH's assessment, but he's not attacking Maddow because she's Maddow but because of what and how she reports.

      You may be able to defeat TDH's case with superior argument, but nothing he's written is indefensible. Unless, of course, you believe that he'd read news reports about the indictment but reported that it hadn't happened.

      Is that what you think?

      Delete
    11. Headlines Say the Darndest Things

      Delete
  3. Why does Bob have a hard on for Maddow?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Read his posts about her and you will see. He cares about this stuff. If you do not, perhaps his posts will be less comprehensible.

      Delete
    2. Yes, we get it. Rachel Maddow has the duplicate key to the wardroom icebox. And Somerby once again proves it with geometric logic.

      Delete
    3. Do you understand that your Caine Mutiny reference makes no sense? TDH disapproves of something that Maddow has actually broadcast. If you think that she's been misquoted or that TDH's objections are to things trivial, fine. But she's not a figment of a paranoid imagination.

      Delete
    4. Do you understand that Guru Bob just did a major face plant?

      Try not to lose too much sleep over it. Might help if you unwadded those panties.

      Delete
    5. TDH posted a blog entry that later events invalidated. He wrote that he didn't know whether McDonnell would be indicted. Then McDonnell was indicted. So what?

      You know about my sleep habits, and (er, metaphorically) about my state of mind? I don't think so. I'm gonna guess projection.

      Delete
    6. Were the events really later?

      Delete
    7. What do you think, that TDH heard the news about the indictment but posted his blog entry anyway? Or that he didn't bother to check the news that was already out?

      My guess at blog entry publication is 0815 and announcement at 1530. Maybe others have better information.

      Delete
    8. Welll deadrat, since TDH does not share publication time with readers, your "guess" may be better than most of us since you seem to have your fingers on the pulse of the place.

      However, the first comment in repsonse to this post was not received until 1:58 PM EST. The second comment contained this note:

      "Former Va. Gov. McDonnell and wife charged in gifts case" -- Rosalind Helderman, The Washington Post, Tuesday, January 21, 12:19 PM"

      There was a post published prior to this one which got it's first comment at 12:24 PM yesterday.

      Based on that I would say if TDH was intent on not erring like Maddow, there was ample time to change his headline.

      But you know, small errors are needed to push scripts.

      Delete
    9. TDH doesn't share his publication time with his readers, but his blogging software records it in the html source.

      Are the times on the comments EST? In any case, they're all post meridian.

      Do you think that TDH should have fixed the headline on this blog entry only or on all the past headlines that subsequent events contradict? In any case, this is a different issue from whether TDH has committed indefensible error in writing the headline.

      Delete
  4. Who will be the first member of Bob's loyal tribe to rush to the blog and say, "Well, when Bob wrote that, he wasn't charged. Yet."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Here's what TDH wrote: "Will McDonnell be charged? We don’t know ...."

      Are you suggesting that when TDH wrote his headline, he'd already heard the news? Now that McDonnell has been indicted, does that mean that Darlin' Rachel was right when she reported that the DoJ said they had delayed an announcement when they actually said they'd delayed their decision?

      Delete
    2. And the winner of the race to be first to defend the indefensible is . . . . deadrat!

      Boy, is CeceliaMc going to be sauced!

      Delete
    3. What exactly is indefensible with this blog entry? Be specific; show your work.

      TDH says he doesn't know whether McDonnell will be indicted. McDonnell was indicted. Are you saying TDH knew but wrote that he didn't?

      TDH writes that Darlin' Rachel reported that the DoJ was delaying the announcement of an indictment when they actually said they were delaying their decision on whether to indict. Now that McDonnell has been indicted, does that retroactively make her right?

      You have a strange definition of "indefensible."

      Delete
    4. Yep, the DOJ only decided yesterday, on a national holiday, to indict McDonnell.

      So now you not only take everything Bob writes as Gospel truth, you accept BS statements from spinmeisters at government agencies.

      Delete
    5. Trust me, Anon 5:20pm, I'm not sauced to see so many of "the children" reveal themselves so dense as to be comical, if they weren't simultaneously such malevolent ideologues.

      Instead, I'm sickened.

      Delete
    6. deadrat,

      With all due respect, this is pretty "small cheese" to be criticizing Maddow about.

      *****************
      HELDERMAN (12/19/13): Federal prosecutors told Virginia Gov. Robert F. McDonnell last week that he and his wife would be charged in connection with a gift scandal, but senior Justice Department officials delayed the decision after the McDonnells’ attorneys made a face-to-face appeal in Washington, according to people familiar with the case.
      **************************
      and,

      ***************
      Dana J. Boente, the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, told the McDonnells’ legal teams that he planned to ask a grand jury to return an indictment no later than this past Monday, people familiar with the conversations said.
      ******************

      They were told they were going to be charged. In a desperate stalling move, their lawyer asked for a delay until after the new governor took office, so as to allow a "smooth transition".

      It was clear from the reporting that they were only delaying out of consideration for the lawyer's plea to do if after the new took office.

      Here is how Bob attacked Maddow.

      "..we couldn’t help thinking of all the money Rachel is shoving into her pants as she snarks and frets her way across the stage." '

      Pure, unadulterated ad hominem attack..

      "We’re a bit more mellow than Rachel. It struck us as strange that she would want to see someone “humiliated and ruined” at all."

      We're talking about felony corruption of the highest state elected official.

      "It struck us as especially strange, given that her own misconduct seems to have eclipsed his."

      Her own misconduct "eclipsed his"???? A charge made against Maddow totally unsupported by any explanation.

      Delete
    7. "It struck us as especially strange, given that her own misconduct seems to have eclipsed his."

      Yep, never mind the 13 counts against McDonnell. We've been told this blog is about journalists, not politicians, so naturally journalist Maddow saying last month that the indictments were coming down is far worse than anything politician McDonnell could ever do.

      Delete
    8. McDonnell is not a journalist. Maddow is. The substance of her job is to say true things and get her facts right. She messed up. How does McDonnell's malfeasance as a politician excuse Maddow?

      Delete
    9. She didn't lie.

      Bob did.

      Delete
    10. She didn't lie. She fudged things in a way that pleases the tribe.

      Bob did point that out.

      So what?

      Delete
    11. deadrat,

      Why is what she reported pleasing to "the tribe".

      Here's something she reported that night, Dec. 19, that seems to be exactly true.

      ***
      Rachel Maddow:
      "But then late last night, "Washington Post," in probe of Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell, prosecutors agreed to delay decision on charges. The Justice Department apparently overturning the U.S. attorney`s decision
      that he wanted to charge him this week, but apparently they did not overturn the decision to charge him at all.

      Now, the Justice Department is not commenting on "The Washington Post`s" reporting and the Justice Department would not make someone available to talk with us tonight about this case.

      But it is thought to be unusual for the Justice Department to overrule a U.S. attorney like this. And if they are delaying the indictment out of deference to Governor Bob McDonnell`s standing as a public official, why is
      that?"
      ***

      You see, deadrat, she said it right there. The very thing that Bob implied she lied about.

      "... prosecutors agreed to delay decision on charges."

      It's right in the transcript.

      And not only that. She then had a guest on to talk about it,

      "Joining us now is Thomas Cullen. He`s a former federal prosecutor in Virginia. He`s now a partner with the law firm of Woods Rogers."

      And the first thing she asks him is if she got anything wrong.

      MADDOW: Let me just ask first if I explained there in a way that makes sense. Did I get anything wrong or fuzzy there about the legal case?

      CULLEN: No, I think you covered all your bases.


      And she allowed this former federal prosecutor to put some additional perspective on this case.


      "If what "The Post" wrote today is true, and I have no reason to doubt that, it appears that John Brownlee, a former U.S. attorney, a very good attorney, Governor
      McDonnell`s lead attorney, was able to make a pretty persuasive argument that to indict the governor now, just three weeks before the gubernatorial transition, would be hugely disruptive to that process. Governor-elect Terry McAuliffe just this week is announcing cabinet appointments."

      So what great crime did Maddow commit that night that warranted this from TDH?

      "...her own misconduct seems to have eclipsed his."



      Delete
    12. Anonymous @6:02,

      Who knows when the DoJ decided to announce the indictments? Presumably a number of people in the USA's office. At issue here isn't what the DoJ decided to do when. It's about reporting. If the USA says he's delayed his decision, that's different from his saying he's delayed the announcement of his decision. TDH isn't asking you to believe the USA one way or another. He'd just like the USA's statements reported accurately.

      And, no, I don't see that much of a difference. But TDH does, and if he's wrong and it's a distinction without a difference, why not get it right?

      Delete
    13. She did report the decision accurately:

      As I posted right above, this is from the Dec. 19 program.

      ***
      Rachel Maddow:
      "But then late last night, "Washington Post," in probe of Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell, prosecutors agreed to delay decision on charges. The Justice Department apparently overturning the U.S. attorney`s decision
      that he wanted to charge him this week, but apparently they did not overturn the decision to charge him at all.

      Now, the Justice Department is not commenting on "The Washington Post`s" reporting and the Justice Department would not make someone available to talk with us tonight about this case.

      But it is thought to be unusual for the Justice Department to overrule a U.S. attorney like this. And if they are delaying the indictment out of deference to Governor Bob McDonnell`s standing as a public official, why is
      that?"
      ***
      AGREED TO DELAY DECISION ON CHARGES.

      That's exactly what she said. Read the damn transcript.

      It is quite plain and clear what happened. They were going to indict before Christmas. They told him so. The lawyer asked for a delay. The Justice Department agreed to the delay. Period. That's what she fucking reported.

      And really, as it developed, she was exactly correct.

      Delete
    14. Would you quit bringing facts and logic into the argument? Obviously Rachel set this up to embarrass Bob, and the results are quite plain to see for everyone here.

      Delete
  5. I say Bob should let Maddow kick him in the balls.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Doubt she'd find much of a target.

      Delete
  6. This is meta-lulz, or as they say in soccer, "own goal".

    ReplyDelete
  7. "and this case doesn’t seem all that heinous,"

    Wow, Bob.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And this one from a month ago:

      "First, as noted, McDonnell’s alleged corruption is actually pretty small cheese. He took a lot of money from a business owner, but he didn’t do much to help him. The public interest wasn’t harmed in any gigantic way, if it was harmed at all."

      This was, of course, roughly the same time frame in which Bob was assuring his two loyal followers that the whole thing with Christie and the bridge was no big deal either.

      Delete
    2. Right, no big deal when the Governor discusses using Virginia state employees as test subjects for the businessman's nutritional subject. SOP. Happens everyday!

      Delete
  8. Readers should click through and read The Post story. Bob inverted the third and fourth paragraphs in his quote of the original story. It's a very different read in the original story.

    Naughty, naughty.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If the paragraphs are inverted you can read them that way in the post above -- is there some other difference? I don't see how it changes anything.

      Delete
    2. Bob's reparagraphing subtly bolsters his contention that DoJ was delaying the decision to indict, not delay the announcement of indictment.

      Delete
    3. Looked at another way, the reporter's original arrangement of paragraphs tries to convey the impression that an announcement of indictment was being delayed instead of a decision to indict. Since no one knows which was true, is one arrangement "right" and the other "wrong"? I do agree that the order of paragraphs shouldn't have been switched without some note, however, it is also possible the order was switched online after Somerby quoted from it. I don't think the facts change at all.

      Delete
    4. Really, you're trying to tell me that Post's editors changed the order of the paragraphs and not Bob? That's a bit rich.

      Delete
    5. Equally likely.

      Delete
  9. Now do you know when McDonnell will be indicted, you world class horse's ass? Where's your retraction, journalist?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "World class horse's ass"

      Nobody has said it better. Or put it more succinctly.

      Delete
    2. Retract what? TDH said he didn't know if McDonnell would be indicted. Presumably this was before the indictment was announced. What would you like him to say? That now that the indictment has been handed up, he should have known when that would happen?

      What's wrong with you?

      Delete
    3. Spin, spin, spin, deadrat.

      Keep spinning and you might be able to convince yourself. Maybe. It's possible. We don't know.

      Delete
    4. Perhaps if you yourself could stop spinning and wait until the vertigo subsides, you can tell me what retraction TDH is supposed to make. Why make this about me and what you've convinced yourself I've convinced myself about?

      TDH said he didn't know whether McDonnell would be indicted. Presumably this was before McDonnell was indicted. Are you suggesting it wasn't? Or that TDH had advance knowledge of the indictment but lied about his inside track?

      If not, what's the problem?

      Delete
    5. And what was the time this was posted?

      Delete
    6. My look at the source for the page puts publication time for the entry was 8:15A EST. Several sites with breaking news reported the indictment at 3:30P EST.

      Delete
    7. Yes, deadrat. The U.S. attorney's office had been open for at most 15 minutes on the first business day after the guy left office before Bob rushed to tell us that he hadn't been indicted yet.

      Now one would think that a more prudent blogger might have waited a day, if not a week or so.

      But have no fear. This story and the growing Christie story, like Zimmerman before, will soon fade, and you and CeceliaMc will be here all alone, discussing the wonderfulness of Somerby into the wee hours of the morning.

      Delete
    8. "...Bob rushed to tell us that he hadn't been indicted yet."

      Exactly. It's bizarre. It's like he was itching to show us how wrong Maddow was. It's not like Maddow spews bullshit on her show night after unrelenting night like say, Sean Hannity.

      Delete
    9. And you know what, mm? One doesn't even have to defend Maddow or anything she said the night before or last month to realize how utterly stupid this post was.

      Delete
    10. mm and Anoymi at 7:21 & 9:35

      deadrat knows TDH better than the palm of his own hand.
      He may be right on the timing. Anything is, who knows, possible. We just don't.

      But assuming deadr is wrong, shouldn't the subhead be changed to:

      "Once again, Somerby errs: Your Maddow just keeps getting those results!"

      Delete
    11. Maddowblog-Dateline Baltimore

      At approximately 1pm Eastern Time Tuesday, Baltimore residents living near the sprawling campus of The Daily Howler were alarmed by the sight on an older white male running naked through the streets screaming "Piddlesticks."

      Police responding to numerous 911 calls advised residents to stay in their cars unless, of course, they had already exited.

      Delete
    12. The usual wash of bullshit from the angry howlers at The Howler have left me somewhat confused.

      Have you given up on your claim of indefensible error? If so does this mean that no retraction is necessary?

      Are you now sticking to your new story that TDH should have waited a few more days for the indictment? Is he now just "imprudent" or is he still a horses's ass?

      TDH as a blogger doesn't seem very complicated to me. He has his themes, which he announces repeatedly and pounds obsessively. You don't have to know TDH "better than the palm of" your own hand. You just have to read for comprehension.

      So what's so hard about that?


      What results did Maddow get? Did the USA impanel the grand jury at her request?

      Delete
  10. A gotcha! artist getting his comeuppance.

    Blogger has NOTHING except hate, envy, schadenfreude etc. to offer.

    He's obviously going to double down on this

    But we'll be here rubbing his face in his own excrement.

    We'll keep doing it until he stops.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A gotcha! artist getting his comeuppance.
      For what? TDH said he didn't know whether McDonnell would be indicted. McDonnell was indicted. So what?

      Blogger has NOTHING except hate, envy, schadenfreude etc. to offer.
      Do you know what the last means? TDH specifically says he doesn't revel in the misfortune of others, even weasels like McDonnell. I don't get this. If the blogger has nothing (or even worse, NOTHING) of benefit to offer, what are you doing here?

      He's obviously going to double down on this
      On what? He said he didn't know. Are you claiming he did?

      But we'll be here rubbing his face in his own excrement.
      Who's we? The posse that spends time hating a guy they say is worthless? What's up with that?

      We'll keep doing it until he stops.
      Doing what? Making a fool out of yourself? How would that get TDH to stop blogging on his favorite topics? How do you know he's even paying attention to clowns like you?

      Delete
    2. How could he pay attention deadrat? If he did he would not have time to read Dowd's comment box to find evidence of our rapidly collapsing culture. You know, the broken civilization nobody but he, and perhaps you and Cecelia, can see.

      Delete
    3. Response to someone who not only takes the time to read a blog he thinks is nonsense, but who also takes additional time to write snarky comments: Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.

      Now that we've both acknowledged what a wit you are, may I get answers to my questions?

      Delete
    4. Who dat, deadrat?

      Delete
  11. Dang, the way things is goin' if this were one of them there Pisa tests, young Rachel would be the Poles and old Bob would be the poor pitiful U.S.

    Watch out old feller, she's a gonna lap ya.

    ReplyDelete
  12. It was long ago in a galaxy far, far away that Rachel Maddow won a place on MSNBC by helping reinvent Matthews. It is a grudge Bob has never let go of. Only morbid curiosity could lead one to read Somerby on Maddow, because at this point he's been caught gilding the lily so often he has not credibility.

    ReplyDelete
  13. TDH has yet to admit that on January 17 he "lied" -- OK, he made a completely false statement -- about what Maddow had said the day before about the motivation for the lane closures. There is so much of an anti-Maddow bias here that you have to be careful before accepting his statements about her.

    As to this one, although the WaPo story did, indeed, raise the possibility of a delay in the decision whether to indict, the major thrust of the story was a delay in an already-made decision. Once again, an extremely weak basis for a 2000-word indictment.

    ReplyDelete
  14. There is a pattern to Maddow's behavior and this is part of it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There is also a pattern to Bob's behavior re: Maddow. It includes calling a governor lining his pockets "loans" and gifts "small cheese" and "doesn't seem all that heinous."

      And of course the classic from last month that she makes more money than Gov. Ultrasound, so her behavior was worse.

      When you have to minimize felonies in order to even think you can beat up your foe. you've gone a wee bit off the rails.

      Delete
    2. good points 11:29. don't worry blogger will quit soon and we won't have to defend maddow further.

      Delete
    3. We won't, 12:07? Damn. And just after they killed extended unemployment benefits!

      Delete
  15. OMB (Sorry I'm Late)

    Some damn jackass closed a clear warp path near Maddownia Millionika and I had to chug along through a meteor belt as wide as Chris Christie to get here.

    Just had time to browse the headline!

    Is this another post in the Dumbnification Studies series?

    I'll go back to the top and read through. Andbody know if there are any
    strawberries left in the mess?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Don't think so. I think it is new.

      Part 1 of the Crow and Eat Crow Simulcast

      Delete
  16. I guess Bob picked a bad topic to try and turn attention away from his New Jersey bungling.

    Tough audience, trouper. Try one of your "nobody cares about black kids" jokes. That always leaves them laughing.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Did Somerby post this headline after the indictment was announced?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is as mysterious as why the lanes were closed. deadrat is speculating it was posted before. We don't know.

      We thought he might be hearing a lack of footsteps and maybe perhaps getting scared.

      Delete

  18. Somerby's Self Label Records Presents:

    ORANGE CLOWN SHOES SPECIAL
    Boxcar Bobby Sings The Blues

    Rachel Maddow is a real piece of work

    Rachel Maddow is a Nightmare

    Rachel Has A Bridge to Sell You

    Maddow Proves It All Night Long

    Rachel Maddow's Very Long, Rather Strange

    Malala, Matthews and Maddow

    It's All Pimpin Piddle Now

    Orange Clownshoes Special


    ReplyDelete
  19. The blogger apparently has issues with women.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Please go back to reporting about black kids, Bob. No one else will do it because no one else cares as much as you do.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nobody reports on black kids because our intellectual culture is broken. Our rotted-out values leave us just this side of insane. It can’t be seen by many observers.

      Delete
  21. Oooops!
    I heard about Gov. McDonnell's charges on MSNBC last night and had to look at TDH.
    I wasn't disappointed. 84 and counting.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Is there some non-hacker way of determining whether we have many Anonymouses, or one Anonymous with many personalities?

    Anyway, if you find Miss Longneck's brand of Hectoring a nightly irritation, it must be gauling to have to watch two nitpicking stories you chided Maddow for getting in front of turn into history-altering national obsessions complete with federal inquiries and even indictments & stuff.

    Could it be that the Julia Childs of political commentary actually has a nose for news and actually knows her news?

    Heh, heh, I threw in that dazzling bit of Maureen Dowd wordplay just to rub it in.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Rat,

    it is now two occasions when blogger faeces-hurled at Maddow for "ginning up" stories when none existed and both cases what he hurled landed on him.

    He will not apologize or retract and will go on with his act for you guys in the peanut gallery. If that floats your boat - good for you.

    But there are those of us who are going to squeeze the blogger's head like a grape (metaphorically, of course) for his conduct and will keep it up indefinitely.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is clear that you have no interest at all in journalism at all and only read this blog (and others?) only to defend the millionaire class who entertain you with their "news" stories. This is all a big joke to you and an opportunity for you to anonymously insult people. Without blogs like TDH you would just swallow whatever Rachel fed to you without question.

      Delete
  24. It's a pretty good bet that TDH won't apologize to you or retract what you want him to and that he will pretty much go on with the act he's been going on with for over fifteen years as long as he wants to or until he keels over, whichever comes first.

    It's also clear that his equally-obsessive critics like you will keep up your screeching indefinitely. What's unclear to me is why you think you have the capacity, intellectual or physical, to squeeze the blogger's head, metaphorically or otherwise. What is that? Dunning-Kruger syndrome?

    There's no evidence that TDH even reads his commenters, let alone any that he cares what they write. It's time to live with that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think there is ample literary evidence to suggest he appears not only to reads his commenter, he is many of them. On the other hand, in addition to rumors like yours that he is broke, there are rumors that he never heard his hecklers when doing his comedy act. Some suggest it is because he had no hecklers, but they may have dominated his audience and drove those longing for his brand of comedy to stay away.

      Delete
    2. Wow! Literary evidence to suggest that he appears to read his commenters? Is that better or worse than literary evidence to suggest that he actually reads his commenters?

      And what is "literary evidence" anyway?

      I've got no idea about TDH's finances, so those rumors aren't mine.

      Delete
    3. http://dailyhowler.blogspot.com/2013/03/the-original-sin-war-on-self.html

      Delete
    4. deadrat...those rumors aren't mine

      I believe you broached the issue as a rhetorical question
      on January 20,2014 at 4:13 pm.

      Delete
    5. "Broaching the issue" makes the rumor mine?

      What would happen if there were no more rhetorical questions?

      Delete
  25. What to say i praise of this blog, which contains a lot of amazing information as well as the thoughtful writes.

    Broach manufacturer

    ReplyDelete