Mocking the liberal world: Let’s pray that we’ll be permitted to ignore Rachel Maddow this week.
Her work last work was so absurd, so disingenuous, that the lunacy should be recorded. We’re going to start with The Canisters of Maddow County.
Last Wednesday night, Maddow opened her program with one of the rambling, folksy asides she uses as part of her branding.
A set of canisters sat before her. After thanking Chris Hayes, Maddow began wasting everyone’s time.
We apologize for the length of our excerpt. To watch the full segment, click here:
MADDOW (10/29/14): Good evening, Chris. Thank you very much. And thanks to you at home for joining us this hour.The canisters were baby poop-colored! It’s the sort of folksy comment Maddow makes as part of her own branding efforts.
Here in our offices at 30 Rockefeller Center—in our office closet, actually—we have, sort of randomly (clears throat), a really hideous (chuckles), complete set of kitchen canisters.
(Displays canisters on desk)
Aren’t they lovely? It’s like, in the closet—it’s like a normal office closet—we’ve got like spare umbrellas, and jackets that people forgot about, and stuff left here by people who don’t work here any more.
And then, like, you know, right in the middle of all of it—jackets, umbrellas, like old props that—in the middle of all of it, boom! A full set of mushroom-ornamented, baby poop-colored, made in China, ugly kitchen canisters.
They take up a lot of space. But I can’t get rid of them.
We bought these hideous kitchen canisters when a producer on our staff stumbled upon them while out shopping and realized—photographic memory—that these were an exact match to one of the best campaign ad props thus far in the 21st century.
(Shows tape from years-old campaign ad.)
Look. Here they are. See? Over her right shoulder? There they are, in the wild!
These exact same canisters were the folksy kitchen scene backdrop behind a Republican candidate named Sharron Angle when she clutched a coffee cup and announced her political comeback.
Sharron Angle and canisters, showing that [adopting voice of harmless old lady] “There’s really nothing to be scared of when it comes to her. Forget all you think you know about old Sharron Angle.
“She’s back! She’s folksy this time. Drinking coffee.”
The mushroom canisters were Sharron Angle’s comeback and rebranding bid, in which she tried to get back into politics and run for a congressional seat just a couple of months after she lost the race for a U.S. Senate seat in Nevada in 2010...
Why was Maddow wasting your time talking about the hideous canisters she can’t bring herself to get rid of? She was moving toward the claim that Iowa Senate candidate Joni Ernst is just as crazy as Angle was.
We wouldn’t vote for Ernst ourselves. But then, we wouldn’t hire someone like Maddow to go on TV and pretend to do a news program.
Eventually, Maddow ended up saying what follows. Even allowing for Ernst’s (rather occasional statements) on guns, this strikes us as your brain on stupid:
MADDOW: Earlier this year, Talking Points Memo turned up a survey in which Joni Ernst said she supports legislation to allow local law enforcement in Iowa to arrest anybody who tries to implement Obamacare in that state...If someone tells a college student that he can stay on his parents’ health plan, would Joni Ernst think you could shoot that person? Last Wednesday night, that’s one of the things Our Own Rhodes Scholar was trying to puzzle out.
Joni Ernst answered yes to that question. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes, arrest federal officials trying to implement this federal law, this federal scheme! Arrest them if they try to do it in Iowa.
So as I said, we do not have an answer from the Joni Ernst campaign yet as to when she believes it would be appropriate to shoot federal officials, but maybe you can extrapolate. I mean, if this Iowa Senate candidate advocates arresting federal officials who she catches trying to implement Obamacare in Iowa, would that also be a circumstance in which she believes you should be allowed to shoot government officials as well? Can you only arrest them? Or can you also shoot them? What if they resist arrest?
It’s kind of an amazing, amazing policy position for somebody who very well might be going to the U.S. Senate. I mean, if you catch somebody telling Iowa college students that they can stay on their parents’ health insurance until they’re 26, is that a shooting offense in Joni Ernst’s Iowa or would that just be an arresting offense? I know it sounds nuts, but weirdly, it is not a stretch to ask that of Senate candidate Joni Ernst right now, because based on her public statement, the answer is not clear.
If it’s yes to arresting federal employees trying to implement Obamacare but no to shooting them, but there are some things for which she will shoot federal employees, and she advocates that other people do too, well, what are the circumstances in which she is going to shoot federal officials? When is it is OK?
In our view, Ernst seems to be a bit on the goofy side, with Maddow gaining ground fast. If you want to parse the logic behind her questions about crazy old Ernst, you can watch the full segment.
The following night, Maddow staged one of the scripted gong-shows with which she cons her more gullible viewers. She brought out her DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS sign to help her correct her report about the canisters of Angle County and the possible gun-play of Ernst.
Maddow runs these DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS scams to make us think, incorrectly, that she is scrupulous about correcting her own mistakes. In comment threads, we often see gullible liberals repeating this talking-point for her.
On Thursday night, after teasing the segment, she started her self-correction gong-show like this. She sat beneath that familiar old sign, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS:
MADDOW (10/30/14): I have an important correction to make. Last night, we had a report about Iowa Senate candidate Joni Ernst. We reported that she took a page from former Nevada Senate candidate Sharron Angle when she threatened to use Second Amendment remedies, when she threatened that she’d use a gun to fight against the government if she didn’t get what she wanted through the political process.A substantial amount of pointlessness followed, but you now have the basic idea.
Well, tonight, I have a correction to make about that. I’ll tell you, though, that this correction has nothing to do with Joni Ernst.
MADDOW (videotape from previous night): Here in our offices at 30 Rockefeller Center, in our office closet actually, we have, sort of randomly, a really hideous, complete set of kitchen canisters. These exact same canisters were the folksy kitchen scene backdrop behind a Republican candidate named Sharron Angle when she clutched a coffee cup and announced her political comeback.
I would say “Watch this space,” but I know all you’re watching right now is these hideous kitchen canisters.
(End of videotape)
MADDOW: Turns out, I was wrong about that. And here’s how I know it. Um-hm. A-hem:
Subject line: My canisters. Quote, "I was insulted that you referred to the canisters as ugly as I had bought that same set many years ago. I wish I still had my cute, adorable canisters."
Quote, "Hey, Rachel, my mother has a set, too. We could use a matching set."
Quote, "Dear Rachel, if you don’t have a use for those canisters, I would love to take them off your hands. They were exactly the ones I wanted when I was first married, and I've always had a soft spot in my heart for them."
Then there are your tweets. Look! Quote, "If by hideous you mean the most awesome canisters of all time, then you are correct.”
As it turned out, Rachel had received emails and tweets saying that the canisters in question actually aren’t hideous. So she staged the latest nonsense from the DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS.
Truly, this was pitiful stuff. Most significantly, compare it to what happened at the start of Friday evening’s show.
As we noted in this post, Maddow made a set of ginormous misstatements about Stuart Varney last week. Varney presented a public rebuttal of Maddow’s remarks, which you can see here.
From this point on, we’ll guess:
Presumably, the suits at MSNBC decided that Maddow had to say something about her sweeping misstatements. As a solution, Maddow opened Friday’s program with four additional minutes of giggling, eye-rolling deceptive statements and acts of misdirection.
She continued to heap ridicule on Varney, who had made perfectly sensible statements, while obscuring the facts about the wild misstatements she herself had uttered. Her clowning delivery was over the top, even for her. For the second time, liberal viewers were basically conned concerning what Varney had said.
For years, we’ve issued an official warning—despite her representations to the contrary, Maddow just isn’t obsessively honest.
At this point, we’d have to say she is approaching the lowest ranks of “cable news” TV stars. She’s nearing the dusty basement regions where people like Hannity dwell.
Maddow’s clowning and dissembling continued from there last Friday. The cherry-picking of facts and polls was rather extensive this night.
Maddow had an astonishing week. With a repeated suggestion that she could use some help, let’s leave matters right there.
You can watch both tapes: We never thought we’d see the day when Stuart Varney would get to be right about some factual matter. That’s how bad things have become over in the corporate-sponsored, $7 million salary-receiving, pseudo-liberal land.
To watch Varney’s rebuttal of Maddow, click this. To watch Maddow dissemble the night away in response, you can just click here.
The first four minutes on that tape are just this side of insane. In this instance, Maddow’s presentation was rather plainly designed to be grossly deceptive.
It’s time for the refs to stop this fight. Night after night, we liberals are being treated like fools on The One True Liberal Channel.
On the brighter side, Maddow is reportedly paid $7 million per year.