THEY KNOW WHAT YOU WANT: Maddow doesn’t seem to care!

WEDNESDAY, JULY 8, 2015

Part 3—It’s time for the clowning to stop:
Friend, how well do you understand the disputes and disagreements about the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership?

Check that! How well do you understand the disputes about international trade deals in general? With how much knowledge could you discuss the effects of NAFTA, to cite one high-profile example?

For ourselves, we know very little about international trade. We have heard that the general topic is a major big deal.

On May 7, we heard that from Rachel Maddow. At the start of this passage, she’s discussing the way Nike conducts its business around the world:
MADDOW (5/7/15): That kind of business arrangement, where even iconically American products get made overseas because it’s more profitable to have the work done in places with terrible wages and terrible labor standards, that age-old dynamic which has killed off huge swaths of working-class and middle-class American jobs over the last few decades, that dynamic, many people worry, will get even worse than it is now if this big 12-country Asia trade deal goes through, which the president favors.
Maddow expressed no opinion herself. But she told us that “many people worry” that the proposed Asian trade deal, which Obama favors, could “kill off huge swaths of working-class and middle-class American jobs.”

That sounds like a bad thing! Watching Maddow that night, you learned who has those fears about the proposed trade deal. “Labor and Democrats and people on the left and people in the center are opposed to that trade deal in considerable numbers,” the joke-laden cable star said.

If you watched Maddow that night, you got to see “Our Own Cantinflas” get serious for just a moment.

According to Maddow, her comments about the proposed tradedeal had “nothing to do with owls attacking joggers in that park in the Oregon state capital.” She wasn’t discussing “the still inexplicable girlfriend scandal that drove [Oregon’s] once very popular governor out of office.”

She was discussing the TPP; she made it sound like the substance of this proposed trade deal was a very serious matter indeed. Six weeks later, Maddow conveyed the same sense as she discussed the very serious “trade thing” Obama has been supporting:
MADDOW (6/17/15): So, that’s one thing. Tomorrow 10 A.M., potentially huge Supreme Court news.

In the other branch of government that is usually boring but occasionally fantastically interesting, huge news tomorrow from Congress. This trade thing that President Obama has been trying to get passed, the thing Republicans support but most Democrats don’t, looks like that trade bill may be back up tomorrow.

You saw all those super-melodramatic headlines about the Democrats turning on the president on the issue and the president’s sway with his own party. But Republicans have been a mess on this one too. Yesterday, Boehner fired three of the House Republicans on his team, people in charge of counting votes for him.

People who couldn’t count the votes on the issue. They themselves voted the opposite of the way they were supposed to be whipping.

So the trade bill is a big deal in terms of policy. It would affect 40 percent of the world’s economy. But the politics around it are like a hurricane without an eye. Nobody knows what’s going to happen. That might be tomorrow too, which will be a huge deal in Washington.
From there, Maddow began discussing the Pope. But along the way, viewers had been told that the proposed trade deal “is a big deal in terms of policy.”

The TPP “would affect 40 percent of the world’s economy,” the Crazy Guggenheim of cable news said, as she discussed a branch of government “that is usually boring.” Passage of the next day’s bill would be “huge news.”

In terms of policy, it sounded like the Asian “trade thing” might be a very big deal. According to Maddow, who’s boredom-averse, the proposed deal would affect almost half the world’s economy, in a way she didn’t attempt to explain. Six weeks earlier, she had said that the proposed deal might “kill off huge swaths of working-class and middle-class American jobs.”

In terms of policy, it sounded like the proposed Asian pact is an extremely big deal. That’s why we’re asking you to notice the fact that Maddow virtually never discusses this topic, even though she seems to think it might devastate large numbers of regular people.

Maddow never seems to lack for time to tell her endless jokes or to engage in her endless mugging, which ought to serve as an open insult to her viewers’ intelligence.

Last night, he played her toy xylophone again while “Nick” paraded behind her with his cardboard NBC sign. We were amazed, as we always are, to think that liberal viewers accept this.

It gets even worse. Night after night, Maddow wastes time in prodigious amounts with her inane pseudo-discussions of the large number of Republican candidates in the White House race. Last night, she wasted time once again discussing “my guy, Jim Gilmore,” who apparently told the Richmond Times Dispatch that he will be running for president again.

No imaginable announcement could be less significant. But Maddow burned away her standard dollop of time:
MADDOW (7/7/15): Today, another candidate says he is jumping to that end of the candidate pool. And it’s my guy! It’s Jim Gilmore, the former governor—

He’s only my guy because his press office calls us back and nobody else does.


Jim Gilmore, former governor of Virginia. He was chairman of the National Republican Party in 2001. He ran for president for a hot minute in 2007. In 2008, he was in the debates and everything before dropped out of the presidential race.

Later that year, he ran for Senate in Virginia, whereupon he lost to Mark Warner by 31 freaking points in that Senate race.


But be not afraid, Jim Gilmore, former governor of Virginia. He’s in. He told The Richmond Times Dispatch today that he’s running. He will declare that he is running around the time of the first debate which he and lots of other Republican presidential contenders will not be allowed into because Fox News says they can’t.

He will be, I think, the 17th major candidate to announce. Fox News says they are only taking ten. And by that dictate from Fox News, that makes the next three weeks something of not just critical, but existential importance for these candidates [showing photos] and my man, Jim Gilmore.

These guys, plus Jim Gilmore, only three will make it to the stage. This is now a dog-eat-dog, zero-sum game. Only three of the people can make it.
Maddow repeats this general story might after night, week after week, in much the way that Lady Macbeth became famous for washing her hands.

Just to clarify the chronology, Gilmore’s “hot minute” in the 2008 presidential campaign actually ended in July 2007. From there, he went on to be decimated in that Senate race.

For reasons which are blindingly obvious from the history Maddow recited, Gilmore’s potential candidacy would be one of the most ridiculous vanity runs in modern history. Despite this fact, Maddow loves to waste her viewers’ time talking about his deliberations, most recently on her previous programs of June 11, June 16, June 25 and July 2.

She loves to waste her viewers’ time on this ridiculous pap. By way of contrast, she almost never discusses the substance of that Asian trade thing, which “would affect 40 percent of the world’s economy” and might “kill off huge swaths of working-class and middle-class American jobs.”

Friend, are you a serious person? Are you a serious liberal or progressive? A serious citizen of the world? Are you a decent human?

If so, we think it’s time for you to wonder why Maddow behaves this way. We think it’s time for you to ask why she clowns in the ways she does on almost every program.

We think it’s time for you to ask why she burns time on “my guy, Jim Gilmore,” but can’t bring herself to attempt to explain the substance of a major policy fight which, according to her own fleeting remarks, would affect all kinds of people who aren’t corporate-paid multimillionaires.

Over the past few months, Maddow’s “campaign coverage” has become about as dumb as anything we’ve ever seen on a cable news program. (That takes in a lot of territory.) But if you watch the Maddow Show, you know next to nothing about the proposed Asian trade deal, or about the substance of international trade deals in general.

Maddow doesn’t seem to care a whole lot about the jobs of working-class people. In our view, it’s long past time when you should be asking why that is.

How much do you really know about the substance of international trade? Tomorrow, we’ll show you what Paul Krugman has said about the substance of the proposed TPP. On Friday, we’ll return to Maddow’s absurd pretense, in the past few months, of discussing this major topic.

(Warning! Don’t let the children watch!)

Maddow and her corporate owners branded her as Our Own Rhodes Scholar. Her lunacy has reached the point where it must be made to stop.

Tomorrow: What has Krugman said?

49 comments:

  1. The Maddow show is written by young, green brown-nosers who know nothing of complex policies like these.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. When will the networks give us old, wrinkled sinus-infecteds who compliment the complexity of potential side effects shown in their drug advertising with policy discussions suitable to inform the hungry intellect of Harvard educated former comedians?

      Tomorrow: What has Krugman said and why for heavens sake haven't we covered it before we wanted to attack Maddow with it?

      Delete
    2. Because musing on the mainstream press corps not reporting the news

      Delete
    3. Never before have the views of teenaged brown-nosers been taken as anything but cute by anyone. With the possible exception of Vietnam war protests, since they stood to lose their lives which any imbecile of any level of experience and maturity can understand. Otherwise, until now the crank, teen driven progressive left has always been dismissed as ignorant and intellectually unformed by all thinking people who don't live on campus. Now it defines mainstream Democrat politics.

      Delete
    4. So @ 1:54, you were finally old enough to move out of the dorm this summer?

      Delete
    5. The writing is so bad. And her performance is insufferable. Like she's a teenage valley girl. Why does she act this way? That's the way insecure people act. I hate Bob too but I agree that she must go because she makes liberals look like self centered insecure jerks.

      Delete
  2. John Oliver does a good job of being funny while also explaining what is wrong and what needs to be fixed about complex issues.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bob coulda been a contender if Stewart gave him the chance he gave Oliver.

      Delete
    2. The question is why Maddow, who actually sees herself as a Stewart wannabe, can't find a way to both entertain and inform. She might as well replace Rosie Perez on the view.

      Delete
    3. Rosie Perez is on the View? Haven't seen her since My Cousin Bernie.

      Delete
    4. Here is Rosie Perez on "The View"doing her best to compile a list of HRC's accomplishments as Senator and Secretary of State.


      PEREZ: "You know, she unveiled the Global Hunger and Food Security program. She prevailed over Biden to send an additional 21 [sic] troops to Afghanistan. She saved the signing of Turkish-Armenian accord. She played an important role in getting international support on Iran sanction [?] She created -- it goes on and on and on. And she was instrumental with women across the world, of really ending violence against women worldwide..."

      Delete
    5. cicero, it is obvious you have mom issues, but really.

      Delete
    6. Cicero, you are as relentless, and about as mindless, as the shark in Jaws in your constant attacks on HRC - what I'd be interested in finding out from you is whether any or all of the motley crew of GOP aspirants are somehow preferable to HRC as a presidential candidate - and if so, on the basis of what evidence?

      Delete
    7. Relentlessly mindless is part of cicero's pay grade.

      Delete
    8. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    9. @ AC/MA

      Posting the musings of Rosie Perez (a staunch HRC supporter) is considered mindless? Could you please provide the names of other celebrity HRC supporters you would prefer not to hear from?

      Delete
    10. Will TrollforfoodJuly 8, 2015 at 11:47 PM

      "Posting (for pay) the musings of Rosie Perez ...."

      FTFY - $$$$

      Delete
    11. Cicero, you compledtely ignored my question, evidently because you can't answer it. I'll answer your qquestion, though: posting Rosie Perez's views about HRC by you was mindless; and I don't prefer to hear from any celebrity supporters of HRC.

      Delete
    12. @ AC/MA,

      That you refer to the GOP field for POTUS that consists of a women CEO, a black surgeon, Hispanics, graduates of the Ivy League and one who didn't finish college as "motley" is typical for a liberal ideologue. You couldn't care less about HRC's propensity for lying, and, or, her failure to achieve any success at the State Department , which is why she barely mentioned her stint at Foggy Bottom during her endless announcement as candidate for POTUS at Roosevelt Island, yet you like Perez, staunchly defend her. Why?

      Media Matters David Brock will be crestfallen that you turn a deaf ear to him and other far left cheerleaders of HRC for POTUS.

      Delete
    13. cicero, I don't consider myself to be a 'liberal ideologue.' I'm not particularly crazy about HRC. I think being POTUS is virtually an impossible job, to the extent that all the candidates make impossible promises that if they are elected, the result will be a something close to a utopia. I don't buy your conservative "ideologue" contention that HRC has a 'propensity for lying" Your examples are basically twisted, distorted, out of context or meaningless. Your claim that she "failed to achieve any success at the State Department" is also pure subjective right wing spin. What was the "success" of the preceding GOP administration? Getting us stuck in the Iraq morass, and creating the current chaos in the Middle East. Seems that the GOP candidates find all kinds of faults without explaining what they would do differently, except be more aggressive and get us into worse messes. HRC's credentials are just as good or better that the 17 GOP candidates. The real issue is not so much the credentials - but what their policies are. In what sense are the GOP crews' policies superior to those of HRC? That's what I was looking for you to answer.As far as I'm concerned, in these things it's choosing the lesser of 2 evils, and your side is way worse.

      Delete
  3. Seems to me these are two distinct issues: (1) fast track approval, (2) Asian Pacific trade.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Could be. Why not wait until tomorrow for Krugman and we'll all find out together along with Somerby?

      Delete
  4. Trollin World War III BluesJuly 8, 2015 at 12:15 PM

    DONT THINK TWICE (Bob and Rachel Duet)

    BOB: It’s time for the clowning to stop (babe)

    Check that!

    For ourselves, we know very little about international trade.

    That sounds like a bad thing! the joke-laden cable star said.

    If you watched Maddow that night, you got to see “Our Own Cantinflas” get serious for just a moment.

    She was discussing the TPP; she made it sound like the substance of this proposed trade deal was a very serious matter indeed. Six weeks later, Maddow conveyed the same sense as she discussed the very serious “trade thing” Obama has been supporting:

    MADDOW (6/17/15):.... potentially huge Supreme Court news. In the other branch of government that is usually boring but occasionally fantastically interesting, huge news tomorrow from Congress. This trade thing....super-melodramatic headlines...So the trade bill is a big deal... which will be a huge deal in Washington."

    BOB: Maddow never seems to lack for time to tell her endless jokes or to engage in her endless mugging, which ought to serve as an open insult to her viewers’ intelligence. ...We were amazed, as we always are, to think that liberal viewers accept this.

    It gets even worse. Night after night, Maddow wastes time in prodigious amounts with her inane pseudo-discussions of the large number of Republican candidates in the White House race. Last night, she wasted time once again...Maddow burned away her standard dollop of time:

    MADDOW: ( Dollop of 240 wasteful words copied and pasted in full)

    BOB: Maddow repeats this general story might after night, week after week, in much the way that Lady Macbeth became famous for washing her hands.

    Just to clarify the chronology (Maddow's dollop reprise)

    For reasons which are blindingly obvious .... Maddow loves to waste her viewers’ time.

    She loves to waste her viewers’ time on this ridiculous pap.

    Friend, are you a serious person? Are you a serious liberal or progressive? A serious citizen of the world? Are you a decent human?

    If so, we think it’s time for you to wonder why Maddow behaves this way. We think it’s time for you to ask why she clowns in the ways she does on almost every program.

    We think it’s time for you to ask why she burns time.

    In our view, it’s long past time when you should be asking why that is.

    Her lunacy has reached the point where it must be made to stop."

    -----------------------

    They both just kinda wasted everyone's precious time. Didn't they?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you believe your time is being wasted, why are you still here?

      Delete
    2. Are you a serious person? Are you a serious liberal or progressive? A serious citizen of the world? Are you a decent human?

      If so, don't waste my time with such stupid questions.

      Delete
    3. Trollin etc, what did the blogger do to deserve you, I have to wonder?

      Delete
  5. I will not be logging on to this site again.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Please stay. Somebody will click on the Dr. Ukaka link eventually. They are just temporarily distracted with Turk porno due to the troll infestation.

      Delete
    2. No, good riddance.

      Delete
    3. @ 1:28 is either a troll or someone who wants them to win.

      Regardless of @ 12:18's views now, he/she is a person who can be won over to progressive causes with messages of toleration like today's post.

      Please reconsider, friend if you are not already gone.

      Delete
  6. Remember when Bob Almost Got Somebody Killed?

    "Are you a decent human?

    In our view, it’s long past time....

    Her lunacy has reached the point where it must be made to stop."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sounds like a call to change her schtick, or find a different job, not a dire threat. There is no way to contact her show directly and complain. She doesn't want to hear it.

      Delete
    2. I am sure some heard Matthews differently too. Friends and families of those slashed by those influenced by his irresponsible writing take cold comfort in that I am sure. Journalists like Somerby, Maddow and Matthews need to listen to complaints and think before they endanger others.

      Has Somerby even bothered to call MSNBC producers and ask why she wastes so much time?

      Delete
  7. Off Topic but IMHO important:

    Just as Somerby wonders why Maddow wastes time with Gilmore today, he devoted a whole column to David Brooks wasting time on Robert E. Lee, seeming not to understand why the column was timely.

    Now the Memphis City Council is digging up the graves of old confederate generals in direct defiance of the love preached by MLK, who was shot to death in that city.

    See Bob? It is important.

    A link to my mainstream media source:

    http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/memphis-nathan-bedford-forrest-remains

    ReplyDelete
  8. maddow is a hack...she has been since her time at air america. she was annoying then and she still is

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rev. Welton Gaddy was the only worthwhile thing on Air America.

      Delete
    2. An obvious anagram.

      Delete
  9. Cantinflas was heterosexual.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He wasn't that tall, either.

      Delete
    2. Louie Gohmert says he has calves like cantaloupes, and Bozowig Trump says he's a serial-rapist drug dealer.

      Go figure! At least our discourse is in good shape, except for those liberal bellcows in the media.

      Delete
  10. Whatever happened to the good old days?

    Back in the good old days, the trolls would at least simulate a defense of Maddow...

    Now, they just... well, troll.

    Up your game, trolls!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Back in the old days Bob had other defenders who foolish thought any negative comments were a defense of Maddow or whomever Bob was attacking that day. Now you are the only one left.

      Delete
    2. Not any negative comments, your incessant and negative comments. Anyway 3:29 AM makes a good point, your output lately has had an uninspired quality to it. Maybe it's because you stopped crushing on Lady Maddow, or maybe it's because you've been under the weather. If the latter, I hope you feel better soon, if the former I guess you're feeling pretty foolish these days but don't beat up on yourself too hard- you couldn't help it.

      Delete
    3. 3:29 would be rolling drunks in the park if there weren't any Bob-critics, CMIKE. You should be thankful there are.

      Delete
    4. Did you mean to type "drunks" as plural?

      Delete
  11. I refuse to ever return to this webpage.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How can we miss you when you won't go away?

      Delete