Supplemental: One additional night in the life!

SATURDAY, AUGUST 1, 2015

By now, Our Own Version of Fox:
Does Rachel Maddow’s “campaign coverage” ever make any real sense?

Is it possible that her campaign coverage is a form of partisan entertainment, designed with an eye to ratings?

Consider her relatively truncated campaign coverage on Thursday night’s Maddow Show. After showing us photos of Rep. John Lewis with puppies, she made a presentation about Candidate Trump that pretty much has to be false:
MADDOW (7/30/15): Anyway, so here’s Donald Trump today, the clear front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination, arriving at one of his golf courses in Scotland. And I don’t know, maybe Donald Trump always goes to Scotland this time of year. It’s wicked hot and humid in New York. Maybe he always likes to get away to cooler climes this time of year. I don’t know.

But the fact that he is running for president has not stopped him from taking this trip to Scotland. The first Republican presidential debate is in a week. Donald Trump and his campaign staff has made a big deal out of pointing out that Donald Trump does not plan to do any preparation for that debate. And this long weekend of golf that he took off for today in part I guess showcases that he is not working to prepare for the debate. He’s just doing his Donald Trump thing.
Twice, Maddow said she didn’t know why Trump had gone to Scotland, except that he was engaging in a “long weekend of golf.”

The claim of ignorance seems quite hard to believe. Over the previous several days, it had been widely reported, again and again, that Trump was going to Scotland to attend the British Women’s Open, which was being held at the golf course he owns.

It had also been reported that, due to the campaign, Trump would cut his planned visit short, returning on Saturday.

There’s little chance that Maddow’s staff didn’t know these things. We’ll take a guess:

From a partisan entertainment standpoint, it sounded better to say that Trump was off for a “long weekend of golf” and to leave it at that. It sounded better to drop the part about sponsoring and attending the Women’s Open.

It sounded better for Maddow to say she didn’t know, even though she presumably did.

As she opened, Maddow flirted with an apparent lie. Things got dumber from there.

As she continued, Maddow discussed the new Quinnipiac national poll. The poll had Trump in the lead in the Republican race with 20 percent support.

But “oh happy day,” Maddow said. In a head-to-head matchup, Candidate Clinton had beaten Candidate Trump quite badly.

She absolutely spanks him, Maddow said. She beats Trump by a mile:
MADDOW: It’s his biggest lead in—Look at that!—his biggest lead in that poll by far. It’s actually the biggest lead that anybody has had by poll by far.

Donald Trump, leading with 20 points. His nearest rival is Scott Walker at 13. Jeb Bush, the only other candidate who hits double digits, is at 10 points.

This is the sixth straight national poll that’s put Donald Trump in first place for the Republican presidential nomination.

But oh happy day! This latest Quinnipiac poll did not just poll within the Republican Party. They also polled head-to-head matchups for theoretical contests in the general election.

And so, for the guys who are polling a distant second and third place for Donald Trump for the Republican nomination, for Scott Walker and Jeb Bush, those head-to-head polls end up interesting and sort of close matchups between each of them and the likely Democratic nominee, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

For the man who is the clear front-runner for the Republican nomination, though, the front-runner by a big margin, when you match him, Donald Trump, against Hillary Clinton in a theoretical general election matchup, well, in that case, it’s not close at all.

Hillary Clinton absolutely spanks him,
beats him by 12 points.

In this poll, Scott Walker and Jeb Bush do OK against Hillary Clinton. Donald Trump loses to her by a mile...
“Oh happy day?”

It’s silly to focus on general election polling now, especially with politically volatile figures like Clinton and Trump. But that 12-point margin strikes us as depressingly close, and Bush and Walker were both polling dead even with Clinton.

As always, Maddow was pushing to make us viewers feel tribally good. We’d say those polling results are quite scary.

(Videotape of this segment hasn’t been posted at the Maddow site.)

As she continued, Maddow showed how silly and worthless her campaign analyses tend to be. She tried to explain why Republican voters want to nominate Candidate Trump, even though they know he would lose to Candidate Clinton.

Please. Maddow presented absolutely no evidence that Trump’s supporters think he would lose to Clinton. As solipsists frequently do, she seems to think that other people know and believe the exact same things she does.

Maddow offered no evidence in support of that basic contention. Much more remarkably, consider what she kept saying about “Republican voters.”

They told us we had Our Own Rhodes Scholar. This is what she now peddles:
MADDOW: Donald Trump loses not only to Hillary Clinton in general election matchups, he would lose to Bernie Sanders if he made it to the general election. But Republican voters do not care! They want their Donald Trump!

He’s the only top-tier candidate who loses by double digits, not only to Hillary Clinton, but also to Bernie Sanders. But Republican voters want him anyway. And that ends up not being an interesting thing about Donald Trump. It’s an interesting thing about Republican voters.

They keep picking him, and they know he would lose, but they like him anyway. They know he’s going to lose, and they don’t care. They love this guy!

So all this Beltway analysis that says that Donald Trump’s star is going to fall, because all of the ways in which he is not electable, right? There’s a reason all that punditry, and all that Beltway common wisdom keeps getting proven wrong with each new passing day and each new poll showing Donald Trump on top. It’s because Republican voters do not give a flying comb-over about who is electable. They just want somebody to fall in love with, and they have fallen in love with him.

They know he’s not electable! They do not care.
And so, the Republican nominating process, as we head toward the first debate, looks likely to remain the Donald Trump show for a long while yet, even though the Beltway keeps telling us it’s about to be over.
To watch this second campaign coverage segment, just click here.

Try to ignore all those unsourced claims about what “the Beltway” keeps telling us. Consider what Maddow keeps saying about “Republican voters.”

According to Our Own Rhodes Scholars, Republican voters “want their Donald Trump.” Earlier in the segment, she said Republican voters “luvvvvv them some Donald Trump.”

“They love this guy,” Maddow said. Republican voters “do not give a flying comb-over about who is electable.”

Republican voters just want somebody to fall in love with, she said, and Republican voters have fallen in love with him. “They know he’s not electable. They do not care.”

Again, there is zero evidence that Trump supporters think he would lose to Clinton. Beyond that, please understand—Maddow is basing these sweeping statements about “Republican voters” on a Quinnipiac poll in which 80 percent of Republican voters didn’t support Candidate Trump.

Twenty percent of respondents said they’re supporting Trump. In a 17-candidate field, that's enough to put him in first place.

It also means that 80 percent of “Republican voters” said they aren’t supporting Trump. More precisely, 68 percent of respondents named a candidate other than Trump who they said they support. An additional twelve percent said they’re undecided.

Given this circumstance, Maddow’s sweeping claims about “Republican voters” made no sense at all. But so what? She was also able to explain why “Republican voters” “keep picking Trump” even though “they know he would lose.”

“It’s an interesting thing about Republican voters,” Maddow said. She went on to explain:

Maddow based her explanation on cherry-picked responses to an unusual poll question—a question which was answered the same way by Democrats and Republicans alike.

Why do “Republican voters” keep picking Trump even though “they know he would lose?” To explain this conundrum, Maddow referred to a question which appeared in a recent poll by NBC/Marist:
MADDOW: When NBC and Marist polled New Hampshire and Iowa, Republican voters again in those states said they luvvvvv them some Donald Trump. Mr. Trump was way out ahead in New Hampshire, and he was a very close second to Scott Walker in Iowa.

But the pollsters at NBC and Marist did not just ask Republican voters who do you like for president? They also asked them one crucial follow-up, which I think maybe kind of explains everything.

They asked them this: Which is more important to you, a Republican nominee for president who shares your positions on most issues, or a Republican nominee for president who has the best chance of winning the White House?

In both Iowa and in New Hampshire, by a 2:1 margin, Republican voters said they want a nominee for president who they agree with rather than one who can win. 67 percent of Republicans say that in Iowa, 67 percent of Republicans say that in New Hampshire.

And so yeah! It otherwise looks like this conundrum, right? Donald Trump loses not only to Hillary Clinton in general election match-ups, he would lose to Bernie Sanders if he made it to the general election. But Republican voters do not care. They want their Donald Trump...
Does that maybe kind of explain everything? According to Maddow, Republican voters were asked this question:

Which is more important, a Republican nominee for president who shares your positions on most issues, or a Republican nominee for president who has the best chance of winning the White House?

When they were asked that question, 67 percent of Republican voters said they would prefer the nominee who shares their positions, as opposed to the nominee who had the best chance to win.

Does that maybe kind of explain everything? No, it kind of doesn’t.

Warning! That is an unusual type of survey question, for which we have little track record. We don’t know what a typical response to that question looks like. We don’t know if those responses by Republican voters were unusual in any way at all.

Beyond that, that obvious point again: Those responses came from all Republican voters in Iowa and New Hampshire, the large majority of whom are not supporting Trump.

Here’s something else you ought to know—something Maddow didn’t mention. Democratic voters were asked that same question by NBC/Marist. They responded the same way Republican voters did.

In New Hampshire and Iowa, 66 and 65 percent of Democratic voters said they would prefer the candidate who agreed with their positions. Suddenly, the 67 percent response from Republican voters doesn’t seem so striking.

In short, that reaction to that unusual question was not unique to Republican voters. There’s no sign that it was especially strongly held by Trump supporters. And there’s no indication that Trump supporters think their man would lose to Clinton. As she pretended to solve that conundrum, Maddow was blowing bubbles around, as she does, night after night, in her embarrassing “campaign coverage.”

While we’re at it, might we show you the bubble with which Maddow closed her “campaign coverage” this night?

It wouldn’t be the new Maddow Show if Fox didn’t get knocked around in some silly, selective fashion. Here’s how Maddow performed that mandated task Thursday night:
MADDOW: New York Magazine published some new details about [the August 6] debate today, including that Fox News had now told the candidates that they will be organized physically on stage according to their polling numbers. So not only do you have to make the top ten in national polls in order to make it on stage, so Rick Perry won’t even be there. But the highest polling candidate, Donald Trump, will apparently be in the center of the stage for the debate.

So it really will be the Donald Trump show! This whole Republican Party presidential nominating process has become the Donald Trump show, thanks in part to national polls being the grounds on which people are allowed to participate in the nominating process or not.

A week from tonight, the fact that this is the Donald Trump show will not only be basically official, it will be on display physically on that stage when he stands in the middle like Gladys, surrounded by a whole bunch of Pips on either side.

Fox, are you sure you want to run the Republican presidential primary like this?
That was the dramatic end to the segment.

Corporate-owned hustler, please! Primary debates have been run this way by the various networks for a very long time.

Front-runners are typically placed behind podiums “in the center of the stage.” More marginal candidates splay out to the right and the left.

To see this completely familiar practice in action, just click here. You'll see the introductions of the candidates in the Democratic primary debate of June 3, 2007.

That debate was run by CNN. For the corresponding Republican debate that same night, just click this.

You’ll see the front-runners perched in the middle. The networks pretty much always do this in primary debates.

This practice has nothing to do with Fox. Maddow, who is dumb as a rock or perhaps just dishonest, was simply providing our nightly dose of low-IQ tribal pleasure.

Maddow’s “campaign coverage” was shorter than usual Thursday night. It may have been even dumber than her usual fare.

Her analyses made little sense. Beyond that, she kept omitting information which would undercut the joy of our nightly sponge bath.

Questions:

Do “Republican voters” luvvvvv them some Trump? Not exactly, no. In the poll from which Maddow was working, 80 percent of Republican voters didn’t support Candidate Trump.

Do Trump supporters think he would lose to Candidate Clinton? There’s no evidence of that.

Was there something strange or revealing about the way Republican votes responded to that unusual survey question? Not exactly, no. Democratic voters responded the same way.

Should Dems be saying “oh happy day” about those general election matchups? Walker and Bush were even with Clinton. To us, those results seem appalling.

Did Maddow know why Trump was in Scotland? Did Maddow know how candidates get arranged on the stage?

We’re going to guess that the answer to each question is yes. As we’ve long told you, Rachel Maddow simply isn’t obsessively honest.

They said we were getting Our Own Rhode Scholar. By now, what we’re getting more closely resembles Our Own Sad Version of Fox.

In fairness: The photos of the puppies were cute.

57 comments:

  1. Um, wasn't Cecil Rhodes a hateful racist? - http://bit.ly/1IbwAoe

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, but his money is indifferent.

      Delete
    2. Is it still his money? I was always told you can't take it with you. But that may have just been a tale told to please us liberals.

      Delete
  2. ManGirlPig fantasizes about spanking...or maybe I missed the point..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nobody fantasizes about Elb. I'm the only one who has checked
      it out since 2010. Twice. Tonight.

      Delete
  3. Somewhere didn't Maddow do a fairly decent job on NYT/Hillary?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. mm can't pick who he hates more, the Times or Maddow. Bob hasn't told him yet.

      Delete
    2. No, I didn't use the word "hate".

      Hate is what the right wing media industrial complex spews 24/7.

      Delete
  4. R.M. used to have long blonde hair. Why she now has short black hair, I don't know.

    In other news, R.M. considers Trump to be a black women soul singer.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "In other news, cicero continues to fill the commentarium with wingnut drivel designed to cause death by boredom."

      FTFY - RIP

      Delete
    2. @ 9:08

      If libs are impervious to drivel and inanities. That is why the harpy Debbie Wasserman Shultz is head of the DNC. Here she is flummoxed over MSNBC Chris Matthews question regarding the difference between a Democrat and a Socialist.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkr7DsQTwno

      Delete
    3. 9:08 is right Cis. You are a waste of space. Try following sports.

      Delete
    4. @ Gre

      You got your GED from the DWS school of deflection.

      Delete
    5. You got all your trophies for participation.

      Delete
    6. @ 12:24

      It is the liberal compulsion to award trophies to precious snowflake Millennials for standing up without falling over backwards. Are you expecting a trophy from B.S. for showing up?

      Delete
    7. @ 12:48 - RIP

      Delete
    8. cicero did get in the game when he was at the age where the league required playing time for all kids whose parent's registered them.

      They always dropped him off on time. Sometimes they returned and picked him up saving the coach that extra trip.

      In addition to his participation trophies, cicero did learn how to razz the other side from the bench.

      Delete
  5. Jesus RMS Jihad this was dumb.

    Just blindingly stupid. the nonsense continued in a wide array of ways. And the dumbness just rumbles along.

    There was no way to know how crazy, and how insulting this jihad was going to get. The ridiculous drift of this nonsense was becoming fairly clear. It may be hard for liberals to understand this. But this is has been one of the dumbest episodes in a long miserable history.

    Good God, that presentation was dumb! In a world which wasn’t a scam it seemed utterly clueless. How utterly clueless was it?

    Incredibly, that wasn’t the stupid part of that program. The stupid part—the part which truly insulted people's intelligence—was yet to come.
    If you don’t feel your intelligence is being insulted, it may be time that you conducted a search for same.

    The sheer stupidity of this behavior is its distinguishing characteristic.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I've got an idea. Let's go to prison!

    ReplyDelete
  7. I've watched her show since about 2011, around the time of the Iowa Straw Poll. I don't know that I endorse all of Somerby's points, but there certainly has been a marked difference in the tone of her show over the last year. The odd humor that she would pepper in now and again, the occasional indulgence in shtick, has become decidedly more frequent.

    The nonsense about not recognizing who George Pataki or John Kasich were really struck me as insulting the audience's intelligence. It seems odd to assume that the audience watching a show about politics is sufficiently disengaged or uninformed not to recognize a long-serving Governor of NY or a really important Republican who's served in the House, had a Fox News show, and been Governor of Ohio.

    Her full-throated, "compassionate" defense of Brian Williams also struck a false, troubling note for me. It smacked of corporatism, Maddow lending her credibility with her viewers to support the company's embattled man as he seeks to resurrect himself.

    In particular, lately, I've noticed that her tendency to endlessly repeat and restate particular points has increased as well. Not only does this come across as a lack of respect for your audience's intelligence, but it also reflects lazy writing by her staff. There's a value to repetition in making an argument, but there's also a line where it becomes less about rhetoric and more about filling time.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "In particular, lately, I've noticed that her tendency to endlessly repeat and restate particular points has increased as well. Not only does this come across as a lack of respect for your audience's intelligence, but it also reflects lazy writing by her staff. There's a value to repetition in making an argument, but there's also a line where it becomes less about rhetoric and more about filling time."

      How ironic that this criticism appear in The Daily Howler.

      Delete
    2. Good God, that comment was dumb! Even in a world which is slightly rational it would seem utterly clueless. How utterly clueless was it? Just blindingly stupid. the nonsense continued in a wide array of ways. And the dumbness just rumbles along. It may be hard for liberals to understand this. But this is has been one of the dumbest comments in a long miserable history.

      Delete
    3. I've watched her show since about 2009. I still miss Keith Olbermann.

      Maybe he can start a vanity blog.

      Delete
    4. @ 12:43

      You must be the only one. Joe Scarborough & Mika attempt in vain to educate clueless Joan Walsh that K.O.'s is the left's version of Limberger.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdHHUWAHNVA

      Delete
    5. @ 12:57 - RIP

      Delete
    6. Having stayed away from this blog for a couple of years, I thought to myself, "I'd like a dose of irony, I wonder if the ol' Daily Howler is up to the same old shtick" and sure enough ended up here, well satisfied.

      Delete
  8. If libs want MSNBC to be their own version of FNC they would first require ratings that routinely trounce all other cable channels. Then they would have to employ conservative pundits, Republican strategists, conservative journalists, conservative politicians who would routinely appear every day on their programs. That's about as likely a prospect as Obama firing IRS chief Koskinen for obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence and stonewalling a congressional investigation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What might work is to hire liberal pundits, liberal strategists, liberal journalists, and liberal politicians to routinely appear every day on their programs, and to help craft a consistent and relentless message. But our side never does that. We never go all out. That's why, as Bob keeps saying, we think we're so smart, but we keep losing to the stupids. I'd write a book about it if I could find a publisher. - http://bit.ly/Q3zdMU

      Delete
    2. Maybe only a small number of liberals want to have their eyeballs glued to talking heads on the TV delivering false propaganda designed to keep their wrinkled butts puckering angrily all day on a network designed and run by a guy whose prior experience and love is electing people who share his partisan views.

      In which case liberals will never have a network with ratings like FOX.

      Delete
    3. @ 11:31

      Jon Stewart's The Daily Show has a substantial liberal audience and he is the disseminator of Obama Administration false propaganda. In fact, Obama joked that he wanted to issue an Executive Order order to keep Jon on the air.

      Delete
    4. I once joke I wanted to issue an order putting you and mm in the same room without internet access.

      Delete
    5. Caro,

      Why would a corporation want "to hire liberal pundits, liberal strategists, liberal journalists, and liberal politicians to routinely appear every day on their programs, and to help craft a consistent and relentless message"? I assume by "liberal" you mean those who favor small "d" democratic control of government; protections for workers and consumers in the market; reducing the profits from rent seeking to the most minimal level necessary to maximize the benefits derived from that distortion going to the general population, the use of fiscal policy to provide assistance to those who otherwise would live in poverty and to prevent the excessive accumulation of wealth in private hands from being transferred intergenerational-ly; guaranteeing access for all citizens to healthcare and education services at whatever level a general consensus deems minimally necessary, equal justice for all before the law; fair, not free, trade policies; a living wage for all workers; full employment; public research and infrastructure projects with the benefits to accrue to the general population, and protection against all forms of crime at home and any who credibly threaten from abroad.

      Delete
    6. Yes, your definition of liberal is acceptable, as is John Kennedy's (http://bit.ly/1hdIm8W).

      I don't have high hopes for the corporate media sponsoring such a message, unless we the people take control of our destiny. I've written about it and written about it, and nobody pays attention (http://makethemaccountable.com/buyback/BuyBackOurGovernment.pdf).

      Looks like we're all waiting for Godot.

      Delete
    7. We once were waiting for Gore. He founded Current TV but sold it to a middle eastern network for a big profit. Bob Somerby almost never mentioned Current TV.

      Delete
    8. Almost certainly that, "Corporations have been enthroned, an era of corruption in high places will follow..." quote should not be attributed to Lincoln -nor to anyone else speaking during his lifetime- but I'll look at some of the rest of your BuyBackOur Government pdf Caro.

      [LINK]
      [LINK]

      Delete
  9. Bob established a new mandatory minimum Friday for his prosecution of Ms. Maddow's treason against liberal causes. It was as long as the Times "bombshell" on the Clinton uranium perfidy.

    This was a good effort on its own. But he turned it in on Saturday and did it instead of the expected piece on how black people should quit fudging numbers on police shootings and instead brag about those incredible NAEP scores. Heaven knows Ms. Maddow will never cover either, focusing instead on the Presidential debate this week.

    ReplyDelete
  10. [TDH Quoting Poll] Which is more important, a Republican nominee for president who shares your positions on most issues, or a Republican nominee for president who has the best chance of winning the White House?[end]

    [TDH] When they were asked that question, 67 percent of Republican voters said they would prefer the nominee who shares their positions....

    Does that maybe kind of explain everything? No, it kind of doesn’t.

    Warning! That is an unusual type of survey question, for which we have little track record. We don’t know what a typical response to that question looks like. We don’t know if those responses by Republican voters were unusual in any way at all. [end]

    Warning. Bob is full of shit.

    Why it was asked just last march by CNN.

    http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/22/politics/2016-election-poll-perfect-candidate/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, not the same question. Looks like you're the one who's full of shit.

      ***********************
      The candidate shares your views on all major issues 51%

      The candidate may not share all of your views on major issues, but belongs to the party you prefer and has a good chance of winning 47%

      No opinion 3%
      ***************

      Delete
    2. Yes there is a minor variation in the wording. Of course mm does not state that on that CNN poll question, Republicans went 59-36 in favor of "shares views" to "can win."

      He and Bob don't tell you a variation of the question has been asked regularly by Marist, who did the NBC poll.

      But mm has his point. Such changes can have an impact. Think of a few examples.

      "We were broke and in debt" vs. "We have been financially successful since Bill left the White House but..."

      "took the initiative in creating the internet" vs. "played a leadership role in funding development of the internet"

      "I found a little place called Love Canal," vs. "We found a
      similar place called Love Canal."

      Delete
    3. Marist:

      58% of Republicans and Republican leaning independents say it is more important to have a candidate who stands on conservative principles while 39% report it is better to nominate someone who can win the White House. In December, 64% thought maintaining the party’s core principles trumped nominating a candidate
      who could win, 33% (Trend). This is the first time since this question has been asked that the proportion of Republicans and Republican leaning independents who favor a candidate who stands on conservative principles has dropped below 60%.

      http://maristpoll.marist.edu/wp-content/misc/usapolls/us150301/2016/Complete%20March%202015%20McClatchy_Marist%20Poll_2016_Release%20and%20Tables.pdf

      Delete
    4. These poll questions, regardless of wording, have nothing to do Hillary Clinton's private Email account.

      Delete
    5. 11:10 cry me a river.

      Delete
    6. 5:25 the analysts get to do all the crying around here.

      Delete
  11. "From a partisan entertainment standpoint, it sounded better to say that Trump was off for a “long weekend of golf” and to leave it at that. It sounded better to drop the part about sponsoring and attending the Women’s Open."

    Isn't going to Scotland to attend a golf tournament a long weekend of golf whether you are playing, sponsoring, or just watching?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Does Trump fly that ginormous American flag at his Scottish golf club? Does he import Mexican workers like he does in Florida?

      Delete
    2. @12:38 -- Don't be obtuse.

      Golf playing has long been criticized in presidents going back at least to Eisenhower (and probably further back). It is considered goofing off. Implying that Trump went on a golf playing junket instead of on business is a mild smear. Your suggestion that the words are technically accurate ignores the political game that is played with phrasing and word choice (and in this case, omission of details).

      Most people who run for president are currently holding some political office. Trump is in business. Taking time to attend to his business is the equivalent of someone like Ted Cruz returning to congress to vote, or Walker doing his job as Governor while also campaigning. No one quits in order to run for president, nor are they expected to. So this is a cheap shot at Trump.

      If you think all Republicans are evil and any cheap shot taken by liberals at conservatives are fair game, then Maddow's actions won't bother you. Somerby is suggesting that we should have some standards are such things and not descend to the level of our worst opponents. Why? Because it puts off voters and can create sympathy for those unfairly attacked, and it makes us look silly and desperate and lacking in character.

      Delete
    3. I guess you are right. If he skips campaign events to go to Miss Universe it is business, not a long weekend of beauty pageantry.

      Delete
    4. I agree with Jon Stewart and Bob Somerby's criticism of Maddow. That there are issues of corruption beyond partisanship which need covering and that her partisanship obscures those important issues.

      Delete
    5. I thought Bob Somerby's most frequent criticism of Maddow, besides not answering his demand to know why she once said something nice about Chris Matthews, was she did not cover black NAEP test scores.

      Are you suggesting those test scores are corrupt? Or perhaps you could tell us what issues of corruption beyond partisanship you, Jon and Bob are talking about? I eagerly await enlightenment.

      Delete
    6. She fawned over Matthews, ignoring his malfeasance against all things liberal, embracing him as if he had no past.

      You use NAEP like toilet paper. Black kids are people too.

      Delete
  12. I remember when Bob Somerby used to cover the Sunday network media talk fests. I used to watch those but I am getting old and have started to hedge my bets by spending Sunday morning in church. Maybe Bob quit for the same reason.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Maddow's origin and purpose is still a total mystery.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Maddow's origins involved an egg and a sperm, each wearing a navy pinstripe suit.

      Delete
    2. R.M.'s origins date back to H.M.S. Beagle.

      Delete
  14. does anyone need help? i think im some kind of commander.

    this place is vaguely familiar.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's the puppies. Everyone, including the Captain, thinks they're cute. Cute puppies make everyplace more warm and familiar.

      If you concentrate on how cute you think the puppies are, maybe you will stop thinking you are a commander. Or at least remember what kind of commander you are.

      Also, taking off the ego mask will help.

      Delete