Campaign watch: Just try to explain this sort of thing!

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 2016

Maddow's compulsive misstatements:
As usual, Rachel Maddow was wasting everyone's time last night with silly campaign piddle.

Before the program was over, she would 1) play tape of Bush's funny sounds again; 2) make Bush's head shot go "poof" on her big board of Republican head shots; and even 3) go back through all the Republican headshots, re-poofing every one!

For us out here in Mickey Mouse land, it was oodles of Mickey Mouse Club-style fun. It was also as dumb as a box of rocks, although we liberals don't seem able to notice or care.

Maddow's show has become every bit as faux as the Morning Joe gonger which forms its daily bookend. Last night, though, Maddow livened things up amid all the poof-ing with one of her compulsive, absurd false statements.

As she often does, Maddow was pretending to stand tall against that "Beltway press." When Maddow casts herself in this role, she often attributes puzzling claims to those unnamed very bad people.

Last night, though, Maddow outdid herself. Even by her own weird standards, the highlighted claims makes absolutely no sense:
MADDOW (2/22/16): This election year is now officially so weird that historically speaking, the least weird thing that could happen from here on out, would be for Donald Trump to win the Republican presidential nomination. Honestly, it would be bizarre if it didn't happen now.

No Republican candidate for president has ever won both New Hampshire and South Carolina and not gone onto win the nomination. Mr. Trump has won both New Hampshire and South Carolina. And he won them both by a lot.
It would be weird—it would be unprecedented if he didn't now go onto win the overall primary.

Now conversely, the political press has decided that Marco Rubio is basically a sure bet at this point. The endorsements for Senator Rubio is flooding in. He's been all but coronated by the Beltway press.

But Marco Rubio just lost by 10 points in South Carolina. He came in fifth before that in New Hampshire. He came in third before that in Iowa. Historically speaking, nobody has won the Republican nomination without winning at least one of the first three states.

Marco Rubio not only didn't win one of the first three, he didn't come close to winning in any of the first three states.

If Marco Rubio is going to get the Republican nomination, he's going to be a historical anomaly so glaring, you will be able to see the glow from space.
Sitting at home, we the gullible liberals got played by this big fraud once again.

Say what? "The political press has decided that Marco Rubio is basically a sure bet at this point?"

"He's been all but coronated by the Beltway press?"

We have no idea why Maddow would make such strange statements. Have you seen anyone in the mainstream press predicting that Rubio is going to win the GOP nomination? Have you seen anyone calling him "a sure bet?"

Why does Maddow say these things? Aside from our sense that she could possibly use some help, we have no idea.

Just for the record, to see the Maddow Show's "citations" for last night's program, you can just click here. The Maddow staff links you to many cites. There is no link to any claim that Rubio's going to win.

That claim was very, very strange but increasingly, so is this program's host. Many "stars" have been eaten alive by show business wealth and fame. Maddow, a multimillionaire clown, looks like the latest contender.

23 comments:

  1. Why does Maddow make misstatements about the press? Perhaps for the same reason Bob Somerby makes them. Both purport to know something about journalism but neither ever seemed to work a day as a reporter.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is certainly possible she got it from reading all those people who proclaimed 2015 THE YEAR OF THE LIBERAL.

      Delete
  2. I tried to watch Maddow last night, but I just couldn't deal with her sniggering, her cute little voices, her talking like a third-grader, and her refusal to take seriously the ultimate meaning of her points. When it's joke night on the Maddow show I have to go in a corner and hide.

    She's really atrocious, you know.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am glad you held on until you were able to discern the ultimate meaning of her points.

      Be sure and some out of hiding to take your vitamins.

      Delete
    2. Yes, ignore the substance. Concentrate on the delivery.

      Delete
  3. For Maddow, repeating the poofing of photos of Republican campaign drop-outs is kind of like Bob Somerby mentioning Frank Bruni in Camapign 2000 whenever a New York Times reporter says something nice about somebody named Bush.

    It is pure irresistible instinct.

    ReplyDelete
  4. There's appeal to the viewer to be told that s/he's getting special information, not available to the ordinary person. As long as some people still believe Maddow, they'll watch her show to get her exclusive insights.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Maybe that's one of the reasons for her gushing-like-a-9th-grade-Heather act. It makes gullible viewers feel special.

      Delete
  5. Daily Howler Briefs:

    On the Maddow watch:

    "Before... program was over, she would 1) play...Bush's funny sounds again; 2) make Bush's head...go "poof" ...and go back through all the Republican headshots, re-poofing every one!"

    This would allow Bob to mention Mickey Mouse Club again as well as make a no name allusion to his oft repeated prediction of a fame induced toilet seat/drug addled death for crazy Rachel.

    ReplyDelete
  6. It's not a very good show.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's why Bob keeps such close track of it.

      Delete
    2. I know right? Why does he obsess over such a train wreck? Really, all cable news is moster-stupid. He treats it as if it has some sort of impact on people. Really, hardly anyone watches and it doesn't influence the way people think or act that much so it is HE who is also stupid. What was it that that guy once said? Something like "If you obsess over something stupid, you are stupid too". Something like that. One of the old guys said that in the old times. Not the bible but like Hobbes or Hatshepsut or like some middle ages dude. Or it could have been Ben Franklin I can't remember but you get the point. Bob's obsession is shows he's stupid.

      Delete
    3. Dave the Guitar PlayerFebruary 24, 2016 at 12:29 PM

      Your basic premise is that what Rachel Maddow does/says does not matter. However, other commenters repeatedly point out that many, many more people watch Maddow that read this blog, which suggests that they certainly think what Maddow says is more important than what Bob says. If you are saying Maddow does not matter, then who does? Which progressive/liberal spokesperson should we be watching? To the extent that Maddow represents the progressive/liberal view to the general public, she is certainly worthy of criticism when she misrepresents the truth and makes progressive/liberals look like clowns.

      Delete
    4. Progressive liberals shouldn't be watching anyone stupid. They get their information from online journals and transcripts from symposiums and lectures and various sites. You want to just sit there on the couch like a slurpee drunk teeny bopper in Mom's den and have your information handed down to you off the mountain top? Get off your high horse!! Bob and fools like you are the reason liberals are hated. You are bad for our cause.

      Delete
    5. Dave the Guitar PlayerFebruary 25, 2016 at 12:34 PM

      So, you agree that Rachel should be ignored, rather than criticized. However, that will not prevent the general public from using Rachel as an example of how progressive/liberals think and believe.

      Delete
  7. As usual, the Daily Howler is wasting our time with Rachel Maddow's campaign twiddle. I wonder if he's heard yet that Trump has called for Medieval Torture.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Greg, why not give a thought or two about those hundreds of homosexuals who were not tortured at all, but instead thrown off high-rises to their death? I think I will take Trump with torture then risk friend or two.

      Delete
    2. So our only choices are theocratic zealots who torture and kill or secular zealots who torture and kill?* [Remember: Trump endorses killing all family members of terrorists].

      That's not much of a choice. In fact, it's not our only choices.

      *I'll certainly agree that Trump's ideas are much less bad; but still bad.

      Delete
  8. Two weeks or so, The WaPost proclaimed (and I am not kidding here) Marco Rubio THE non establishment candidate!

    The great Mr. Rubio was a more an establishment choice then Bush ever was. The establishment knew, once in Bush would have no need for them. Rubio, on the other hand, Rubio would not dot an i without first getting a nod from the E.

    So is Ms.Maddow here, playing the tune.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Somerby, your obsession with Rachel is psychotic.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dave the Guitar PlayerFebruary 24, 2016 at 12:38 PM

      Ok, Joseph. Let's say you are writing this column about the progressive/liberal media. A prominent TV program that is intented to represent the progressive/liberal point of view repeatedly misrepresents the truth and clowns obsessively. Would you just ignore it? The obsession is not with Rachel, but what she says.

      Delete
    2. DGP suffers from reading comprehension failure.

      Delete
  10. Rubio is far from a sure bet, so that is quite likely an overstatement. But establishment GOP sure seem to be trying to boost Rubio into a match race with Trump, seemingly to take down the favorite now. I can't even watch Maddow--so don't take my comment necessarily as any defense of her show. I do believe the big money interests that typically control such things want Rubio to be their nominee.

    ReplyDelete