Rachel Maddow reads John McCain for filth
|by Anonymous||reply 67||11/23/2012|
|by Anonymous||reply 1||11/20/2012|
Love me some Rachel!!
|by Anonymous||reply 2||11/20/2012|
She is right, everyone admires the sacrifice John McCain gave for this country. That does not make him a credible expert on foreign policy.
|by Anonymous||reply 3||11/20/2012|
Filth? or Fifth?
|by Anonymous||reply 4||11/20/2012|
She really is one of the smartest news analysts (and I use that description rather than pundit in her case) because she really does look at data and story lines. Very talented woman.
|by Anonymous||reply 5||11/20/2012|
Good God, I love this woman.
|by Anonymous||reply 7||11/20/2012|
I agree with you, R5. However, she does get carried away with the Talk Me Down-type stuff.
|by Anonymous||reply 8||11/20/2012|
Aside from the excellent question,[bold] "WHY is John McCain the leading voice in the Republican party Foreign Policy IN 2012?" [/bold]
She showed a montage of clips of John McCain saying the following..,
Q: Do you believe the people of iraq will treat us as liberators?
McCain: I believe we can win in a short period of time.
McCain: I believe that the success will be fairly easy.
Q: president bush talked about our staying in iraq for 50 years.
McCain: [italic] Maybe One Hundred![/italic]
McCain: The second phase is iraq. there's some indication, and i don't have the conclusions, [italic]but some of this anthrax may have come from iraq.[/italic]
[bold]Maddow:[/bold] Senator john mccain telling the american people how the war in iraq was going to be easy and we would be greeted as liberators and iraq was behind the anthrax attacks. [italic]How do you go from being that guy to growing up to be the guy who is now suggesting that the republican's fight with the president should be on foreign policy because you guys have the credibility....on.... (What)?[/italic]
|by Anonymous||reply 9||11/20/2012|
|by Anonymous||reply 10||11/20/2012|
R6 I'm an eldergay and something of a language nerd but I've never heard that expression.
|by Anonymous||reply 12||11/20/2012|
Eisenhower was president when I was born (barely!) and I'd never heard the expression either.
|by Anonymous||reply 13||11/20/2012|
She made him look like a doddering old fool. He should have retired already.
|by Anonymous||reply 14||11/20/2012|
McCain is a bufoon. He is forever damned as the one who pushed Sarah Palin & her ugly brood into the limelight.
|by Anonymous||reply 17||11/20/2012|
I adore Rachel as well. Howevah! She fails to mention that it is her parent network, NBC, that hails this errant pilot as some oracle of foreign policy. NBC has been dragging his pale white ass on Sunday morning for years, praising him, kissing up to him, while he says the most insane and ridiculous things, many of which she noted. She is correct of course, but don't stop, Maddie. Fire 2 barrels at Mac's greatest enabler, NBC.
|by Anonymous||reply 18||11/20/2012|
Maddow doesn't do "Talk Me Down" anymore, at least I can't remember the last one I saw and I pretty much watch her show every day.
Love her. Except for the jackets.
|by Anonymous||reply 19||11/20/2012|
She has been EN FUEGO all hour tonight!
|by Anonymous||reply 20||11/20/2012|
Usually former Presidential candidates flounder in their careers after they've lost. Nixon and Kerry being the only notable exceptions.
After 2008 McCain just seems like stale bread.
|by Anonymous||reply 21||11/20/2012|
Gore hasn't really "floundered".
And Dubbya just retired. It's not so much floundering as quitting.
And Clinton has hardly floundered. He's been a pretty amazing ex-President.
|by Anonymous||reply 22||11/20/2012|
Jimmy Carter has done far better after losing than he did in office.
|by Anonymous||reply 23||11/20/2012|
R22 Neither W nor Clinton was a loser.
|by Anonymous||reply 25||11/21/2012|
Rachel is an expert at deconstructing every issue from a fact based point.
|by Anonymous||reply 26||11/21/2012|
rr2, ummm...Clinton and Bush II won. So did Carter the first time. Actually, if we're to go by popular vote, Gore won too.
|by Anonymous||reply 27||11/21/2012|
...reads him THE fifth...
|by Anonymous||reply 28||11/21/2012|
r11 What a dumb commentary. People in FL were waiting 5 to 7 hours just to vote. Lawmakers are now looking into why this happened.
In OH, she was one of the first on cable news to report about John Husted's attempt at voter suppression. Everything she talked about came to fruition. Long after Rachel does an in depth story on these attempt at voter suppression does the rest of the mainstream media catch on -- on Election no less!
If you think she's hysteric, don't watch her. I'm sure you'll be much happier watching CNN or Fox where you won't learn much but at least you'll be entertained.
|by Anonymous||reply 29||11/21/2012|
The right wing demonize her on such superficial, rudimentary and predictable terms. "She's a MAN!!!" "I thought she was RICK Maddow", "She's too aggressive!"
The sad thing is that many conservative women get in on this sort of bashing as well. Conservative women are particularly virulent in attacking other women who might be anything suggesting feminist.
|by Anonymous||reply 30||11/21/2012|
That's to be expected r30. They are the party of hate and I wouldn't expect anything less of them. If you read #maddow tweets, you'll find their favorite insult is to call her "madcow." That's how immature and ridiculous they've become.
What annoys me more are idiots like r11/15 and r31. They make throwaway comments that only make sense to them.
|by Anonymous||reply 32||11/21/2012|
R22, R21 clearly wrote "candidates".
|by Anonymous||reply 34||11/21/2012|
R33, if you can only handle women who are mild in their delivery of information, so as not to disturb your delicate sensibilities, then don't watch Rachel. Also: Fuck off.
|by Anonymous||reply 35||11/21/2012|
Shittiest ratings? They've been beating CNN, Anderson.
|by Anonymous||reply 37||11/21/2012|
Oh, but golly, Why does the woman have to shout! Why can't she speak quietly and wait her turn like real ladies do?
|by Anonymous||reply 38||11/21/2012|
You can go fuck yourself r36.
MSNBC had THE TOP ratings for election coverage and Maddow was at the head of the table the whole time. They've had great ratings for some time now.
People love her. Get the fuck over it and go back to your FOX hole.
|by Anonymous||reply 39||11/21/2012|
Eldergay here. I remember the phrase, "I read him to filth."
|by Anonymous||reply 40||11/21/2012|
R28 The fifth what? One TAKES the fifth (amendment) when testifying, but what would "read the fifth" mean? Clearly the OP meant FILTH, although I have no idea what it means. Is it the same as "I read him the Riot Act?"
|by Anonymous||reply 41||11/21/2012|
[quote]Maddow doesn't do "Talk Me Down" anymore, at least I can't remember the last one I saw and I pretty much watch her show every day.
No, she doesn't do that specific segment anymore, but she did go Debbie Downer/concern-troll from time to time during this past election season.
|by Anonymous||reply 42||11/21/2012|
What part of "absentee ballot requests in Florida and Ohio need NO reason" do you not understand? I have yet to see her EVER mention WA and OR's all-mail system as an option that works well.
|by Anonymous||reply 43||11/21/2012|
r43 it was reported on my local FLorida news that many of those 'absentee' ballots were NOT counted and probably never will be.
|by Anonymous||reply 45||11/21/2012|
At least she's a proud partisan hack who owns her liberalism, unlike the fascists on "Fair and Balanced" Fox.
|by Anonymous||reply 46||11/21/2012|
I think you mean provisional ballots, not regular absentee ones? Provisionals, I think, can be set aside if there aren't any close races where they'd make a difference?
|by Anonymous||reply 48||11/21/2012|
Take your meds, asshole r47.
This is not an Israel propaganda, Go start your own.
|by Anonymous||reply 49||11/21/2012|
[quote]I have yet to see her EVER mention WA and OR's all-mail system as an option that works well.
You're completely ignoring the point.
You think Florida is going to allow a system that actually works? Um no. Their intention is to make it as fucking difficult as possible for people in the poorer areas.
And for that matter she did talk a LOT about early voting in other states.
|by Anonymous||reply 50||11/21/2012|
I agree that Rachel does sometimes leave out the full context of a remark in order to fit it neatly into her overall point. However, this takedown of McCain was not one of those times.
As she pointed out, he favors a military intervention (either direct or by proxy) as the solution to almost every problem. The telling exception is when Obama did intervene in Libya. Reflexively, McCain was opposed to that because it was Obama's decision.
His behavior in his 2010 re-election campaign eliminated almost all of the lingering respect I had for him when he was a "maverick." It became clear he was a maverick not out of conviction, but out of a lust for attention.
|by Anonymous||reply 51||11/21/2012|
[quote] The main support for Israel in the US has always come from the left.
Are you insane?
|by Anonymous||reply 52||11/21/2012|
R47 is crazy. Netanyahu was totally in the Romney camp.
|by Anonymous||reply 53||11/21/2012|
R38, no one said anything about her needing to speak softly or wait her turn. She's not in a theater, no need to project to the last row. It gets grating after awhile.
|by Anonymous||reply 54||11/21/2012|
Rachel Maddow is the best evening news anchor on television. She is well-educated, attractive, intelligent, fair-minded, skilled at her work and amusing.
As an out lesbian and an unrepentant liberal, of COURSE she's going to drive the rightwing fucktards insane. In a weird way, it's a sign of respect. If she wasn't so good they wouldn't be flipping out like tweakers.
But the jackets..... so bad.
|by Anonymous||reply 55||11/21/2012|
Exactly r41. The gay version of read him the riot act. Right up there with reading someone's beads.
|by Anonymous||reply 56||11/21/2012|
R55 She is NOT a news anchor by any definition.
Also, what is up with her NECK? Creeps me out!
|by Anonymous||reply 57||11/21/2012|
My recollection of the phrase in question is, "He read her beads to filth." This type of eloquence was common in the mid and late 60's of the last century.
|by Anonymous||reply 58||11/21/2012|
Totally agree, R5. I remember the first time I saw her on CNN as a guest with a couple of other guests. I was expecting the same old punditry and she was completely original. She knew her facts and had good analysis. She definitely deserves her own show.
I've also seen her as a fairly recent guest on other shows like Martha Stewart. She was charming and so amusing the the hosts.
She also authored a book released last spring, that has a 4+ rating on Amazon with almost 400 reviews. I think she'd be great in politics with her understanding of the issues.
|by Anonymous||reply 59||11/21/2012|
Ooh, she did it again Wednesday night!
|by Anonymous||reply 60||11/21/2012|
I can't believe queens here don't know the term "reading someone for F I L T H." Or for "the filth that they are."
I weep for the future.
|by Anonymous||reply 61||11/21/2012|
Good for Emm Ess Maddow. She took my criticism and acted on it. After exposing the hundreds of analysis errors made by that fact-challenged, aeroplane crashing white-haired Arizona mouse, on a subsequent show she took aim at the Sunday talk shows that "host" him over and over and over and over and over again. She even took on the hand that feeds her, her very own NBC. Well, she sort of took them on. Meet The Press has relentlessly enabled the camera addicted Senator, publicly kissing his white ass more than any other Sunday talk show. Rachel never took down Tim Russert or that pathetic David Gregory by name, but she did present excerpts from their broadcasts showing the mouse at his errant best.
No, she's not perfect, but she's perfect for us.
|by Anonymous||reply 62||11/23/2012|
If you think Rachel has taken something out of context, send her (or someone on her staff) an email. They actually read their email, and if they think you're right, she'll issue a correction. Rachel has a commitment to truth and honesty and has done more on-air corrections and further explanation than any other news program. Of course, if the point you bring up is wrong - such as the point about McCain and his100 year in Iraq comment - she'll elaborate on that, too.
That said, the right loves to say that whenever they're quoted verbatim it's "out of context." So much shit that flows from righties is utter bull, it's easy to take a real, attributed quote and say it's out of context. For example, gramp's 100 years in Iraq; on it's face, that is utterly contemptible. And he's been so wrong about what he's claimed about Iraq that if the media had any commitment to journalism and ethics, he'd never be on the teevee again, let alone in the Senate.
|by Anonymous||reply 63||11/23/2012|
She's magnificent, r63. I'm a fan!
|by Anonymous||reply 64||11/23/2012|
She looks like Yertle the Turtle.
|by Anonymous||reply 65||11/23/2012|
And you look like a bucket of shit!
|by Anonymous||reply 66||11/23/2012|
Sorry - late to the thread. R6 - can you explain that idiom to me? I've heard it but never understood it. I was in a club with some acquaintances and later one of the guys said to me, "That guy over there was looking you up and down for filth!" I just smiled and said "Oh...K", not knowing what the fuck it meant...
|by Anonymous||reply 67||11/23/2012|