Rachel Maddow Can't Decide Whether She Loves or Hates Democracy
Rachel Maddow reveres democracy. Except when it might not go her way.
An example of this was evident on her MSNBC show Friday night when she spent yet another segment bad-mouthing Michigan's emergency manager law. (video after page break)
Once again, Maddow declined to invite a guest to defend the law since doing so risked resembling journalism.
An amended version of the law signed by GOP Gov. Rick Snyder in March 2011 allows Synder to appoint emergency managers in municipalities or school districts facing insolvency. The managers are authorized to override decisions of local officials, nullify contracts with public-sector unions, sell public assets and even dissolve municipalities if necessary.
Here's Maddow criticizing the law as an assault on democracy, followed quickly by Maddow appearing to harbor doubts about whether democracy is the way to go --
Pontiac and Detroit and a lot of other places in Michigan have trouble, major financial trouble. But why is the solution to those problems to get rid of democracy, to get rid of elected officials, to get rid of the quaint American idea that we vote for elected officials to represent us to make decisions about what is best for our towns? Why is unilateral authority by one person better? Is democracy a problem in America now? Is it a bad system of government? Is it too risky when the going gets rough? Does it only work in rich places? Is Pontiac better off for having its fate in the hands of the guy who made this deal (referring to sale of Silverdome stadium for $583,000 in 2009) instead of the city council that wouldn't have done it this way?
Earlier this year these Michiganders turned in enough signatures in a petition drive to put Republican Gov. Rick Snyder's radically expanded emergency manager law up for a citizens' repeal. Then last month, the Republicans on a state elections board threw those hundreds of thousands of signatures out. They said they could not be sure that the type was large enough. They could not be sure that the font size on one part of the petition might be big enough. And so, with worrying about that they decided to throw out all those signatures, doesn't matter that they got enough.
The group trying to overturn the new, radically expanded emergency manager law in Michigan is going to get a hearing on their appeal on the signatures issue next week, before a panel of (points finger for emphasis) elected judges. The case, people in Michigan tell us, will almost surely end up in the state supreme court, where the judges are elected (pumps arm in false enthusiasm) and they come with party ties.
That's odd, a minute ago she was positively swooning about democracy.
- Jack Coleman's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
I totally despise democracy, as it is basically mob rule
Submitted by Dave. on Mon, 05/14/2012 - 10:53pm.
It even sucks more than comrade Maddow's favorite form of government, because at least under communism, you know what you are going to get.
Screwed.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
Maybe he can't decide on democracy ..
Submitted by almostacowboy on Mon, 05/14/2012 - 11:04pm.
but he knows he likes women!
OBTW- you mistakenly referred to Rick as "she".
I'll ask it again: she has a doctorate in political science?
Submitted by drsamherman on Mon, 05/14/2012 - 11:16pm.
And the terminally gender-confused numbskull doesn't understand the concept that cities are political subunits of states?
Her doctoral degree isn't worth toilet paper. That would be an upgrade.
Why doesn't she tell the
Submitted by LAM SON 719 on Mon, 05/14/2012 - 11:34pm.
Why doesn't she tell the truth, Detroit is run by poorly educated, corrupt blacks who are the products of a liberal public education system.
So Maddow can't decide if she
Submitted by Kenny Bunkport on Mon, 05/14/2012 - 11:37pm.
So Maddow can't decide if she loves or hates Democracy. I'd be willing to bet that if Democracy was embodied in a person, it would despise Maddow.
Is it just me, or do people like Maddow seem to have a lot of love/hate issues? Especially with their own gender identification.
If she was facing a mob
Submitted by lrgon on Tue, 05/15/2012 - 12:05am.
and the mob had a vote to take away her TV show via "majority rule" she would scream to high heaven about her rights as a journalist to be heard and to appeal the mob's majority vote.
As it is one has to wonder why a show like hers with such low ratings is still on the air.
On that "democracy" thing. She is either ignorant of the fact we are not a pure democracy, or, she isn't that dumb and is aware that we are far from being a nation of people that just gather and vote according to how the media tells them to vote.
Winston Churchill on Democracy
Submitted by Tugboat Phil on Tue, 05/15/2012 - 8:34am.
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter". - Winston Churchill
I just read this yesterday. I hadn't known of it before.
A little help Rachel
Submitted by TempusFugit on Mon, 05/14/2012 - 11:45pm.
"Then last month, the Republicans on a state elections board threw those hundreds of thousands of signatures out. They said they could not be sure that the type was large enough. They could not be sure that the font size on one part of the petition might be big enough."
And they couldn't be sure the people who signed them were still alive. And they couldn't be sure the signatures were from legal US residents
It depends. Is it a "straight" Democracy or a "Gay"...
Submitted by jawebster1 on Tue, 05/15/2012 - 1:29pm.
Democracy?
Oops!
Submitted by DontFeedTheTrolls on Tue, 05/15/2012 - 6:38am.
I guess she just hates Obama and his Tsars and Executive Orders.
I don't shave my chest hair,...
Submitted by BBallleaper on Tue, 05/15/2012 - 6:59am.
but she definitely should! That '...stache' could use a trim also!
She just doesn't like the outcome, not the process.
Submitted by c5then on Tue, 05/15/2012 - 7:41am.
She has no problem with "democracy" when it is liberal ideas being forced on everybody. What she objects to is when the liberal ideas might be eliminated.
Here is the way the world works ( even if you don't want to admit it)... the entity who is footing the lions share of the cost for something has a say in how that something is run or even if it exists.
I actually agree with her that the Emergancy Management Law is a gross over-stepping of authority. However it applies to the "Governor" not to the specific person currently occupying the position. One wonders whether she would be all that upset if the Governor were a democrat?
Madison and Jefferson and Franklin built a Republic - Roberts killed it!
The Emergency Management Law
Submitted by MichiganMan on Tue, 05/15/2012 - 8:50am.
The Emergency Management Law works is why it should be kept. While it seems to be a groos over-stepping of authority, sometimes tough love is what a town needs, just like children (which is how the officials in towns with EML act when the EM comes to town).
There was a town, Three Oaks Michigan, which went under the Emergency Management Law and now the small village is in the black and has a plan to manage the village. They had some problems with the people running the town and the EM came in an fixed the problems and turned it back over the citizens of the town. Benton Harbor, approximately 15 miles from Three Oaks, is another town under the EML. If you recall, Benton Harbor has had several riots over the years. They also have a government which has been run into the ground by the Democratic leadership over the years. The people who were running the town are upset because they no longer get all the perks and kickbacks which they received over the years because now someone is actually watching the money with no political agenda. That is what he is there to fix (the EM). The problem with Benton Harbor is that the same folks who were running the show will be back in charge when the EM leaves, if he ever does because BH is in such poor financial condition.
As a high energy hedonist and
Submitted by celator on Tue, 05/15/2012 - 8:15am.
As a high energy hedonist and libertine, Maddow would want complete freedom to act and express herself in any way she feels like at any given moment. For the rest of normal society (us) she has serious misgivings about the idea of freedom.
Won a
Submitted by bobsmom on Tue, 05/15/2012 - 8:39am.
prize on a sports talk show here in MI the other day (tickets to a ball game), they were asking for the best one word answer to describe Detroit...........mine was "parasite". The same old knuckleheads want to keep running the show in Pontiac/Detroit/Flint and expecting the rest of the state to ante up. There aren't enough of us working up here any more to continue to pay host.
Interesting how the libtards of late
Submitted by Boudin on Tue, 05/15/2012 - 8:43am.
Have come out against Democracy, and in favor of tyranny. I suppose it's all those whips and chains they play with in the bedroom that makes em that way.
Does Rachel really think she would have any influence? These creeps are tremendously stupid!
No kidding
Submitted by jon_torlin on Tue, 05/15/2012 - 9:23am.
What's funny about Madcow's statement is that democracy leads to tyranny so for her to have trouble deciding means she's either outright lying or she really doesn't know what the hell she's talking about.
But as a Rhodes scholar(snarf) or whatever the hell kind of intellect she claims to be, she should LOVE democracy because socialists love it, dictators love it, anything un-American loves it because it's the American idea that we are a Republic, not a democracy. Like the Pledge of Allegiance says "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands," not "and to the democracy for which it stands."
Of course, they try to do away with the pledge anyway, which is another form of democracy in action because a democracy is the opposite of a republic.
She may or may not have influence, but she's trying to do her masters' bidding of the WH.
-Jon
Democracy is only for the mature
Submitted by dscott on Tue, 05/15/2012 - 11:13am.
Like in Michigan, Democracy as a process only works when mature selfless people take their representative responsibilities seriously. When local school boards refuse to act responsibly, the budget goes bust and reality sets in. This is what happens when representatives decide that being liked is better than responsibility, they are unable to set priorities in their proper order. Being liked is a function of popularity, when elections become popularity contests instead of what they are supposed to be: representation of the majority, then inevitably the "I"s have it.
Obama is a good example of this "I" mentality, it's all about him not responsibility. His malfunction/priority is being POTUS is all about him, instead of it being all about us/country.
So if you are serious about Democracy being a fair means of selection for the purposes of governance, then it seems those running for office must be scrutinized for maturity amongst other things. Clearly, the MSM will not do this job in any reliable fashion. Which leaves psychological testing to vet candidates to disqualify those whom are prone to weak character, low self worth, selfishness and narcissism, and that will never happen. Those in power will always seek to prevent any threat to holding that power. This is why a meritocracy as the liberals want is also unacceptable as it always leads to tyranny.
I propose an end to these popularity contests (pseudo elections), randomly select a citizen over 18 or 21 of sound mind with no abridged rights to fill any public office, with the proviso that any conflicts of interest must be a disqualification for office. This eliminates political parties, their expenses and their corruption. Under democracy, representation is a random occurrence given the popularity contest of an election. Representation is a given when you randomly select amongst a population, just like in a jury pool. If we accept the judgment of our peers in a jury trial which determines guilt and a prison sentence or innocence and freedom, then is it so far fetched to accept their judgment in governance?
Illogical argument.
Submitted by CobraMan on Tue, 05/15/2012 - 3:03pm.
Maddow's argument is totally illogical. She's ignoring the fact that the person in question, the one that is supposedly eroding democracy, is, himself, democratically elected.
Democratically elected people often appoint others to positions of authority, even authority over other democratically elected people. That's because we democratically elected them to do just that. For example. we democratically elect Senators who approve the federal Judges who appointed by yet another democratically elected person, the President. Those Judges, although never democratically elected, have authority of both the Senators themselves and the President. It's part of the checks and balances that are inherent in any democracy.
Of course, Maddow doesn't seem to have a problem with, say, a non-elected federal Judge appointing "bankruptcy" managers who have authority over the ELECTED Board members of a corporation, especially in financial manners. Or the federally appointed "mediators" who have authority over the corporate Boards in matters of, say, "labor disputes" and "collective bargaining rights." Isn't that an totalitarian attack on the democracy of an elected board? Where's her complaints about that? They seem to be missing.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Maddow's confusion over being democratically elected has a basis
Submitted by dscott on Wed, 05/16/2012 - 8:56am.
Noam Chomsky tells us why:
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2012/05/15/Noam-Chomsky-Sarah-Pali...
Imagine that, a raving liberal at times can candidly tell the truth! Connect the dots between Maddow who is of the MSM performing a PR service for Obama and liberal ideas in general with Chomsky's moment of lucidness.