After strolling through the exhibition hall of CPAC 2010 on Thursday, MSNBC's Rachel Maddow told viewers that night of her impressions.
Here's Maddow describing one of the things she didn't like --
MADDOW: There were lots of people giving away copies of the Constitution, but in a thing that sort of bothers me, they couldn't resist adding their own documents to the Constitution. So you can get the Constitution, plus say, the mission statement of the anti-ACLU American Civil Rights Union. Or you can get the Constitution plus the mission statement of the Young America's Foundation. Or you can get the Constitution with a foreword by Ron Paul. Much as I love Ron Paul, I don't think you get to write a foreword to the Constitution.
Actually you do, thanks to -- all together, in unison -- the Constitution.
In fairness to Rachel Maddow, at least she sounds convincing, even though her earnest assertions invariably collapse under scrutiny. Maddow embodies the smarmy belief that sincerity is all that matters -- fake it well and you've got it made.
Here's Maddow, for example, appearing as a panelist on Sunday's "Meet the Press" and on her MSNBC cable show Monday night (first and second parts of embedded video), weighing in on interrogation of terrorists --
MADDOW: There's, there isn't in this case and there hasn't been in any known modern terrorism case any correlation between the usefulness of an interrogation and whether or not somebody gets read their Miranda rights. It just isn't the case. And in every single instance, every single terrorism case where there's been an arrest in this country in a terrorism case since 9/11, every single one has been handled, the person has been handled as a civilian criminal.
There was a moment when Jose Padilla and Ali al-Marri were handed, handled in military custody. There's nothing magic about the time that they were in military custody. They didn't do any more magical forms of talking that they wouldn't do when they were civilians.
Agreed, this doesn't come as much of a shock. What's surprising is that Schultz said "almost".
Here's Schultz on his radio show Friday talking about meeting with Obama advisor David Axelrod at the White House the day before, along with fellow liberal radio host Bill Press and several other left-wing media types Schultz did not identify (click here for audio) --
SCHULTZ: First of all you walk into the White House, in the West Wing, and there are picture all over, I mean everywhere! Of President Obama! I mean, of his life in the first year as president of the United States. Now I don't know if that's the way it is with every president, but it was almost a shrine. I mean, well, here's a picture of Obama the president with his kids over here. There he is getting on Air Force One. Here he is with some military people. Here he is on the line working the line at one of his campaign stops. I mean, just, it was just one picture after another! (laughs)
In his first television interview since withdrawing as Obama's nominee to run the Transporation Security Administration, Erroll Southers make this puzzling observation to Rachel Maddow on her MSNBC show Thursday --
SOUTHERS (referring to Christmas Day airliner bombing attempt): One of the things that everybody must understand is that this attack was debriefed by the foreign terrorist organizations that sent Mr. Abdulmutallab over here. They learned a great deal. We need to reverse-engineer what happened and think about what we would do to counter the emerging threat instead of yesterday's attack and having policies that are then driven and being reactive instead of really being thought out and being comprehensive in their scope.
MADDOW: In looking into some of your record and what you've worked on in the past today ...
Watching a dour Norah O'Donnell reporting from Senator-elect Scott Brown's exuberant victory bash in Boston, I half-expected O'Donnell to tell MSNBC's Rachel Maddow ... the mood here tonight is grim ...
O'Donnell didn't quite say that, at least not publicly, though she did cough up this gem --
O'DONNELL: Another interesting thing. You pointed out some of the odd things, talking about the availability of his two attractive daughters and also being willing to take his truck down to show it to the president and play basketball against him, but there was one part of the speech that I don't know if you heard. He said, our tax dollars should not be spent on weapons to stop them and not lawy-, let me start that over. Talking about terrorists, he said, our tax dollars should be spent on weapons to stop them, not on lawyers to defend them.
Here's Stewart from Thursday's "The Daily Show" lambasting what he perceived as ideological responses to the cataclysm in Haiti (click here for link to video at Air America site) --
STEWART: Clearly the story people care about right now is the earthquake that devastated Haiti. It is unspeakable as a tragedy. It's still unfolding. Aid groups are coordinating their efforts, donations are pouring in. At times like these I guess the only good thing that you can say is that whenever something this horrific happens, everyone comes together - everyone. (pause) Almost everyone.
(Cuts to video of Rush Limbaugh)
LIMBAUGH: This will play right into Obama's hands - humanitarian, compassionate. They'll use this to burnish their, shall we say, credibility with the black community, in both light-skinned and dark-skinned black community in this country. It's made to order for him.
When it comes to protecting Americans from al Qaeda, "the buck stops here," President Obama proclaims.
Obama's apologists in the media are finding that too close for comfort.
MSNBC's Rachel Maddow, for example, offered this novel analysis on the underlying cause of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab nearly bringing down Northwest Flight 253 over Detroit --
MADDOW: Moments after the president was done speaking, his administration's official review of what went wrong was released. Now much of what's in this report we've known for days. The information was available. We had it but the analysis wasn't done, the dots weren't connected. It was a broad failure of the counter-terrorism system but the system itself is not fundamentally broken.
Suffice it to say, liberal radio host Ed Schultz of the exceedingly short fuse was mightily steamed.
Schultz on Tuesday celebrated the sixth anniversary of his radio show, the top-rated of any libtalker in the country, and among his guests was Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., introduced by Schultz as "a guiding light for me for a long, long time and a great friend."
Whereupon in the course of their nine-minute conversation, Dorgan kept alleged buddy Schultz in the dark about Dorgan's plan to retire from the Senate, major news regardless of where one sits on the spectrum.
A New Year's wish for Congressman Eric Massa, Democrat of New York -- please don't let any microphone or television camera pass unaccosted.
Appearing on MSNBC's "The Ed Show" Dec. 30, an angry Massa vilified former vice president Dick Cheney for criticizing Obama's lawyerly approach to fighting al Qaeda and for espousing his belief the Republican Party "owns the high ground" on national security (video below the fold) --
SCHULTZ: ... former naval commander Eric Massa of New York, he joins me tonight. And you have to understand here, folks, the one thing the Republicans hate? They hate a Democrat who served successfully in the United States military. This is one of the reasons why this gentleman is going to be targeted by Republicans in 2010. Congressman, great to have you with us tonight. What's your response ...
Next time Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano needs a media flack/coat catcher, I know just the right person.
MSNBC's Rachel Maddow is lashing out at critics who took Napolitano to task for claiming "the system worked" in response to a terrorist with explosives boarding Northwest Flight 253 and nearly bringing down the plane on Christmas.
In the lead segment on her show Dec. 29 (click here for audio), Maddow told viewers of a "dramatic, unexpected appearance" by Obama that day, breaking from his vacation in Hawaii to make an "unscheduled statement to the press."
First, a prayer offered by Republican congresswoman Michele Bachmann of Minnesota at last week's so-called prayercast sponsored by conservative groups opposed to a government takeover of health care.
After the prayer, a spot quiz --
BACHMANN: Lord, as leaders of our country, Lord, I pray as a stand-in for myself, I pray as a stand-in for others, Lord, who may not have looked to you and all your ways, Father, as leaders. Father, we want to represent you in the way that we should and so, Lord, I ask for forgiveness for that and our own country ... Lord, we know that we have failed and we haven't done as we should. And so that's why now, Lord, we ask for your forgiveness and we repent and we turn from that. And we say, oh Lord, we deserve your wrath but would you yet get our nation mercy. We ask for your mercy, we cry out to you, oh God. This is our moment and this is our time. Lord, we are at the end of ourselves and now we need you.
Never let it be said that radio libtalker and MSNBC action hero Ed Schultz isn't capable of occasional candor.
Here's Schultz on his radio show Dec. 15 talking about Vice President Joe Biden appearing on "Morning Joe" earlier that day in anticipation of disclosure that the public option and Medicare buy-in were stripped from the Senate health bill (click here for audio) --
SCHULTZ: And I find it offensive, and I'm all for MSNBC winning and getting the big interviews, but look what Joe Biden did today. The day that they capitulate on everything, Biden goes on 'Morning Joe' this morning. It's kind of a Cheney tactic. When things get tough, you go to Fox. Things get a little bit tough, well, we better go over to MSNBC where we can say our piece.
So the vice president's mansion is just maybe a few blocks away from the NBC bureau in Washington, so let's stop by and see Morning Joe, Joe and Mika, great interview, 17 minutes but very calculated. The White House knew it was going down and they know today is the day that they're going to have to break the news to the American people that it's over.
It's one thing to justifiably criticize an author for dubious claims. It's quite another to assert that the same author supported something heinous he adamantly opposes. MSNBC's Rachel Maddow did both over the last two weeks.
Maddow's regular viewers have recently learned a great deal about Ugandan politics, as nearly every broadcast of her show since late November has featured a segment on proposed legislation in Uganda calling for harsh penalties against gays, including execution.
Schultz courageously told listeners Aug. 8 that "I don't mind telling people that they're stupid." (The examples cited here all come from Schultz's radio show, with links to audio embedded in the quotes).
As for Fox News, Schultz opined Oct. 21, "if you think they're legitimate, you're stupid."
How does earnest MSNBC polemicist Rachel Maddow expect anyone to take her seriously when she doubts al Qaeda still threatens American lives?
It took Susan Rice, US ambassador to the United Nations for the most leftward presidency since LBJ, to remind Maddow that al Qaeda's deadly intent is not "hypothetical."
Preceding Rice's appearance on Maddow's show Dec. 2 was this observation from Maddow about the Bush Doctrine, as enunciated by Bush at West Point in June 2002 (first of three segments of embedded video) --
MADDOW: The Bush Doctrine was probably the single most radical thing about the Bush presidency because it dropped the requirement that the United States actually be threatened before we'd start a war with someone, instead saying that if we just thought we might be threatened some time in the future, that would be justification enough for us now to start a war. It is a really radical concept if you think about it, not only about war, but about us, about America. And it may have survived the Bush presidency.
You know those creepy videos of schoolchildren singing the praises of Dear Leader in the White House?
Liberal radio host Ed Schultz wants Secret Service agents singing the same tune.
Here's Schultz offering what is arguably the most inane commentary to emerge from the so-called White House party crashers breaching security at the Nov. 24 state dinner for Indian prime minister Manmohan Singh (click here for audio) --
SCHULTZ: But I think this president deserves more. I think he deserves the absolute best around him. He doesn't deserve a cheaper cut or any less of an attitude and I would even go so far as to think it might not be bad to have politically like-minded people around the president in the Secret Service who would pledge allegiance to make sure that you go beyond the profession of a security that, you know, hey, that's my guy! That's my guy!
Whenever I hear lib radio talker Ed Schultz introduce a guest, I wonder if the person is paying to be there -- seeing how many of Schultz's most frequent guests are advertisers on his radio Web site.
Mark Graff, for example, president of a company called Bio Green Clean, as in cleaning products. Since July 24, Graff has appeared on the Schultz radio show 13 times, most recently on Dec. 1.
Given such ubiquity, it's not surprising Graff might resort to hyperbole in making his pitch, as he did Sept. 17 (click here for audio) -- "Let me tell you, it cleans better than any product that's ever been created in the history of our civilization." (As our crack team of chemical archaeologists will attest ... and just look at that shine!)
If you aren't familiar with liberal radio host and MSNBC action hero Ed Schultz, you are about to encounter the quintessence of the man.
Schultz made the mistake of allowing a guest on his radio show Tuesday who knew what he was talking about. And as the conversation proceeded between Schultz and former Republican congressman Ernest Istook of Oklahoma, now with the Heritage Foundation, it became obvious that Schultz didn't have a clue (click here for audio) --
SCHULTZ: OK, give us your new information from the Heritage Foundation on health care. Tell us how screwed up the Democrats are on that.
ISTOOK: Well, you know, I think this may be in the category of unintended consequences, although frankly it may be part of the cost control. As we've been going through this 2,000 pages that have been brought up for debate in the US Senate, evidently the penalties that they put upon employers if their, the people who work for them go into this public plan, this so-called insurance exchange ...
SCHULTZ: Don't tell me they're going to jail! Please ...
Don't be surprised if McCain '08 campaign adviser Nicolle Wallace passes up future chances to vent for Rachel Maddow.
Wallace did not appear on the Maddow show, agreeing instead to go on the record off-camera with her criticisms of Sarah Palin's new book, "Going Rogue: An American Life."
Maddow told viewers of her MSNBC show Tuesday that John McCain held a conference call Nov. 13 and asked that if they wanted to respond to Palin's book, to "at least avoid being interviewed about the book on TV," Maddow said --
Rachel Maddow wants you to stop referring to Nidal Hasan as a terrorist. Please. You know what short fuses they have.
Responding to Republicans' condemnation of Hasan's actions as terrorism, Maddow furrowed her brow and played devil's advocate, as befitting an honorary member of the al Qaeda Legal Defense Foundation --
MADDOW: Remember this one? Yes, it is the old paint-the-Democrats-as-soft-on-terror routine. But in order to play that politicizing terrorism, anti-Democrat greatest hit, the Fort Hood case has to be terrorism. Regardless of how you feel about the political issue of politicizing terrorism, it's worth asking -- was Fort Hood, technically speaking, terrorism? It's not just a political question. It's not just a judgment call. It's not just a matter of taste. It's a question to which there is an answer, a legal answer. And the charges today didn't include anything related to terrorism.
Liberal radio host and MSNBC bobblehead Ed Schultz deserves credit -- he's that rare left-winger willing to throw political correctness to the wind and describe accused Ft. Hood killer Nidal Hasan as a terrorist.
After finding such clarity unsettling, however, Schultz quickly reverts to form.
SCHULTZ: We've gotta stop being so damn academic about what a crime is. I think you could easily make the case that the guys that stepped on the planes on Sept. 11, 2001 had the exact same motivation as this guy did, vice versa. And I'm not afraid to take nasty email from people who think that I'm leaning to the right. There's no left, right, center, blue, green on this. You know, we're gonna get hung up on definitions on what a terrorist act is. There's 13 people dead! What was the motivation for that? It was hate. It was ideological. It was religion. It was faith-based, all of that, and we missed it. And now people are dead and many injured.
This sort of thing an actual journalist would have flagged as dubious, but not Rachel Maddow.
On her MSNBC show this past Monday, Maddow and guest Jeff Sharlet, an author and contributing editor at Harper's Magazine, were talking about the so-called Stupak amendment in the House health bill to prevent weakening of the ban on federal funding of abortion.
Here's how the revelant portion of the conversation went --
MADDOW: Let me ask you about some of the other conventional wisdom here because the sort of conventional explanation for this is that this anti-abortion amendment to health reform resulted mostly from the Catholic bishops pressuring Catholic politicians to support it. But I know that you think that it's bigger than that. Can you explain why?
SHARLET: Well, exact-, I think it's unfair to Catholics, I think it's unfair to evangelicals. First of all, most of the press has focused on Catholics despite the fact that a number of the congressmen involved in this are not Catholic, including Congressman (Joseph) Pitts, R-Pa. (co-sponsor of amendment with Bart Stupak, R D-Mich.), including Congressman (Heath) Shuler (D-N.C.) who you mentioned. And frankly the majority of American Catholics are pro-choice. That's not true of the majority of American evangelicals.
This from the side of the aisle always prattling about sensitivity.
Radio show and MSNBC host Ed Schultz yesterday provided further evidence that deep down he's shallow, talking about the Army missing warning signs of Major Nidal Malik Hasan's radical Islamic views (click here for audio) --
SCHULTZ: When somebody's down at the mouth and when somebody is not with the program, why does the military keep him and expect him to do things? Because you don't do that in private business. Well, (voice turning sarcastic) this is the military, well, wait a second now! You know, if they're absolutely our finest and we support them to the max, it would seem to me that there was a chink in the armor somewhere. Right? That's how I feel about it! That the vetting process of the military personnel was, maybe I'm totally wrong on this one, totally off-base and everything else. But, I don't know.
It just seems to me that if this guy didn't want to go, put him in a place where he can still help out. (pause) I just had to get that off, I've been thinking of that all weekend long. I been thinking about, I been thinking about that all weekend long, about where this is all going and what's happening. And then when I think about Joe Lieberman, I get even more depressed.
When in doubt, cite the need for more government funding of health care. You won't find an argument on MSNBC.
Among the guests offering their perspectives about the Fort Hood massacre on Rachel Maddow's show last night was Salon.com national correspondent Mark Benjamin, who tried to downplay growing evidence that suspected assailant Nidal Malik Hasan was motivated by a jihadist's hatred of America --
BENJAMIN: There are people that believe that this is a person that was suffering some sort of secondary post-traumatic stress from treating soldiers and there are people that believe he was somehow influenced by Muslim extremism. I think it could be a combination of both. I certainly have met mental health care providers in the military who after sitting all day long and listening to some really disturbing tales, you know, when they're treating these soldiers coming back from Iraq, and in combination with the fact that they're overwhelmed, overworked, don't have the resources to do their jobs, become extremely stressed and frazzled. And there's no reason to not think that this could, this could ultimately lead to that kind of a conclusion.
Listen to a caller to Ed Schultz's radio show on Tuesday for an example of how liberals were unhinged by the offyear elections before results were even announced (click here for audio) --
SCHULTZ: John in Chicago, you're on the Ed Schultz show, thanks for calling.
CALLER: Ed, I am out of my mind with anger and frustration. We gotta tell these Democrats to sack up and grow a pair because this is not what I voted for, I know it's not what you voted for, I know it's not what any of my progressive friends voted for. The difference between the progressives of the '60s, the peace and love, and the progressives of today is that we are gun-totin', we are angry and we're not afraid to take a punch. These Democrats are pissed, they are angry because the Democrats, those weak-ass, water-filled, pantywaist Democrats in Washington, they're not willing to not even take a punch! They're afraid they're going to get hit and they're going to bleed.
Yet another example of the folly of assigning liberals to guard duty.
Joining Rachel Maddow on her MSNBC show Thursday to vent about that pesky wabbit Joe Lieberman was Fire Dog Lake firedoglake blogger Jane Hamsher.
Democrats wield considerable leverage over Lieberman, Hamsher opined, to keep him from joining a GOP filibuster of ObamaCare or punish him if he does --
MADDOW: ... I think you're right to point out that other senators sort of gently expressing their disapproval of his proverbial toplessness at this point is a bigger deal than it would be in the real world, that their words do actually sort of calibrate differently. But what leverage can they really bring to bear on him in order to get him to get in line?
Emboldened by his keen sense of omniscience, left-wing radio host Ed Schultz argued with a caller who dared criticize Schultz's command of the facts.
"There isn't anything I say on television or radio that I can't back up," Schultz claimed on Friday (click here for audio). "Anything."
All of his next radio show later, on Monday, Schultz demonstrated the flimsiness of this boast when he tossed out an assertion just as dubious, about Tim Pawlenty (here for audio) --
SCHULTZ: This is a guy who was a governor in Minnesota where a bridge fell down and killed 13 people and he didn't want to build another one. I mean, this guy, he didn't, he was against, they hadn't raised a sales tax on gas in that state in some 25 years. And he was against that. And the extra money was going to go to infrastructure because the people of Minnesota wanted to make sure that they had better roads and bridges and they took it upon themselves and of course they had enough votes for an override.