On Tuesday, continuing MSNBC’s obsession with Chris Christie, Rachel Maddow attacked the Republican New Jersey governor for his position on guns. Christie recently vetoed a bill that would have reduced the number of bullets in a gun magazine from 15 to 10, much to the chagrin of The Rachel Maddow Show host.
Maddow rejected Christie’s argument that the measure could ultimately lead to a ban on guns entirely. He asserted that “If you take the logical conclusion of their argument, you go to zero, because every life is valuable. And so why ten? Why not six? Why not two? Why not one? Why not zero? Why not just ban guns completely?” Maddow shrugged this off, mocking Christie: "Why save anybody? If you're not going to save everybody, why save anybody? Such favoritism.” Then, Maddow ended her rant by attacking Christie one final time: [MP3 audio here; video below]
No one is quite sure what counts as a shameful moment in New Jersey politics anymore, but the governor calling out the parents of murdered kids, for them not understanding the value of human life? This is at least testing the bounds of what is usually called shameful, if not the very definition of the word itself.
Of course, the New Jersey governor never claimed that the parents of the Sandy Hook victims do not understand the value of human life. Rather, he stated in the very clip Maddow played that he simply disagreed with the argument supporters of this measure were making.
This kind of spin is predictable from Rachel Maddow and MSNBC. If you don’t agree with us on our push for gun control, you are shameful and don’t care about kids, or so the thinking goes. Christie added in the clip that he feels “extraordinary sympathy” for families of the victims of gun violence and “understand[s] their argument”, but apparently this is simply not good enough for Maddow.
What is truly shameful is not Christie’s veto of gun control legislation, but Maddow’s twisting of his words to further her anti-gun agenda.
The relevant portion of the transcript is below:
MSNBC
The Rachel Maddow Show
July 7, 2014
9:30 p.m. Eastern
RACHEL MADDOW, host: On Wednesday, Ms. Hockley and Mr. Barden personally delivered 55,000 signatures to Governor Christie's office in New Jersey, petitioning him to sign the New Jersey legislation about the size of the ammunition magazines. That same day, though, Governor Christie vetoed it. And that same day he refused to meet with those two Sandy Hook parents about the issue. The spokesman said the governor was not in the office and couldn't meet with them even though the families say they saw him there. That day. The day right before the holiday weekend when he vetoed this bill, which had been passed by the legislature way back in May. Tough guy waited until the last day before the holiday weekend to sign it. Ah, maybe no one will notice. He'd had the legislation since May. Why did he pick the day before the holiday weekend to sign it? And then he tried to say he wasn't around, couldn't meet with these Sandy Hook parents though he was right there in the office at the same time they were. Tough guy. And then when the press did ask him about it today, this is how he explained himself.CHRIS CHRISTIE, Governor of New Jersey: I've heard the argument, so are we saying, then, that the ten children on the clip that they advocate for, that their lives are less valuable? If you take the logical conclusion of their argument, you go to zero, because every life is valuable. And so why ten? Why not six? Why not two? Why not one? Why not zero? Why not just ban guns completely? I mean, you know, so the logical conclusion of their argument is that you get to zero eventually. So, you know, I understand their argument. I feel extraordinary sympathy for them and the other families, and all the families across America who are the victims of gun violence. I understand their argument. I've heard their argument. I don't agree with their argument. We have a fundamental disagreement about the effectiveness of what they're advocating for.
MADDOW: Why save anybody? If you're not going to save everybody, why save anybody? Such favoritism. Nicole Hockley and Mark Barden have now responded to Governor Christie saying, "His refusal to meet with us is a cowardly political move. We know that smaller magazines would have saved more lives at Sandy Hook elementary, possibly even the lives of our own children. We respectfully ask that the governor meets with us and tells us to our faces that it wouldn't have protected our own children and it won't save the lives of New Jersey's children. We doubt he has the courage to face us. The editorial board of the largest paper in New Jersey is also taking the governor to task. Quote "Governor Chris Christie this week vetoed a bill that would have limited the number of bullets in gun magazines to 10, down from the current 15. The idea is psychos on a rampage would have to stop and reload more often giving the potential victims a chance to escape or pounce. It's a modest measure. It would not stop the massacres but it would improve the chances that lives could be saved. So why did Christie veto this bill? The inescapable conclusion is that he was worried Republican primary voters would hold it against him in the 2016 presidential campaign.” Then referring back to those Sandy Hook elementary school parents who the governor wouldn't meet with. The editorial closes with this, "One hopes Nicole Hockley and Mark Barden in their grief understand that most people in New Jersey stand with them and regard this as a shameful moment." No one is quite sure what counts as a shameful moment in New Jersey politics anymore, but the governor calling out the parents of murdered kids, for them not understanding the value of human life? This is at least testing the bounds of what is usually called shameful, if not the very definition of the word itself.
