To read the quisling press, you’d think Rachel Maddow was some sort of intellectual. Googling her is pointless because the first pages are awash with sycophancy for this ignoramus. It’s only further back that you find the real deal on the “lady”.
What you get in the liberal press on this lesbian icon are things like “Rachel slams [such and such]” or “Rachel takes apart [this politician]” or “Rachel destroys [some conservative target]”. The left adore her because she does all this “slamming”and “taking apart” and that passes, in liberal eyes, for intellect and supported argument.
And let’s face it, they needed some intellectual heavyweight to counterbalance voices of reason and supported argument. Now there are no doubt intellectuals out there or savvy debaters who have been co-opted by the left cause but Ms Maddow ain’t one of ’em. Memo to Rachel: “When you take on someone other than the corrupt politicians at the top of either persuasion, you need to actually have your facts straight.”
A small example is Wisconsin and Benton Harbour:
“Tiny Benton Harbor on the shores of Lake Michigan” is Rachel’s new victim célèbre. This “mostly African-American” city is a financial shambles. The True Twit and her echo chamber have acted as though Snyder’s actions are the new invasion of the Sudetenland, a co-opting by force of a “democratically elected local government.”
HERALD-PALLADIUM NEWSPAPER: The survey results showed that 51.6 percent of Benton Harbor respondents support the nullification of Benton Harbor’s labor agreements if it would help decrease the city’s deficit, while 27.4 percent don’t support it.
The story also shows that every aspect of Maddow’s rant from the role of Whirlpool Corporation in the city, to the golf course conspiracy she “discovered” is rejected by people who live there by huge numbers.
Not only that, every bit of local reporting on the story from Crain’s Detroit Business to—of all places—the website Michigan Liberal have been tearing down Rachel’s narrative—and often not in very respectful disagreement.
That’s a bit of a problem for Ms Maddow.
Maddow was first taken apart in the Kalamzoon Gazette, in a terrific column by Julie Mack. It was devastating enough that Maddow had to acknowledge it—but ignored EVERY matter of fact that was raised and focused only on the democracy vs. “dictatorship” canard.
This was too much for “Eric B” on … Michigan Liberal: “Face, meet palm. Again, you can’t get the story correct if you get the facts wrong. Facts are important and stubborn things.”
Eric B then goes on to mention chapter and versus on that issue – follow the link at the top to read that.
Problem is that she ignores the errors, goes onto the next topic, gets the facts wrong again because she fails to check them, learns her stuff, works herself into a frenzy and goes for the jugular on whomever displeases her that day. Rhetoric is big with Ms Maddow and she sees it as the way to win a debate.
Now, at the end of her show, the left are wowed, thinking that she’s “demolished” whomever it is but then she begins to get called out for the “facts” she threw in here or there. Example:
At this point, I’m wondering how much there is in the contention that harsh crow voices in women are directly proportional to ignorance and that is directly proportional to self-entitlement and victimhood, which is directly proportional to lack of femininity and inversely proportional to usefulness to society.
OK, anyone can get it wrong and a talking head is just that – a talking head. It’s her researchers who need to get their facts right for her to present. Yet it doesn’t happen – she continues on in the same way every time, sometimes getting a main thrust right but slipping up on the fine detail. Remember – the rhetoric is the thing, the emotion, the outraged righteousness.
Even the left itself considers her an idiot. That’s sad, isn’t it?
And she’s not hard to fool:
OK, I was going to finish there but thought I’d go to Urban Dictionary which always seemed to me to be pretty irreverent, giving the lowdown on people in the public eye in a short, sharp manner.
So I found the entry on her:
Clicking on it brought up a blank screen, apart from “Rachel Maddow has not been defined yet.” Interesting that, when you can see the text before your eyes so it had to have been in there earlier.
I went to the next page of Google and lo and behold, there was a second Urban Dictionary entry:
Uh-huh. That one, of course, had the whole glowing recommendation at the end of the link. So what game is Urban Dictionary playing? Thought it was supposed to be indiscriminately sceptical? Appears not.
That’s when I noticed that my viewing of the first was being monitored but of the second – not mentioned.