Glynnis, I saw another Twitter comment were someone defined “Maddowed” as being “virulently attacked by an ignoramus who relies on lies, distortions, and ad hominen attacks.”

My review of Maddow:

Stupak certainly has the right to his own position on the difficult issue of abortion, and we have to be careful not to criticize him for exercising that right. We don’t want the converse of the O’Reilly/FOX “Tiller the Baby Killer” rhetoric. However, it is appropriate to question Stupak’s motives which rather obviously have far less to do with abortion than with political pandering and blackmailing. Maddow did us a great service exposing those motives and gave us bountiful back-up.

My review of Glynnis’ commentary:

Well done. Whether you share Maddow’s ideology, a fair person has to admit she is the most prepared commentator/journalist on television today.

My review of Azarkhan’s comment:

Every bit as negative as usual, without any substantive contribution, but absent the usual vile and revolting language. A slight improvement.

“Handling fetal remains can be especially difficult in late-term clinics. Until George Tiller was assassinated by a pro-life radical last summer, his clinic in Wichita specialized in third-trimester abortions. To handle the large volume of biological waste Tiller had a crematorium on the premises. One day when hauling a heavy container of fetal waste, Tiller asked his secretary, Luhra Tivis, to assist him. She found the experience devastating. The “most horrible thing,” Tivis later recounted, was that she “could smell those babies burning.” Tivis, a former NOW activist, soon left her secretarial position at the clinic to volunteer for Operation Rescue, a radical pro-life organization.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/mugged-ultrasound

AN excellent example, Azarkhan, and it so well underscores my point that we don’t want the extremes, right or left, defining our personal demeanor nor our societal policies.

Sorry, just trying to help you out.

I’ve seen your reference to “Tiller the Baby Killer’ many times before. For those who don’t who he is, I thought I’d provide some reference. So you see, I’m just doing what you should have done. (And is he grateful? No! Men are always breaking my heart! *sniff*)

Another great segment by Rachel. And Stupak trying to take the high ground on this issue is laughable after having lived in a whore house with some fundamentalist bible studies buddies.

Odd that Rachel gets so worked up about abortion. Is that lesbian thing just an act?

Typical Maddow garbage. Once again, she had a choice here: whether to debate the abortion issue on its merits, or just engage in another character attack on an individual who is pro-life.

This happens on every Maddow show. She attacks people, and not the issues. If she wants to give her viewers something to think about, why doesn’t she bring some articulate pro-life advocates on her show and debate them?

More of the Madcow lies, garbage and attacks on an individuals instead of debating issues.

Lie # 1
Rachel says:
“Stupak wants to turn health care reform debate into an abortion debate.”

Not true, this debate is about the payment for an elective medical procedure; abortion

Lie #2
Rachel says:
“At least twelve want to restrict abortion.”
Again, not true. “No one suggesting that abortion be restricted.” The issue is who pays for those abortions.

Why would anybody believe anything this idiot?

No one takes Rachel seriously, except her fellow idiots on the far left. (How’d that Air America gig work out, Rachel?)

It is amazing how terribly irrelevant Maddow is to the very people who can’t stop talking about her. Thanks for the chortles Azarkhan, Felix, Marigrace and Writer.

The issue is who pays for those abortions. >/I>

How’d that Air America gig work out, Rachel?

Pretty good since she got a prime time cable show out of it.

“It is amazing how terribly irrelevant Maddow is to the very people who can’t stop talking about her.”

Real Royal A, as usual pumpkin, you have it totally wrong.

While we conservatives are here to play Mediaite’s game, we have no intention of playing by Mediaites “rules”.

These are twofold.

First there is Mediaite’s role, which is to provide clips that promote leftists like Ms. Maddow, and, whenever possible, to provide clips criticising Fox News in particular and conservatives in general. (Every now and then, Meidiaite will throw in something favorable to say, O’Reilly, but that is just a ruse in the name of “objectivity” that fools no one)

Second, brain-dead locksteppers like you then make comments that laud Ms. Maddow and excoriate those devils at Fox.

Now I’m sure Mediaite was hoping that everyone who comments would be drinking the same kool-aid and just have fun jerking each other off. But we conservatives aren’t interested in that. We’d rather get to the real meat of it, so to speak, and just point out how ridiculous all of you are.

You can trust me on this, my pumpkinated friend: if Mediaite never mentioned Maddow again, we wouldn’t either.

I couldn’t possibly care less what Stupak, his priest, or innumberable other uterus-less zealots have to say about women’s health care in general and the specific provisions of the HCR in particular.

This patriarchal condescending attitude and attempts to dictate even what a doctor and woman discuss harkens back to some thankfully bygone day when men knew better and women walked two steps behind.

Stupak and his ilk should consider moving to the Middle East or converting to Islam, where a woman’s rights are a novel concept not discussed in polite company. They’d fit right in.

As usual, Rachel, thank you and keep up the great work!

Azarkhan is correct, we comment on what has been presented. The blog itself decides what is “newsworthy” not us. We’re just here commenting to correct your mistakes, and don’t kid yourselves, mediate likes it that way. It’s called more “clicks” and readership..

“…Middle East or converting to Islam, where a woman’s rights are a novel concept not discussed in polite company.”

Then you are obviously happy that President George W. Bush decided to overthrow the Taliban in Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein in Iraq. I am too!

You know when you think about it, Pres. Bush freed more women than the femi-nazis at NOW ever did.

Besides all those dead ones, or the grieving ones, or the ones living in Syria, or…

… someone on Twitter defined the term ‘Maddowed’ as “to fairly, systematically completely dismantle a person’s argument with nothing but fact, reason, intelligence and guts” and I think it’s fair to say that’s what just got done to Stupak).

Yes, YOU would think that’s fair. However, why you won’t say, “Hey, I’m a left-wing advocate,” seems strange.

The Real Royal King says:
March 11, 2010 at 9:21 am

Whether you share Maddow’s ideology, a fair person has to admit she is the most prepared commentator/journalist on television today.

Well, no… that’s not true at all. That’s your OPINION of Maddow. “Fair” people may not agree with that… and it makes them no less “fair.”

My review of Royal’s review of Azarkhan’s comment:

Hypocritical at best, as Royal has NEVER called out a member of his “own” side, when they use “vile and revolting language.” Royal has, on occasion, said “thank you,” and agree with said language… so his complaint towards Az is BS.

The Real Royal King says:
March 11, 2010 at 11:10 am

It is amazing how terribly irrelevant Maddow is to the very people who can’t stop talking about her.

Please apply to: “Beck, Palin, O’Reilly, Hannity, Limbaugh, Republicans, Tea Party Protestors, Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, FOX News, Conservatives, etc. etc. ETC.”

Do you understand hypocrisy… or do you have some sort of filter?

PS- This is a threat ABOUT Maddow… so talking about Maddow makes sense, doesn’t it? Or are you really trying to say, “I wish the people on the right wouldn’t talk about Maddow, because I don’t like it when people say things other than ‘Maddow is great’.”

Jim R says:
March 11, 2010 at 12:28 pm

I couldn’t possibly care less what Stupak, his priest, or innumberable other uterus-less zealots have to say about women’s health care in general and the specific provisions of the HCR in particular.

Does that mean you forfeit your opinion on the matter too? Or does your non-uterus mean something different for you, than it does for everyone else?

I loved this comment… I really did. “Men shouldn’t have an opinion on abortion… now here’s my opinion.” HA!

Oh, and BTW… Stupak, just like all other politicians, represent their constituency. What you’re really saying I that women who agree with Stupak’s stated position, in his district, are banned from having their voices heard through their elected representative, because their elected representative is a man. But I guess that’s just your attempt at bringing back “bygone days” where women couldn’t state their own opinions.

“Besides all those dead ones, or the grieving ones…”

Again you are correct. The Taliban and Saddam Hussein’s regime were murderous beasts who slaughtered many men, women and children.

We’re just here commenting to correct your mistakes, and don’t kid yourselves, mediate likes it that way. It’s called more “clicks” and readership..

Bingo! You nailed it!

Jim R, are there any extra dead ones now that your guy Obama has sent in more troops? If Bush was evil for doing it, we now await your blasting of Obama for doing the same.

It’s clear to me that Republicans are scared of Maddow. Look at the number of comments she gets on every You Tube video and mediaite post.

In other words, Maddow tells the truth, backs up her reporting with facts (she has a great staff that pulls very well) and that drives the right crazy.

Nothing new here. Two classless people whose very living is dependent on doing or saying classless things. Maddow OBSESSION with Stupak borders on psychotic. Come to think of it, that is pretty much how her show works
Moore does not count since he was psychotic long before Maddow. But they do make a cute couple, Opps, should I say that.

shootfromthehip says:
March 11, 2010 at 1:34 pm

Really? Check out any post featuring Beck, O’Reilly, FNC, or Palin.

In fact, didn’t you just post on a Beck thread? Wow… why are you so scared?

Shootfromthehip says: “Republicans are scared of Maddow..”

You could hardly find a better comment to show how out-of-touch the left is. Maddow has lost more than half of her audience in 18 months. It would be difficult to find a TV personality who has burned and churned through more viewers in such a short time. Her show has no impact on public policy, because moderates and independents stopped watching long ago. Her only role is to make the far left feel good about itself….as the comments above make clear. Her biggest success would be to avoid cancellation and the same fate that overtook her previous employer Air America.

If she actually dealt with issues and not smears, ridicule and personal attacks, she might regain viewers and have some influence. But I don’t think she can operate on that kind of high ground. She won’t even be on TV i 36 months time.

felixw: “Her biggest success would be to avoid cancellation …”

She is only able to avoid cancellation because she is at MSNBC. For any respectable jounalist, working for MSNBC is akin to coaching for the Oakland Raiders. It’s a graveyard for anyone who aspires to journalistic excellence or who wishes to have a future in cable or broadcast television.

So, shoot from the mouth, if getting numerous comments on here means you must be telling the truth, that means Sarah Palin must always be telling the truth.

oh a “media joke” instead of the joke that is our media.

I agree with Bob Somerby at the Daily Howler, Maddow is simply the Dem version of Hannity, some facts mixed with tribe approved script and it all ads up to very little.

If I want facts from tv news I turn to Jon Stewart. Maddow is as much as a joke as KO or anybody at Fox.

She and they argue – nothing more. Lots of smoke, little light.

But those who want their news scripted – be it for the audience from the left or the right – love it that way – and hence you have a silly idea spreading on the net that maddow is somehow a ….journalist.

Puleeze, get a grip fella. Plus shows like her hurt our cause longterm because they push away Indies from Democrats over issues – instead of trying to win them over.

Every time Maddow oer KO “wins” an argument on their show or beats down a guest, Democrats lose votes.

Ive been working political media for 20 years, things and the deciding voters who always are Indies are not so simple as the cheer leading crowd wishes it to be.

But it feels so good to insult the other side, totally “destroy them” and call them stupid names like “tea baggers” doesnt it?

We will probably lose both Houses of Congress and the White House because of it – but if this pleases the tribal child in you – enjoy yourself – because this kind of “Win” sure comes at great cost to those who will be hurt by a GOP return to power.

But dont worry rachel and KO make millions, so theyll be fine no matter…

I love these comments. :-) As for the most recent one, expoliticalmediahack, I would totally disagree with your assessment of Maddow. She is an extremely good interviewer, let’s her guests talk, and is usually quite gracious to them. Much different than, for example, Hannity. Is she progressive? Yes, but her show is commentary and her progessive views are part of that commentary. As for her treatment of Stupak, Ensign, Stanford, and the other C-Street boys, I find that story intriguing. Good investigative journalism. IMHO. I thought the “tea baggers” coined their own name (a play on words relating to the Boston tea party). You blaming Maddow for that? And of course the Dems will lose some seats in Congress, that is normal during a mid-term election cycle when one party controls both houses of Congress and the Presidency, but no way Obama loses. I mean, who would he lose to? Mitt? Sarah? Come on. :-)

Maddow is the best show on TV, and together with KO are a necessary conterpoint to Fox which is off the page to the right.

I am not so sure Maddow makes millions, yet. Of course Beck and O’Reilly are both 20 million dollar per year men. Rush is a 30 million a year man.

As for Azarkhan, who refers to Maddow as “an ignoramus who relies on lies, distortions, and ad hominen attacks.” I have asked before, what lies are you talking about. Please be specific. And of course, there is nothing like a good ad hominen attack on someone when you want to chastise them for using ad hominens. LOL.

You ask for specifics on Maddow’s lies. How about her claim that there is no abortion funding in the Senate health care bill?

Honestly, Maddow would claim the moon is made of green cheese if she thought it would advance a far left agenda.

KO is a counterpoint to Fox? O’Reilly always has guests who disagree with him. So does Hannity. Does Olbermann? I guess he does, if you think the Daily Kos is a dissenting opinion.

Valkyrie101, other commenter’s have pointed out Ms. Maddow’s distortions.

valkyrie101:
“… usually quite gracious to them. Much different than, for example, Hannity”
“I thought the “tea baggers” coined their own name”
” Maddow is the best show on TV…”
” together with KO are a necessary conterpoint [sic] to Fox which is off the page to the right.”
“Yes, but her show is commentary…” (as are Hannity’s and O’Reilly’s shows, yet the left criticizes them)

Based on the quotes above, why would either of us want to waste our time trying to convince the other? I usually only respond personally to someone for whom I feel a particular disdain and contempt. E.g., see my responses to Real Royal.

As for why I’m here, you can read the reason in my comment above at 11:36 to Real Royal.

You are correct about Beck’s, O’Reilly’s and Rush’s income. They make a lot more money than Ms. Maddow. That’s because they have a much larger audience, various sources of income (Beck has a TV and radio show), and in the case of Mr. Limbaugh and Mr. O’Reilly, have been at it a long time.

I suppose the question for leftists is: if what Ms. Maddow and Mr. Olbermann are saying on their shows is the objective truth, why aren’t their ratings higher? And if the conservatives ratings are higher because there are more conservatives and independents in the country (or, as a leftist would put it, “morons”), then perhaps you shouldn’t be so sure that there is “no way Obama loses.”

To felixw: There a specific provision in the Senate bill, read by Maddow on her show and discussed at length (so I assume you did not watch the actual program), which states unequivocably that government funds may not be used for abortion. Stupak wants to put in a provision that would say that you can not even use your own money to pay for coverage that provides for abortion. Its an end run around the U.S. Constitution, which according to our Supreme Court, allows a woman the right to choose an abortion as a Constitutional right.

To Azarkhan: Yes, ratings. For the most part, people of my generation do not bother with any of these news shows. They certainly do not watch Fox, which is a laughing stock around the world. However, my grandparents and most of their generation watch it, religiously. Sadly so, since Fox specializes in scaring them. And really that is the conservative Republican game. Apparently that game makes for some good ratings for Fox. And thus, death panels, dictators with WMDs and the worship of a status quo that offers 45,000 dead people per year for lack of health care while every civilized country in the world, even Rush’s Costa Rica, have some form of nationalized health care to take care of the people, as a matter of compassion, that can not otherwise afford to pay.

In twenty years the Fox audience will have supstantially expired..

To writer: MSNBC in general, is definitely a counterpoint to FOX. CNN is much more in the middle. As for O’Reilly, he is often combative with his guests when he does not agree with them. To say otherwise is to not be particularly objective. Don’t believe me? Go here: http://mediamatters.org/index and type in O’Reilly’s name. Don’t like that site? Try http://www.youtube.com. Just type in O’Reilly’s name. I have never seen Maddow blow her cool like O’Reilly.

valkyrie101…Funny thing is, in 20 years, after you’ve had your head knocked in a few times (financially and politically) and you find most of your income going to people who don’t deserve it, you’ll be watching Fox news or it’s equivalent too.

Dude, no way on that. As for people and their money, something like 2% of the population controls 90% of the wealth. Those people run the corporations, pay themselves tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars, and to keep it all going, they pay off the politicians and preach their no tax no regulation mantra. They use their highly paid spokespeople (imagine, 30 million a year for a talking head. Do you really think they are looking out for YOUR interests), like Beck, Rush and company to scam the common man into thinking that the status quo, with they continuing to make their mega millions, as the middle class sinks into oblivion, is acceptable. It is not, dude. They are scamming you. The common man is being taken for a ride by these guys. The Democrats are part of the scam too, but less so than the Republicans. IMHO.

Every civilized country in the world manages to provide basic health care for their people. We can’t handle that? Isn’t this America, the country that is supposed to have the highest standard of living in the world? My goodness, Costa Rica takes better care of their people with regard to healthcare than we do. But the bottom line is that the rich people, who possess literally 90% of the wealth, do not want to part with their money to do that. (Which is not to say that there are not some very generous and compassionate rich people.) Thus, the common man works 60 hours a week and still can not pay his basic living expenses, let alone medical care that has gone through the roof while the corporations and their owners, directors, and executive personnel rake in amounts of money that were completely unheard of 20 years ago. When the talking heads complain about high taxes do you think they are speaking on behalf of you? Yea, no regulations, no EPA, no regulation of banks, oil, consumer protection, nothing. Why do they preach that? Because regulation cuts into their profits. Not your profits, dude. What do you get out of it? Dirty beaches, long hours of toil, and an early death because the company you worked for laid you off after the manufacturing was outsourced to Singapore so that the owners of industry could make more personal money, and you could not afford to pay for health care. Yea. Reality sucks.

Rush and Beck are flat out prostitutes. Talented people who have been bought off to shill for the machine. The tea party people, with their outrage, have the right idea. But they are being led in the wrong direction by the Rush and Becks of the world. Sorry to say.

valkyrie101: “For the most part, people of my generation do not bother with any of these news shows.”

That’s OK. It’s not a crime to be ignorant.

valkyrie101-Below is link to an article by a British observer of the American political scene. Don’t be put off by the title. I think you will especially like what he says about Fox News.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/7396358/The-end-of-the-road-for-Barack-Obama.html

Azark,
On any given night, something like 5% of the population watch any of those nightly news commentary shows, with most of the ones who watch being older than 45. So are you suggesting that the 95% of the people that do not watch are ignorant? These days, far more people access their news via the internet than by TV.

As for your article, coincidentally I read that before. And, yes, that guy showed up on the fair and balanced network too. LOL. But here is a more telling sign of what the British think about Fox News (I mean other than the fact that Murdoch’s own children are appalled by it): Beck’s show runs on British TV and FOX has been unable to find a single sponsor for it. It has been running for the past few weeks with no sponsors.

Even in the U.S. Beck has been losing all his sponsors. But check out this Colbert Report on Beck’s newest sponsor, “Survival Seed Bank”, here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/11/colbert-mocks-glenn-becks_n_494651.html

For every sponsor Beck loses, there are three more anxious to sign on. The idea of advertisements is to get the product seen. Beck’s ratings have been through the roof, and that means money. Hard to believe all these companies are going to put ideology ahead of their bottom line and sponsor shows no one is watching. Like those on MSNBC and CNN.

Not true, writer. Sponsors have been dropping left and right. The average business, though recognizing the hugh ratings, are scared of a backlash by the overwhelming majority of people, including almost the entire minority population and most of the young people, who do not watch but who hear about all the crazy conspiracy ramblings as a late night tv punchline. Do you think a major corporation wants its brand associated with someone calling the President of the United States a racist and a fascist? Sure, some people like to hear that stuff, and they do watch FOX, but despite the ratings, that is only a small percentage of the overall population. More people watch Fox than MSNBC and CNN combined, but that is still only several million people out of a population of 300 million.

I think the people at Fox and at MSNBC tend to be preaching to the choir. And I doubt Beck is worried about losing the minority audience, since they’re not watching him to begin with. The hard right will watch Fox, the hard left watches the others. Audience gains or losses are thus with the independents, and since Beck’s numbers have been going up, they must be tuning in whether or not they agree with everything he says.

FOX is a forum for people who believe in a certain way. Its nice they have such a forum. Thank goodness for FOX in that regard. Everyone needs an outlet. Same for the liberal side, via MSNBC. But again, the masses do not watch that stuff. The largest FOX audience are older people, who have lived with fear their whole lives and are easily influenced by the fear mongering that FOX specializes in. But the largest growing group of people, minorities, and othe overwhelming number of young people, do not relate to the FOX game. That is why I said that in twenty years the FOX audience will have substantially expired.

Conservatism always opposes change. In the dynamic of change, that is the role of conservatism. But progressive ideas are the future. Consider for example woman’s rights. They could not even vote until 1920. They were not paid a fair wage, they had no property rights, they were truly second class citizens. Who opposed their efforts to bring change? Conservatives. But progress eventually prevailed. Same with civil rights. The conservatives opposed that process every step of the way, from the 1600s on.. But eventually, progress arrived (though still not completely).. Health care is the same way. Conservatives oppose that. But eventually there will be health care for everyone, as it is in virtually every developed country.

It’s said that in fifty years the majority of the country will be hispanic. No more guilt trips affecting our politics.

valkyrie101…If Fox news viewers are all old people, how do you explain the daily ratings win in the target “demo” bracket adults 25 to 54? Everyday on this very site, it’s reported, Beck & O’reilly win target demo..

How do you explain that??

Well, I said the largest Fox audience is older people. Is that incorrect? So how many people overall are we talking about? A few million. Right? Our country has a population of 300 million.

The people in the U.S. who do not watch FOX News is perhaps twenty times more than those who watch it.

If Fox’s ratings aren’t really all that hot, then MSNBC must be getting ready to go off the air.

Dude, its not about their ratings being not all that hot, its simply that only a few million people watch FOX out of a total of 300,000,000. Ratings are a relative thing. My cable box has about 100 channels with FOX News being one of them. Of course, it is not MSNBC that provides the strongest competition to FOX, its the USA channel. And tens of millions of people watch no TV.

On March 11th, for example, the Glenn Beck show had 2.5 million viewers. OK? That is less than 1% of the American population.

Wow, poor Mr. Raines really got blasted in these comments. Of course it has been the mantra of the right for years now that the media is biased to the left. That was probably true many years ago, but these days the right totally dominates talk radio, and with FOX, they also have a major say on TV. But few of you probably know when the tide began to change for the right, and who its first true sugar daddy was. That would be Reverend Sun Myung Moon, the founder of the Washington Times (the paper that Ronald Reagan said he read, first thing, every day), who has spent, according to him, two billion dollars on right wing causes. The Times has had some hard times lately, but that is where the conservative media revolution began. FOX came on the right wing media scene much later. So all your right wing media lovers, give it up for your daddy.

oops, wrong thread. sorry for the off point post. :-)