BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Sorry, would have busted a gut if I tried to hold that in.:)

She does have a nice smile when labeling anyone disagreeing with her an idiot.

I’m sorry but what are HER credentials? Liberals are always whining about Beck’s “lack of education and intellect”. Other than being more masculine that Olbernmann and hosting a failed radio show on that juggernaut “Air America” WTF has she done?

Like her MSNBC counterparts, she NEVER has anyone of substance from the Right on to debate her.

She’s just another liberal blowhard sounding board.

WHAT ARE MADDOW’S CREDENTIALS???? Well, why don’t you wiki her and find out, because it is QUITE lengthy and impressive.

She won a RHODES SCHOLARSHIP for one thing and earned her doctorate. Her creds are lengthy and prestigious.

A BLOW HARD?

I am sorry.. NO, Maddow didn’t QUIT 5 colleges and wind up with one degree in communications like $arah. According to the RIGHT, a persons school creds don’t matter. However Maddow did the work to back up her national TV perch. She also has the personality to connect with an audience, if they have reading and writing skills that is.

@gunclinger Well we’ll start with the Rhodes Scholarship. And how can you say her radio show on Air America “failed” when it obviously led her into her TV career? And she does have many people with whom she disagrees on her shoe all the time. My guess is that “anyone of substance from the Right” like Liz Cheney is too scared to go on her show.

*show not shoe obviously, although she frequently has to scrape them off her shoe she is done with them.

How many left wing blowhards would be so kind and gracious to right wingers at CPAC? She was even kind to members of the JOHN BIRCH SOCIETY!

Blowhard she is not, gunclinger seems to be one. I would almost ask if you watch her show, but you clearly don’t because you would note that she has many conservatives on her show. Say what you want about Keith Olbermann, it can be hard to defend him for his incendiary words, but I adore Rachel Maddow and will defend her as long as she’s around.

Question: Would Glenn Beck or Sean Hannity go among large left-wing crowds and interact with them with the kindness and honesty that Rachel did with CPACers? OHHHHH, I’d pay good money to see that!

Dona, please. You know that Fidoohki, Writer and Gunclinger don’t view education and intelligence as qualifying anyone for anything, except for their own scorn and contempt. And, I mean really, Rachel has people of opposing viewpoints on her show? You’re not bringing up guests such as Frum, Olson and Oppenheim, are you? They’re not conservative. Not real conservative.

Rachel Maddow is not immune from criticism by any means, but if you’re going to attack her, you can’t pick a worse battleground than her credentials. You might as well critique Glenn Beck for being too bashful or Nancy Grace for being unassertive.

Same thing as far as her not taking on guests who competently oppose her point of view. I can’t think of a single “pundit” who does it more than her… her closest competition would be Bill O’Reilly and Jon Stewart, and they’re far behind.

Why doesn’t anyone give credit where it’s due nowadays? Oh, right… intellectual honesty is dead.

Excellent observation, Cactus. There can be no deviation from the mantra of the day for the right wing.

If they let the camel’s nose of progressive success under the tent flap, their entire world view collapses in a heap of negative vitriol.

Please give Rachel MTP! Although I’m sure the execs there are concerned that pols will abstain rather than being eviscerated with manners and intellect.

stoogedudes says:
February 23, 2010 at 2:05 pm
“How many left wing blowhards would be so kind and gracious to right wingers at CPAC? She was even kind to members of the JOHN BIRCH SOCIETY!”

Rachel Maddow made some pretty outrageous claims about the John Birch Society a few months back and again in the last week before CPAC. She did not allow the JBS to come on the show. In fact if you watch the 2-19 show you will see she ends her attack with the JBS with the usual ‘Tee Hee Hee’.

And maybe if we watch the ‘whole tape’ from CPAC, we can find Ms. Maddow in agreement with the JBS on some things, yet she refuses to let them on her show. Oops! Well I guess we will see if she changes her policy of having opposing views on or she will just keep resorting to one-way attacks eh? She has Ron Paul on, why not JBS?

http://www.libertynewsnetwork.tv/?p=101 (H/T Liberty News Network)

“Question: Would Glenn Beck or Sean Hannity go among large left-wing crowds and interact with them with the kindness and honesty that Rachel did with CPACers? OHHHHH, I’d pay good money to see that!”

Well, I don’t know about Mr Beck’s history on this, BUT! As much as it pains me to point this out to you. Yes Pawn Vannity has done his show from ‘Radio Row’, H &C, at DNC Conventions in the past.

The tip jar is over there.

Royal, if you’ll review my posts concerning Rachel, I’ve always given her props for not being afraid to appear with people of differing viewpoints. She has much bigger balls than the cowardly Keith Olbermann. Of course, that’s not saying much.

I agree with you on that point, Writer.

As they say on Pirates of the Caribbean, we have an accord.

Since it took so long, one might say we have an accord-ion.

ooooohhhh, a Rhodes Scholar wow, I’m so impressed. So she was indoctrinated by progressive Marxists, earned shiny honors, and that makes her an authority? Please people.

Her “success” on Air America? That failed “progressive” radio that was bankrolled by George Soros and her “ticket for success” was a gig on MSNBC?

I think it’s hilarious that you had to go to wikipedia to look up her “credentials” before you slammed back!

You obviously have no concept of “conservative” so let me know when she has the balls (which I’m sure she does down there) to debate Mark Levin, Jonah Goldberg, or Bernie Goldberg. They’d have her in tears for her liberal ignorance.

This is like the fifth or sixth article I’ve seen about Maddow’s supposed “intelligence and wit.” Jeez. Intelligent people don’t come to the conclusions that she does.

The Real Royal King says:
February 23, 2010 at 2:13 pm

First off, let’s get something straight, you don’t know me well enough to know what exactly
my opinion is on those subjects. Please don’t do it again.

Now as for Rachel? In all seriousness, she has yet to show she can be non-partison. Until she does,
she is nothing more than an progressive pundit.

She’s a lesbian, not that there’s anything wrong with that, and her politics is rabidly left. Now which one of those two things are we supposed to find impressive and why?

Socalgal says,

The fact that she’s a lesbian doesn’t affect it at all. It’s the matter of her being untested as a non partisan
moderator. In my opinion, for what it is worth, if NBC wants to hand Sunday mornings to ABC or Fox then
put Rachel Maddow as host of ‘MEet the Press’ since the ‘far left Model’ is working SOOOOO well for
MSnbc… BTW… aren’t they getting beat by test patterns now in the ratings? :)

Personally I find her hairchop and crooked smile as annoying as her so-called wit. Perhaps all three will do to MSNBC what they did for AIR America. She could always hawk to SNL and Keith could find a spot at neighborhood nuthouse Neither one offer anything outside of tone deaf vitriol.

Puck 30: What “outrageous” comments about the JBS did Maddow supposedly make? Presumably, you are asserting that her comments were not fact-based or fair — so what, specifically, are you alleging is the problem?

Incidentally, historically, the most potent criticisms of the Birch Society did not originate from the left-side of the political spectrum. Instead, the most potent critics were giants within the conservative and anti-communist intellectual and political activist communities — such as: J. Edgar Hoover, Sen. Barry Goldwater, Sen. John Tower, Russell Kirk, James Burnham, James J. Kilpatrick, Frank Meyer, Ronald Reagan, etc.

Anti-intellectualism and contempt for educational attainment has always been a prominent feature of the extreme right movement in our country. Maybe it is a form of what psychologists refer to as “projection” — i.e. recognizing one’s own limited intellectual capacity and wanting to bring everyone else down to your level of understanding?

At the recent CPAC conference, Birch Society President John McManus and the Senior Editor of the Birch Society magazine, The New American, spoke with Rachel Maddow of MSNBC when she dropped by their CPAC booth. Video of Maddow at JBS-CPAC booth: http://www.libertynewsnetwork.tv/?p=101

Since December 2009, Rachel has devoted three segments of her TV program to the Birch Society. During two of those segments, Rachel discussed the Birch Society position on the fluoridation of water supplies. The Birch Society subsequently dismissed her comments as a typical “left-wing smear” of the JBS.

It is totally understandable that JBS President John McManus now wants to revise history and pretend that the Birch Society opposed fluoridation only because it amounted to “mass medication” — but that is not historically accurate. [See McManus’s comments to Rachel Maddow beginning at 4:35 of the CPAC video link above].

What McManus did not address is why the JBS linked water fluoridation to communists and communism in the March 1960 issue of the JBS Bulletin.

Why, for example, did that issue of the Bulletin warn readers about “Communists [who] have been able to beguile a sufficiently large enough, powerful enough, and determined enough clique into supporting fluoridation” — as if fluoridation of water had no legitimate basis in medical research nor any support by principled dentists but, instead, was simply part of a conspiratorial plot?

Why, also, did Robert Welch state in the JBS Bulletin of December 1959 (page 8) that he was sending to all JBS chapter leaders sufficient copies of the September 28, 1959 issue of the Dan Smoot Report newsletter so that every JBS member could read Smoot’s anti-fluoridation argument which also referred to the “communist plot” aspect of water fluoridation?

Furthermore, let’s consider two letters that were written by self-identified dentists to J. Edgar Hoover.

The first letter to Hoover is dated April 4, 1960:

“I have been delegated to ask your opinion on several matters. Since we are resolved to fight the conspiracy in the most effective manner, it is essential that we KNOW we are supporting a cause which has the best interests of the United States as its prime objective. We want to know, therefore, if you would endorse the John Birch Society…Recently, American Opinion, edited and published by Mr. Welch, has claimed strongly that fluoridation of municipal water supplies was promoted by and is a part of the communist conspiracy. Since I am a dentist and have supported fluoridation strongly, I find this almost inconceivable. Can you throw some light on this matter please?” [FBI HQ 62-104401- #75; 4/4/60 incoming inquiry to J. Edgar Hoover.]

The second letter is dated December 19, 1960:

“Several months ago we became acquainted with the John Birch Society. We were very impressed with the Blue Book of the Society and wish to become active against Communism through its membership. However, Mr. Welch strongly recommends The Dan Smoot Report and we would like to know more about Mr. Smoot…As dentists we are strong proponents of fluoridation of water supplies…Consequently, we were more than amazed when someone told us that Communists were for fluoridation while anti-communists were against it. To prove his point the man brought us the September 28, 1959 Dan Smoot Report, “Facts on Fluoridation” as well as articles from The American Mercury magazine.” [FBI HQ 62-104401, #558; 12/19/60 inquiry to Hoover]

It should be noted that the “fluoridation-as-communist-plot” argument presented by Smoot and the Birch Society was also promoted by many other individuals and organizations — particularly as a consequence of an “affidavit” by Kenneth Goff.

In March 1963, a Congressman contacted the FBI to inquire into Goff’s assertion that fluoridation of water supplies was part of a communist plot. A Bureau memo discussing the matter states:

“Our files do not indicate evidence substantiating the charges that fluoridation is part of a communist plot…Of course, the fluoridation controversy has been nationwide and the communist element has often been injected into it principally by right wing extremists.” [FBI HQ 62-80382, #149, page 2; 3/13/63 memo from D.C. Morrell to Mr. DeLoach].

The same serial states:
“Bufiles indicate that in 1952 Goff was considered to be a borderline psychopathic case.”

Wow! It’s so funny ernie1241 had to go back about 51 years to find something about JBS. it also had nothing to do with my original thought which was. If you are going to make claims that Maddow debates people she doesn’t agree with. I just showed she doesn’t. But I’ll play your game.

It’s funny that there were a lot of stories in the mainstream media last year about people flushing prescription drugs down the loon and it getting into the drinking water. And my, my, my, look where I found it.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26662637/

You’re own MSNBC reported on it. So we can all conclude stuff can get in the drinking water. Or is your psychopathic MSNBC just trying to scare 46 million people?

So you folks had to go back 51 years, while I just had to go back two. And I get it off your own site. Do your homework kids. Does Maddow even read her own site?

I don’t know much about JBS nor do I care. I’m just pointing out that if Ms. Maddow wants to make claims about JBS fine. Go say how they bark at the moon. I just find it funny, how she makes these claims. Doesn’t let JBS on her show, makes more claims. Still doesn’t let them on her show. Then drops by their booth. plays nice. Then goes back on her show and rips them again. Still doesn’t let them on her show. Wow! she sure can debate em’ eh?

And if you want proof about her outrageous claims go on youtube.

I’m susposed to respect this woman? If you want to make claims have the folks on you make claims about. Don’t pull an Olbermann.

The tip jar is over there.

Puck: I didn’t go back 50 years. I responded to something which JBS President John McManus said just a few days ago at the CPAC conference which was manifestly false and which was intended to deceive people about the actual beliefs of the JBS!

I guess your point is that when an organization deliberately misrepresents its position — that is not something you think is relevant for readers to know about. You are more concerned with a calendar, than with truth.

I agree with you about one thing though.

As you candidly admit — you don’t know much about the Birch Society.

And yes, Maddow has not invited JBS spokespersons to debate on her program. She also has not invited people who believe the earth is flat or people who believe we never landed on the moon or people who believe the U.S. government created AIDS in order to kill off large numbers of low income individuals.

If you want to review something more recent about the Birch Society — I can recommend many articles and on-line discussions — but you seem to be missing my point:

The essential premises of the Birch Society were stated 50 years ago and they have never, since that time, retracted even one derogatory or defamatory assertion or conclusion which they made about any person or organization or issue — even when they lost an historic precedent-setting libel lawsuit and paid their victim $400,000 after 14 years of litigation.

Furthermore, in 2002 the Birch Society published a new edition of Robert Welch’s 1950′s so-called “private letter” entitled The Politician and the JBS recommended that new 2002 edition on the back cover with the following observation:

“But most importantly, The Politician exposes that ‘conspiracy of gangsters’ which even now is setting America’s foreign and domestic policy.” The reference to “conspiracy of gangsters” is from a comment made by Robert Welch 50+ years ago when he claimed that virtually all of our national leaders and government officials were traitors and conspirators — who collectively amounted to a “conspiracy of gangsters”.

So, Puck, this illustrates why historical knowledge about the JBS is critically important to understanding their contemporary beliefs — even if that upsets you.