OK, kiddies, here’s my ass-whooping of Rachel Maddow following her Wednesday show. As I suspected, my liberal interlocutor Leah did not appreciate my glossing over two stories from Tuesday’s Rachel Maddow show: The secret CIA program concocted by that Evil Mastermind Dick Cheney which, God forbid, focused on assassinating al Qaeda operatives worldwide, and the scandals of “The Family” on C Street.
Not surprisingly, Maddow continued reporting on one of these stories. So here ya go, Leah. Hope they’re adequate this time:
1:00 C Street
For three days (at least) Maddow has been reporting about this “mysterious” and “secretive” Christian society of Washington politicians residing in a housing complex on C Street, who are called “The Fellowship” or “The Family.” Maddow has a problem with the alleged secrecy pact held among the politicians there, and of course the fact that disgraced Republican governor Mark Sanford and Republican Senator John Ensign reside there. (And as of this writing, already three days after Maddow’s Wednesday show, it seems a third Republican politician, former U.S. Rep. Chip Pickering of Mississippi, has been exposed as having had an extramarital affair. So at least now there’s something for Maddow to discuss all next week!)
It’s clear why this story, which in all honesty makes my eyes glaze over in yawny sleepiness, is so important to Maddow: It’s a place for fundamentalist Christians to meet, have Bible study, and so forth. And what could be juicier than story about a bunch of fundamentalist Christians who have cheated on their wives and then vowed to each other to keep these affairs secret?
I’m not excusing any of these guys, believe me. And I—and many other conservative Republicans—think they should leave. So on that point, I agree with Maddow’s clear evaluation: these guys are slime.
What I don’t appreciate is the clear attempt by Maddow (and other liberal pundits/bloggers; just Google “C Street” and you’ll see) to make this a problem with Republicans or with Christianity. We got a lot of scumbag politicians in D.C., and they don’t all have an R next to their name, Rachel. But you’re a liberal TV host, so Republican scandals is all you show. I get it. I should also point out that at least two Democrats are members of the Family, including Congressmen Mike Doyle (D-PA), Mark Pryor (D-AR) and Bart Stupak (D-MI), and Senators Ben Nelson (D-NE) and Bill Nelson (D-FL).
If Rachel Maddow is going to directly or indirectly accuse Republicans in The Family of keeping secrets of their brethren’s extramarital affairs supposedly because they are also Republicans, what can she say about these Democrat members, who most likely also knew of these affairs?
Oh, and there is one former Senator who has been described as the Family’s “biggest Democratic friend”: Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Clinton fell in with The Family in 1993, when she joined a Bible study group composed of wives of conservative leaders like Jack Kemp and James Baker. When she ascended to the Senate, she was promoted to what Sharlet calls the Family’s “most elite cell,” the weekly Senate Prayer Breakfast, which included, until his downfall, Virginia’s notoriously racist Senator George Allen [Yes, I know, saying a meaningless combination of sounds “macaca” makes one a notorious racist. Honestly, you liberals/Democrats are worse than pathetic.] This has not been a casual connection for Clinton. She has written of Doug Coe, The Family’s publicity-averse leader, that he is “a unique presence in Washington: a genuinely loving spiritual mentor and guide to anyone, regardless of party or faith, who wants to deepen his or her relationship with God.”
Furthermore, The Family takes credit for some of Clinton’s rightward legislative tendencies, including her support for a law guaranteeing “religious freedom” in the workplace, such as for pharmacists who refuse to fill birth control prescriptions and police officers who refuse to guard abortion clinics. [Really, she did? Go Hillary!] […]
Fundamentalism is not the religion of the GOP, it is the established religion in Washington and it to some extent maintains control over both parties. I was raised in a church that preached it as the religion of the status quo: Respect authority and the power and always know your place. It helps the poor in poverty waiting for their treasures in heaven while the wealthy amass greater riches on earth. It keeps women from achieving their potential and the races separate. And it keeps us from finally passing something like a public health care system or the Employee Free Choice Act. If we want to take on this group, we better understand that we’ll have to fight both parties to do it.
This blurb, by the way, did not come from some right-wing site. It’s from (gasp!) the Daily Kos!
4:30 Maddow quotes a C-Streeter, former Congressman Steve Largent (R-OK), who tells a Tulsa newspaper that even though he encouraged Ensign to end his affair, he was concerned for the well-being [of the C Street adulterers] and thought whether they should resign or not is up to them.
Thinking she’s caught the former Congressman in some sort of hypocritical predicament—because there’s nothing more gratifying to a liberal/Democrat than finding a conservative/Republican guilty of hypocrisy!—Maddow shows us a statement that Largent made over a decade ago, during the impeachment of then-President Bill Clinton:
“I don’t think any reasonable people could say that the president should not resign. I think reading the president’s own censure resolution, You can’t come away with any other conclusion [than] that this president should resign. It’s the honorable thing to do.”
Small problem, though. Maddow gives us the date of Largent’s statement: December 27, 1998. This is eight days after the impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton took place, on December 19. But Clinton wasn’t impeached because of sex. It was on the grounds of perjury to a grand jury and obstruction of justice. (Both charges were ultimately narrowly defeated in trial along party lines, but that’s another story for another time.)
My point is that Maddow—erroneously—thinks that Bill Clinton was impeached because of sex, and therefore the Sanford and Ensign scandals are valid equivalents (or as my friend Leah likes to say, apples and apples). It’s a false premise repeated not only by Maddow, but by any Clinton-apologists in the Democrat Party and in the mainstream liberal media and punditocracy.
A simple, straightforward accont comes from this letter to the editor published in the Dayton (Ohio) Daily News, in which the writer calls out one of the paper’s reporters who made the same mistake as Maddow:
Re “In love or just plain loony?,” June 26: Once again, we have a media member glossing over Bill Clinton’s impeachment by suggesting it was about sex and that Republicans should have minded their own business. Gail Collins has joined the chorus who intentionally misrepresent the Bill Clinton impeachment issue, this time in her article regarding South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford.
Every left-wing pundit constantly and wrongly refers to the impeachment of Clinton as if he was impeached for his relationship with Monica Lewinsky. This whitewash is published over and over by his apologists.
Clinton was not impeached for carrying on with his intern; he was the defendant in a civil lawsuit. While providing testimony in that suit, he lied under oath. This is called perjury. Perjury is a felony. Presidents committing felonies get impeached.
The liberal media then slant the story as a hypocritical witch hunt over an issue that should have been private. Lying under oath is a serious crime that carries a serious penalty. Clinton was lucky to have just been impeached.
Now, I don’t think Maddow was on the air 11 years ago, but I wonder if she thinks Bill Clinton should have resigned? Because if she doesn’t, then it is she who is being the hypocrite for demanding theresignation Sanford and Ensign—a governor and Senator, not the POTUS!
Maybe Leah can enlighten us as to how much coverage Maddow devoted to John Edwards’ extramarital affair as his wife Elizabeth battled cancer. Maybe she can also tell me if any time in the following week Maddow will do a segment on Mary Jo Kopechne, who died 40 years ago this weekend by asphyxiation in a submerged car driven by Ted Kennedy.
Back in June, when the Sanford and Ensign scandals were starting to be news, Cal Thomas wrote in the Washington Post:
As for those who are quick to wave the hypocrisy flag because Nevada Republican Senator John Ensign and Republican Governor Sanford took part in a Bible study, I would prefer to look at the far greater number of people who have passed through this house and who have not cheated on their wives and have been encouraged to "keep on keeping on" with a life of personal and professional integrity.
To suggest that because some occasionally fail at living up to the standards they profess and this proves the house serves no useful purpose, is like saying that because someone drops dead at the gym, exercise is of no value. I suspect most Americans—whatever their religious or political beliefs—would be pleased to know that at least a few Members of Congress are attempting to improve themselves, their relationship with God and each other and as a result to perform on a higher level of integrity than they otherwise might.
My advice to the folks behind the house, though, is to open up and let the media see what's inside. The attraction for them is in the mystery of it all. There is nothing to hide and much to admire.
Hear hear!
14:30 Sotomayor Hearing
Again covering the Sotomayor hearings through liberal-tinted glasses, Maddow sees nothing but a GOP Race-Fest where other, sentient, human beings would see both Republican and
During an exchange between Sotomayor and Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) used the famous Ricky Ricardo catchphrase “You have a lot of ‘splaining to do,” complete with Hispanic accent. Even though Sotomayor chuckled at this, as did the rest of the room, Rachel Maddow declared she had yet again uncovered the ugly head of trademark Republican racism.
To this, I have one thing to say: Get over yourself, you sad pathetic woman! Is there nowhere liberals will think they’ve found Republican racism? It’s like when in 1994 Charlie Rangel found racism when the newly-Republican-majority Congress wanted tax reform: “It’s no longer ‘sp*c’ or ‘nigger.’ Now they say, ‘let’s cut taxes.’”
At 16 minutes she admits that “going Ricky Ricardo” wasn’t the most offensive thing Coburn has ever said—Whew, that’s a relief!—nor is it the most egregious example of the GOP’s racial fixation. Again, the only racial fixation I see in this whole topic is from Rachel Maddow. It reminds me of a joke told by Bill Murray’s character in the movie “What About Bob”: The doctor draws two circles and says “What do you see?” the guy says “Sex.” … So the doctor draws trees, “What do you see?” the guy says “sex”. The doctor draws a car, owl, “Sex, sex, sex”. The doctor says to him “You are obsessed with sex”, he replies “Well, you’re the one drawing all the dirty pictures!”
Likewise, the GOP were to tell Rachel Maddow, “You’re obsessed about race!” she’s most likely respond, “Well you’re the ones making all the racist comments!”
Leah, can you tell me how much time Maddow devoted to Jeremiah Wright when a couple weeks ago he called Obama’s Jewish cabinet members “Them Jews”? Or are only Republicans anti-Semitic too?
16:00 Maddow announces that on Thursday’s show she will be having on uber-righty Pat Buchanan to discuss a Human Events article he wrote about the Sotomayor hearings (Yes, she accuses Buchanan of being obsessed with race). I’ve already watched the exchange, which was made available on YouTube. It’s quite passionate and I’ll have things to say about it in my next post.
Oh yeah, on Thursday Democrat Senator Barbara Boxer was accused of “being racial” by the CEO of the National Black Chamber of Commerce. I can’t wait to watch Thursday’s show, where Maddow will certainly take the time castigating Madame Senator for being an insensitive racist bigot.
Incidentally, I mentioned that on Maddow’s Tuesday show, when discussing the Sotomayor hearings, the graphic on the screen was a picture of Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) and the caption “Southern Discomfort.” Today’s graphic was a collage of four Republican Senators and the caption “Elephant in the Room.” Now that Al Franken is a Senator, who’s coming up with all these witty captions for you?
18:00 Oh goody, here comes Slate’s Dahlia Lithwick again! And what does she and Maddow start with? How all the Republicans are pressing this “wise Latina” comment ad infinitum (which, as I said yesterday, I partially agree with). But Lithwick says the GOP is doing it “at the risk of talking about something serious and meaningful like her record.” What is this woman talking about??? If you look at the transcripts that are available—I cited the transcript of Tuesday’s hearings in my last Maddow post; Wednesday’s is here—one will find ample evidence of Republican questioners discussing Sotomayor’s record.
So stop it with the spin, Dahlia! Contrary to popular liberal belief, we conservatives know how to read!
20:00 Here’s the quote of the day: Lithwick laments that, given the supposed display of GOP obsession with race during the Sotomayor hearings, Democrats have lost an opportunity to “explain what’s wrong with the John Roberts court. Why does the Roberts court have this determination to keep average Americans out of the courthouse doors? Why are they so set on doing away with the racial progress we’ve made?”
Dahlia Lithwick, what the f**k are you talking about???
Then, just when you think Ms. Lithwick can’t be any more divorced from reality, she then applauds Senate newbie Al “thanks, ACORN” Franken for “making a pointed critique of the Roberts court and saying to Judge Sotomayor, ‘How can they talk about striking down the Voting Rights Act? How can that not be activist?’”
What is Lithwick (and Franken) smoking? The Roberts court wasn’t trying to strike down the Voting Rights Act! For one thing, the 1965 was extended 25 years in 2006 by the Roberts court. And last month the Roberts court decided 8-1 (the lone dissenter was African-American Thomas!) to kick down the road a decision on whether one section of the act (“Section 5”) was constitutional or not. Exactly how that translates to trying to striking down the entire act or with judicial activism is anybody’s guess.
How much lies and spin can one show have??? And we’re only halfway done with this episode. Oy.
And then Maddow adds to Lithwick’s commendation of Franken by saying, “I guess that may be what Al meant when he talked about wanting to be the People’s proxy in these hearings.”
One last thing. Can you tell me what’s suspicious about these shots, which appeared during this segment?



Give up: The accompanying video doesn’t match the “GOP/race” captions. All the people in these shots are Democrats! They are, from top to bottom, Sen. Pat Leahy (D-VT), Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD), and Sen. Ted Kaufman (D-DE).
22:30 “Operation Iraqi Baseball”
Good for you, Rachel. Two thumbs up on this one. (Leah, aren’t you proud of me?)
26:30 Palin Flop-Ed
Looks like a liberal has found a flip-flop
Maddow discusses Sarah Palin’s editorial “The Cap-and-Trade Dead End,” which appeared Tuesday in the Washington Post (kudos to WaPo for publishing it) Maddow describes the editorial as “decrying the cap-and-trade provision in the president’s energy plan, which would reduce the emissions that cause global warming.”
Let’s rephrase that last remark so it’s more accurate, shall we?
“… decrying the cap-and-trade provision in the president’s energy plan, which would force the American people, individual property owner and business owner alike to reduce the emissions that radical eco-Marxists have been trying to trick the government and public into believing they cause global warming.”
Now that we got that straightened out, we move on:
Maddow tries to catch Palin in a Kerryesque flip-flop by playing a clip from the October 2, 2008 vice presidential debate in which she answered affirmatively to moderator Gwen Ifill’s question, “Do you support capping carbon emissions?”
She then provides from footage from Palin’s September 30, 2008 interview with Katie Couric, in which she expressed support for running-mate John McCain’s cap-and-trade plan and declared she supports doing “all that we can do to reduce emissions and clean up the planet.”
29:30 Maddow brings on Ezra Klein, who wrote a retort to Palin’s piece on his WaPo blog.
Some of Klein’s ridiculous statements about Obama’s cap-and-trade politcy:
“It’s on some level an energy tax.”
On some level???
“It’s one that will get rebated to people.”
Oh please. Even if people do get the “rebate” Obama promises, there’s no way it’s going to offset the thousands and thousands of dollars will cost people to adhere to these unnecessary, unreasonable, and unrealistic rules—car and energy companies being forced to reduce fuel emissions to currently unattainable levels, every American from Maine to Hawaii having to retrofit their private home and business to meet the environmental guidelines set by a politburo of nameless faceless Washington bureaucrats.
“It’s one that will save the globe from getting a little crispy over time.”
Ezra Klein, if you actually believe what came out of your mouth, then you are a f**king moron.
Meanwhile, Maddow and Klein are so all in a tizzy about Sarah Palin flip-flopped on cap-and-trade, they never thought to consider that the cap-and-trade policy that John McCain was proposing—albeit despised by the conservative Republican base—was nowhere near as far-reaching and economy-destroying as Obama’s. From the very clips and editorial she cites, we can clearly see that Sarah Palin is specifically against President Obama’s cap-and-trade plan. That is not a flip-flop!
In addition, there is also nowhere in the editorial that indicates that Palin has renounced her statements made to Ifill and Couric that she supports the reduction of carbon emissions. Maddow only assumes that since Palin opposes Obama’s ambitious plan, that she opposes reducing carbon emissions altogether. (And you know what happens when you assume!)
So, nice try, Rachel, but I don’t see a Palin flip-flop here.
OK, that’s all from this show. Sorry, Leah. I’m not discussing blobs or sharks (Maddow’s two final segments). So sue me!
Recent Comments