Rachel Maddow loses it. She apoplectic that a good, reliable liberal network like CNN would violate MSNBC’s code of ethics and actually give time to an opposing point of view.
This is classic: One network that no one watches is offended that another network that no one watches would air a speech that people might actually be interested in watching.
The Fairness Doctrine, liberal style.
This post was last modified on January 27, 2011
View Comments (19)
Who cares? No one of consequence watches her... She is lame.
Only idiots like her would find it upsetting that a news station decided to run with you know the news...
Comes to mind Meghan Mccain another idiot who only has her last name as the reason for her existence. She was also angry because CNN ran the Bachmann response.
All that this tells me is that the TEA party is a serious reason of concern for a lot of people and attacking it in hopes it will go away is all that they can do.
Meghan McCain + Non Reagan Jr = ZILCH.
And who ordained you to make comments on anything you frkin BULL?
alien said:
You'll note that the loss of jobs took place almost PRECISELY after the point at which the Donks took over the House and the Socialist Ponzi scheme that is "Freddie & Fannie" started to really unravel. There's plenty of blame to go around, but the vast majority of blame for this current meltdown can be laid squarely at the Birkenstocked feet of General Giap's Marxist Muttf@cking Morons™.
You can throw out cherry-picked graphs all you want, but those of us who have been paying attention know, as Paul Harvey famously said, "the rest of the story".
My point regards Obama. Hold onto your britches and whatever you strap around your feet.
It is not at all plausible to place the blame for unemployment figures squarely on Obama's shoulders, as she did. This is due to basic spacetime constraints (or perhaps he's a time-travelin' messiah!!)
It is vastly more arguable that Democratic congress is responsible. I still find this simple position debatable, because the economy is exceedingly complex, but congratulations, your partisan rhetoric already surpasses Michelle Bachmann's in credibility. You fail to note, however, that the subprime began its collapse before Dems took power in 2007.
Now tell me, how am i really cherry picking? I sent you to a month-by-month blow of employment collapse. Michelle Bachmann plucked out whole swaths of time to make Obama look worse and GWB look better. This is childish.
These matters do not fit into neat partisan holes. You are making it worse
Let's not forget what a terrible presidency that we had under Bush. I doubt that most here are exactly water-cariers for the Repugs. Bush was easillly one of the worst presidents, only slightly less bad than Carter. That Obama has been so horrible that I'd actually rather that we were still "only" getting screwed under Bush's inept "leadership".
That's the left and the right for you. Both find innovative ways to make it worse. The best thing that the government can do with the economy is to shut the hell up and get out of the way.
Charts with numbers and graphs and stuff on them always ticks off the liberals, and Bachmann had a big one right behind her.
her graph conveniently hides the HUGE loss of jobs that occurred in the last months of 2008 continuing into early months of 2009.
She has to hide these numbers in her graph, or it becomes plain that the trajectory of job loss began well before Obama took office.
month-by-month, labor statistics: http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet?data_tool=latest_numbers&series_id=CES0000000001&output_view=net_1mth
Misinformation just gets in the way of addressing nation's problems
Yes, but what caused that dip in jobs? It was driven by the bust in construction, caused by Barney and his friends. I have been in heavy construction for 32 years, I saw it coming.
See my other comment about arguable culpability of congress. She instantly would've had more credibility if she instead blamed Dems in congress prior to 2008 election. But apparently Bachmann feels that Obama administration can affect the past (and manipulates graph to this effect)
But i think perhaps you concede this.
Bush43 sucked for much of his 2nd term, & went along with way too much of what Pelosi & Reid wanted to do when the DEMS TOOK CONTROL OF CONGRESS IN 2006. Much of the BS Obama & his buttboys in the MSM blame on Bush, & he did go along with some of it, should be weighted more toward Congress & their Commitees who were supposed to oversee what was going on. Like say, Barney Frank & Chris Dodd & the issues with Fannie & Freddie.
TRY HARDER, allen. Much harder.
I will try some of the very same words I used before, danybOy. And lets be clear: Dems took control of Congress in 2007, not 2006
She, M Bachmann, instantly would've had MORE credibility if she INSTEAD blamed DEMS IN CONGRESS prior to 2008 election (this would be the election which placed Obama into the presidency in 2009, and which occurred in fiscal 2009, as did the TARP allocations)
I mean this to state that the unemployment surge that BEGAN in 2008 cannot be blamed on an Obama Administration that didn't exist yet.
I am perfectly willing to hold Dems to task for their part in the bursting house bubble. Both parties share the blame for letting unregulated financial markets run amok. Americans love their debt too. Aggregate personal debt has kept pace with national for a long time now.
All Michelle Bachmann had to do was make this argument, against Dems who were in power. But instead she manipulated her graph and pinned it on the man who WASN'T IN POWER YET, and this is because she's angling on 2012.
Now tell me, Danybhoy, whose committees were in control when housing prices started falling? When did the SEC relax debt rules for Lehman Brothers, JPM, et al, contributing to insane overleveraging? If all you do is watch Foxnews, then all you will see are the stories about Barnie Frank and Fannie/Freddie, and you will never get a complete picture. I know, i've watched those stories. FoxNews is partisan, I am not. And you don't have your years straight.
Yes, the Dems took charge of Congress in January of 2007 following the 2006 elections...I got that. But lets talk about the actual cause of the housing crisis, the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977. It sat around doing almost nothing, until it was put on steroids under Clinton. Because of that, many people who had no right getting home loans that who could'nt afford them. Or they were buying too much home in a neighborhood they could'nt afford when local taxation is figured in. Have a look...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPSDnGMzIdo
...& yes, I used FoxNews material just to annoy you. But the video itself is damning.
She forgets that news includes anything centred around the speech. There weren't liberals of any stripe, Democrat or otherwise, making responses. Had there been, there is no doubt that they'd also have included it. Further, I find it amusing that she's angry (as is anyone in the media) that a party outside of the R's and D's would be "elevated to the position of the major parties", as if the major parties are superior. Of course, if f#*king over the country is a sign of superiority, then I must recant and note their superiority as being unquestionable...Honestly, if it weren't for the line that lambastes the idea of third parties being taken seriously (thus Americans being taken seriously), I would have no problem with her inane rant.
This tells me that Bachmanns speech was dead on when the craziest of the crazies is going off. Now she just needs to declare her run for President and I'm all in. Brains, beauty and conservative.
AGAIN... Who is backing her? Who? She failed at Air America, & while she is a "success" at MSNBC, she is still a failure there too. She has ZERO appeal outside of a few areas in Manhattan, Boston, Hollywood, the Bay Area, & a university dorms. She will never grow past where she is now, & her bosses should take note.
Maddow's mad cause Michele Bachmann is wayyyyyyy hotter than her/him/it...whatever.
Michelle is also 11 times hotter than Sarah Palin, though they both get their history badly wrong much of the time. i expect to be fascinated with her for a long while
Rachael's just pissed because she doesnt have a penis-yet