Rachel Maddow, it seems, is fit to be tied that McConnell arranged a vote in the Senate to raise the debt ceiling.
Rachel Maddow is another one of those liberals who’s always touted as brilliant. Brilliant is apparently liberal code for smug and condescending and, in this case, dumb. Really dumb.
Maddow, it seems, is fit to be tied that McConnell arranged a vote in the Senate to raise the debt ceiling.
So Maddow displayed her brilliance by – you’ll pardon the expression – beating a dead horse and repeatedly comparing McConnell to the little girls in Utah who were forced to compete on stick ponies because the real horses came down with equine herpes.
Over at CNN, Anderson Cooper was reportedly miffed by the comparison. He likes to think of himself as the little rodeo queen.
Apparently someone at MSNBC decided they should follow Rachel Maddow’s example and come out of the closet. As extremists, that is.
Apparently someone at MSNBC decided they should follow Rachel Maddow’s example and come out of the closet. As extremists, that is.
No more pussyfooting around claiming they’re moderates. They’ve even given up claims that they’re merely liberal and gone straight to extremist.
The new ad campaign gives each of the hosts a chance to one-up the others by revealing just how out there they are.
Lawrence O’Donnell doesn’t think Barack Obama is liberal enough. Probably doesn’t think Stalin was, either.
Don’t loan Rachel Maddow money. Since she seems to think the country’s finances are in great shape we’d hate to see what her checking balance looks like.
Ed Schultz is a regular guy. A Cheers bar, neighborhood diner kind of guy. Oh, yeah, and a guy who hates big business. Pray to God you don’t get stuck with the stool next to him at the diner.
Poor Chris Matthews. Looks like all the other good commercial ideas were taken, so he got stuck with the birther concept.
See Rachel Maddow get mad. See Rachel Maddow pout. See Rachel Maddow rant. Ahhhh, this is television at its finest.
See Rachel Maddow get mad. See Rachel Maddow pout. See Rachel Maddow rant. Ahhhh, this is television at its finest.
Turns out Rachel’s upset about what she calls “fake court, off-shore tribunals.” You know, the kind that have been held for hundreds of years, the kind that have been approved by the Supreme Court. In other words, the kind liberals hate most.
Maddow: “That sort of tells you everything you need to know about how the beltway sees the relationship between the Democratic party and the Democratic party’s base …But a Democratic president kicks his base in the teeth on something as fundamental as civil liberties, he puts the nail in coffin of a civil liberties promise he made on his first full day in office and does it on the first day of his reelection effort? The beltway reaction to that is, good move … That’s the difference between Republican politics and Democratic politics.
Pardon us while we laugh our asses off. Feel free to join us.
Here’s the MSNBC host talking about abortion mill operator Dr. George Tiller. Rachel Maddow reveals the truth about the doctor when she accidentally calls him “Dr. Killer.”
What would Sigmund Freud have to say about this, Rachel?
Here’s the MSNBC host talking about abortion mill operator Dr. George Tiller. Rachel Maddow reveals the truth about the doctor when she accidentally calls him “Dr. Killer.”
There’s no mistaking it. No other interpretation possible. It’s clear as a bell.
She calls the abortionist “Dr. Killer.”
Consider this confirmation of the old saying that even a blind sow occasionally finds an acorn.
Our advice: Don’t invite Don Imus and Rachel Maddow to the same dinner party. Or if you must, do yourself a favor and seat them at opposite ends of the table.
Our advice: Don’t invite Don Imus and Rachel Maddow to the same dinner party. Or if you must, do yourself a favor and seat them at opposite ends of the table.
Imus has a segment on his show called “Blonde On Blonde.” The blondes in question are Lis Wiehl and Imus’ wife Deirdre. (We tell you that because no one actually watches or listens to Imus unless its in clips like this one.) During the Wednesday morning Blonde On Blonde session, Imus went off on MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow:
Having nothing to do with her politics, she is a gutless coward and I’ll tell you why. Because everybody knew what the situation was with Olbermann at MSNBC. We used to work there. Tom Bowman, who’s our producer, Elisha who’s one of our producers, they both worked with me at MSNBC. They left there to come with me, by the way, don’t look for any of Olbermann’s producers to go any place with him. However, so we all know people, we still know everybody who’s at MSNBC. So, everybody knew what was going on with Keith. Everybody knew what was going to happen to him. For this woman, who owed her job to him, she’s live there with Bill Maher, a lot of people watch that terribly influential program, not to offer a defense of Olbermann, in spite of what you think about Olbermann, is unconscionable.
It’s like when I got fired, Sean Hannity, who works for Fox, was defending me, and I didn’t think I should be defended, but that’s irrelevant. He works for Fox, he was defending me getting fired by MSNBC. Mike Francesca and Chris Russo nearly lost their jobs ’cause they worked for CBS, along with me, defended me on CBS. They told them to stop doing it, they refused. No, she’s awful. She’s the worst kind of coward and gutless, sniveling worm. Oh God, horrible.
Be nice, Don. Maddow is a fine young man who deserves praise, not scorn.
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.
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.
If MSNBC’s executives are glass-half-full kind of guys, they look at the results of this new survey and say, “Hey, look at all the growth potential we have.”
If MSNBC’s executives are glass-half-full kind of guys, they look at the results of this new survey and say, “Hey, look at all the growth potential we have.”
If they’re glass-half-empty kind of guys, they say, “We are miserable friggin’ failures, we’re lucky we still have jobs, and the hosts we’ve hired couldn’t attract flies to shit. And come to think of it, that’s really a pretty good analogy.”
Politico.com reports:
MSNBC hosts are like the Gong Show's Unknown Comic. No one knows who they are. No one cares who they are.
The results show the growing influence that 24-hour cable news has on shaping the political consciousness, despite the fact that network newscasts still draw many multiples of the number of viewers of even the highest-rated cable news shows.…Fox’s opinionated personalities were also rated as having the greatest positive impact on the political debate in the country. Bill O’Reilly was rated as having, by far, the greatest positive impact, with 49 percent of respondents rating him positively, and 32 percent negatively.
…MSNBC’s personalities were largely ranked as unknown by respondents: 70 percent said they had never heard of Ed Schultz, 55 percent said they had never heard of Rachel Maddow and 42 percent said they had never heard of Keith Olbermann.
We would like to nominate the TV remote control as the greatest invention in history. Without it, someone might have actually lingered on MSNBC long enough to be familiar with Olbermann, Maddow and Schultz by mistake. With it, they get the anonymity they so richly deserve.
You’ve got to hand it to Rachel Maddow. No one else can plunge into the crevices of a person’s past and deliver a tongue lashing like this two-fisted MSNBC host. This time she’s decided to finger Christine O’Donell for being, of all things, masturbation intolerant.
You’ve got to hand it to Rachel Maddow. No one else can plunge into the crevices of a person’s past and deliver a tongue lashing like this two-fisted MSNBC host.
This time she’s decided to finger Christine O’Donell for being, of all things, masturbation intolerant.
Here’s the rub. Far be it from us to condemn people for getting in touch with themselves. A little introspection can be a good thing. And if by the end of all that waxing philosophic you come to the conclusion that you want to exercise a little more self control, well, that can be a good thing, too. But be warned, beating masturbation might not be as easy as you think.
Our suggestion for getting your hands around the problem and pounding it into submission? Try watching MSNBC on any weeknight between the hours of 9 and 10 pm Eastern. We guarantee that all sexual desire will vanish. It’s far more effective than a cold shower.
Thank you, Rachel, for helping us overcome the greedy urge for self-satisfaction. Thank you.
Bill Clinton and Rachel Maddow: they’re both Rhodes Scholars. They’re both good liberals. Why under different circumstances, you could imagine the two of them going out and chasing chicks together.
Good news for Rachel Maddow: Someone's paying attention to her program
It’s sad when two guys who have so much in common can’t get along.
Take Bill Clinton and Rachel Maddow, for example. They’re both Rhodes Scholars. They’re both good liberals. Why under different circumstances, you could imagine the two of them going out and chasing chicks together.
And yet, they feud.
Politico has the sad story:
Bill Clinton flashed irritation at MSNBC host Rachel Maddow and other liberals Monday for failing to appreciate the successes of his presidency.
“One of the leading television commentators on one of our liberal cable channels said I was the best Republican president the country ever produced, which would come [as] quite a surprise to the Republicans, half of whom still think I’m a closet communist,” Clinton said during an appearance with former British Prime Minister Tony Blair at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia.
Clinton didn’t mention Maddow by name, but she made that comment on her March 31 show.
“What she meant by that was I didn’t necessarily follow their ‘conventional wisdom,’” he said. “I said, ‘What do you mean?!’”
Clinton said he accomplished more for the poor and middle class than traditional, New Deal-era liberalism ever could have. He touted his welfare-to-work program, which he said cut the rolls by 60 percent.
We hope these two can patch things up, because it’s going to be a lonely few years for liberals and they’re going to need all the friends they can get.
Old. Cranky. Unfunny. That pretty much sums up David Letterman. Young. Smug. Unfunny. That pretty much sums up Rachel Maddow.
Old. Cranky. Unfunny. That pretty much sums up David Letterman.
Young. Smug. Unfunny. That pretty much sums up Rachel Maddow.
What happens when they get together is…well…pretty much what you’d expect. Except that Letterman swears and gets bleeped while talking about Andrew Breitbart.
Smug, smirking, smarmy Rachel Maddow took what passes at MSNBC as an in-depth look at the Shirley Sherrod incident and laid the entire blame at the feet of Fox News. Of course, she was lying, but that was probably Fox News’ fault, too.
Smug, smirking, smarmy Rachel Maddow took what passes at MSNBC as an in-depth look at the Shirley Sherrod incident and laid the entire blame at the feet of Fox News. Of course, she was lying, but that was probably Fox News’ fault, too.
Turns out that Fox never mentioned the story until after Sherrod had already resigned her position with the USDA. And that is proven by the very clips that Maddow used to condemn Fox.
Fact is, a closer look at the three Fox video clips Madow uses as “evidence” prove exactly the opposite of what she thinks they prove. The on-screen captions in those three clips read:
USDA official resigns over racially-charged remarks
Moments ago Sec. Vilsack accepted Sherrod’s resignation
USDA official resigns over controversial remarks
(If you can’t stomach watching the entire clip, go to the 4:10 mark to see the clips):
Each of those graphics indicate that Sherrod had resigned before Fox reported the story. Yet Maddow smugly comments, “How’s that for efficient! How’s that for action! Fox News and a conservative website uncover what they say is an admitted racist in the Obama administration and she is forced to resign immediately.”
To summarize: Fox reports that Sherrod has already resigned, yet Maddow uses them as “evidence” that she resigned because of Fox News.
Don’t look now, Rachel, but your effect preceded your cause.
Perry Mason you ain’t.
(Read all of our Shirley Sherrod stories, and we have a lot of them.)
Rachel Maddow, MSNBC hostess extraordinaire, has taken her road show to Kandahar, Afghanistan for a little of her special brand of impartial reporting.
Rachel Maddow, MSNBC hostess extraordinaire, has taken her road show to Kandahar, Afghanistan for a little of her special brand of impartial reporting.
Far be it from us to cast aspersions, but good lord, man, faces like that are the reason they invented the burkha.
(Please note the remarkable maturity we’ve shown by not falling victim to our baser instincts and using the term Fagahnistan.)
Seems like everyone reported the Olbermann, Matthews, Fineman snit fit, but falling through the cracks was Rachel Maddow jumping on the presidential dog pile.
Tuesday night’s speech from the Oval Office seems to have amused the right and really annoyed the left.
Seems like everyone reported the Olbermann, Matthews, Fineman snit fit, but falling through the cracks was Rachel Maddow jumping on the presidential dog pile.
After leading off with a big sigh, Maddow said, “In the big picture I am excited to see the President treating this with the gravity of something that requires and Oval Office address to the nation. In terms of the content of that address to the nation…I think the country is ahead of the politicians, that we all need to hear a little bit more, and I think we could have all taken a little bit more adult talk from the President.”
Like we said, those of us on the right are amused. Not so much by what Obama said, but by what his strongest supporters said.
Is reality finally setting in? Nah, next time a major policy issue arises, they’ll be drawn back to him like a moth to a flame. Or like flies to shit. Take your choice.
In keeping with the Fairest President In History’s advice to “check out the Huffington Post”, we found the following story: “Rachel Maddow Hypes Her Blog: ‘Better Than The Show’ At Times.'”….
Rachel Maddow is frantically searching for her long-lost fodder
In keeping with the Fairest President In History’s advice to “check out the Huffington Post”, we found the following story: “Rachel Maddow Hypes Her Blog: ‘Better Than The Show’ At Times.'”
This is news? That’s like a comedian getting applause by announcing that his wife is giving birth to their sixth child.
The article continued by saying “Ms. Maddow said that she thinks of the blog as a way of capturing, sharing, and enhancing the rollicking conversation that goes on among her staff on a daily basis as they prepare for that night’s show. Rather than serving as a distraction or as a perfunctory obligation, said Ms. Maddow, the new blog has already begun to provide fodder for the TV show.”
Ahhh, but if there’s one thing the show needs even more than fodder, it’s viewers. For example, check out the ratings for Tuesday, May 4:
Tuesday, May 4 , 2010 9PM Ratings
9 PM
Total Viewers
(25-54 Demographic)
(35-64 Demographic)
Hannity
1,888,000
(424,000)
(828,000)
Larry King Live
944,000
(263,000)
(383,000)
Rachel Maddow Show
959,000
(230,000)
(475,000)
New Age of Wal Mart
214,000
(106,000)
(85,000)
Joy Behar
811,000
(268,000)
(365,000)
Well, at least Maddow is beating out Larry King and Joy Behar, who are both absolutely full of fodder.
We’re sure the blog is better Rachel. It would have to be.
Sit down right now and write out a big check made out to IHateTheMedia.com. That would be the kindest way for you to repay us for watching Rachel Maddow. Especially on a night when her guest is Michael Moore.
Poor Michael is upset. Very upset. He sees the end of Camelot Part Duex coming in November:
Sit down right now and write out a big check made out to IHateTheMedia.com. That would be the kindest way for you to repay us for watching Rachel Maddow. Especially on a night when her guest is Michael Moore.
Poor Michael is upset. Very upset. He sees the end of Camelot Part Duex coming in November:
Well, we see what it’s led us to, to the fact that one out of eight homes now in America is in foreclosure or delinquency,” Moore said. “One out of eight home and, of course, the millions that don’t have health care and everything else it’s – how do you get yourself out of bed every morning to do this show with just the despair of how – the hope that we all had a year, year and a half ago. And now it’s like, I just feel like the Democrats are – they’re in for an ass-whooping of Biblical proportions in November if they don’t get off the dime and do the job they were sent there to do. I mean that. I mean, it – don’t they see that?
No, seriously, we deserve money for watching this stuff. Send your check today.
Is it just us or is this website starting to sound just like PBS?
Another month of absolutely stellar ratings over at MSNBC. Hah! Just kidding. They sucked even more than they did in January.
Graphic depiction of MSNBC's ratings
Another month of absolutely stellar ratings over at MSNBC. Hah! Just kidding. They sucked even more than they did in January.
MediaBistro.com reports the highlights lowlights:
“Countdown” and “Rachel Maddow” ended the month averaging the second-most viewers in their time slots, ahead of CNN and HLN, but behind Fox News. “Countdown” finished the month averaging 964,000 total viewers (350,000 demo) and “Rachel Maddow” finished with 819K total viewers (213K demo).
But both were down from February of 2009. Olbermann was down -29% in total viewers (-43% demo) and Maddow was down -44% in total viewers (-33% demo). “Morning Joe” remains in 4th among the morning shows, and MSNBC programs from 9am-5pm still trail CNN and HLN.
Outstanding, Keith. Fabulous, Rachel. Has anyone seen Ed Schultz lately?
What could possibly make for better entertainment than Rachel Maddow giving a forum to pop science icon Bill Nye on global warming?
What could possibly make for better entertainment than Rachel Maddow giving a forum to pop science icon Bill Nye?
Nye reveals a unique scientific theory that says believing in the science behind global warming is patriotic. And vice versa.
“…there’s more energy in the atmosphere and this is stirring things up,” Nye said. “If you want to get serious about it, these guys claiming that the snow in Washington disproves climate change are almost unpatriotic. It’s really, they’re denying science. So they’re very happy to have the weather forecast be accurate within a few hours, but they’re displeased or un-enchanted by predictions of the world getting warmer. It’s really, it shakes me up.”
We think Rachel Maddow may have said something, too, but we had really kind of checked out by that time.
To put it bluntly, the week of February 1 – 5 was an unmitigated disaster at MSNBC.
Sssssh! Don't wake up Keith Olbermann's last viewer.
Just when you start to think MSNBC can’t sink any lower in the ratings, those lunatic liberals surprise you by doing it again.
To put it bluntly, the week of February 1 – 5 was an unmitigated disaster at MSNBC.
Schultz’ total audience for the week was only 2,402,000 viewers. Maddow’s total viewers for a full week fell under 4,000,000 for the first time (3,922,000).
On top of that, Keith Olbermann’s audience, which once neared 1,500,000 viewers per night, fell under 1,000,000 viewers four of the five nights.
In an effort to demonstrate our commitment to a greener world, we hereby request that MSNBC’s last viewer turn out the lights on their way out the door.
Fer Christ’s sake, Rachel Maddow is one woman who refuses to hear the message in the Massachusetts election. Deaf as the proverbial doornail. How far to the left does someone have to be to make Chris Matthews look rational?
Fer Christ’s sake, this is one woman who refuses to hear the message in the Massachusetts election. Deaf as the proverbial doornail. How far to the left does someone have to be to make Chris Matthews look rational?
Let’s just hope the rest of the Dems are as deaf as she is.
Rachel Maddow can't quite put a finger on where her former viewers went
Things are not going well for MSNBC. Not for the network in general nor for Rachel Maddow in particular.
While the poor dear used to routinely and handily top 1,000,000 total viewers per night, she’s reached that lofty level only once in the last five weeks.
We’re very sad to report that this is her third week of record low ratings within that same five week period (it probably would have been four out of five, but we won’t hold the disrupted Thanksgiving week against her).
And just to make things even worse, her total viewers for the most recent five night period has reached an all-time low, clinging precariously just above the 4,000,000 level. Here are the grim details:
Date
Total Viewers
Mon, Dec 14
755,000
Tues, Dec 15
857,000
Wed, Dec 16
915,000
Thur, Dec 17
-806,000
Fri, Dec 18
745,000
Total
4,078,000
It will be interesting to see what Comcast (NASDAQ: CMCSA), MSNBC’s new owners, decide to do with the also-ran cable news network.
MSNBC is, of course, the network that once billed itself as the Obama Network. Apparently,“The Cartoon Network” was already taken.
Our hearts go out to Rachel Maddow. She starts this report by attempting to glorify the accomplishments of President Obama in Copenhagen, but ends it shaken by the reality of a report of Obama’s failures by Andrea Mitchell.
Our hearts go out to Rachel Maddow. She starts this report by attempting to glorify the accomplishments of President Obama in Copenhagen, but ends it seeming almost shaken by reality.
What caused the sudden change of heart? A report by NBC Foreign Correspondent Andrea Mitchell, who gives a remarkably honest review of Obama’s failures at the Copenhagen circle jerk.
It’s no wonder Maddow was surprised. Because there’s certainly no reason to think Obama would fail in Copenhagen when he’s been so successful in everything else he’s done.
Oh, how our hearts go out to Rachel Maddow for her recent loss. Loss of audience, that is.
Would Rachel Maddow's last MSNBC viewer please turn the lights out?
Oh, how our hearts go out to Rachel Maddow for her recent loss. Loss of audience, that is.
The premiere of her program was marked by grand hoopla, which was a bit of a mystery to us. We couldn’t figure out how a failed lesbian radio host (clarification: she is a failed radio host, but we have no reason to assume she is not a successful lesbian) could achieve success by teaming up with a failed cable TV network.
Despite our misgivings, it all seemed to work for a while. MSNBC rode the anti-Bush bandwagon and Maddow rode the pro-bush bandwagon to a modicum of success in 2008.
But those days are long gone. Maddow’s viewers have abandoned her like she’s a girl baby in China.
In the early days, her program regularly and handily topped one million total viewers per night. But recent ratings tell a much different story.
Take, for example, her ratings for the week of November 30-December 4. It happens to be Maddow’s lowest rated week ever:
Date
Total Audience
Fri, Dec 4
643,000
Thur, Dec 3
789,000
Wed, Dec 2
952,000
Tue, Dec 1
924,000
Mon, Nov 30
816,000
Total Viewers
3,924,000
Five days under 1,000,000 total viewers. Three days under 900,000 viewers. Two days under 800,000 viewers. One day under 700,000 viewers.
And the total viewers for the week added up to just 3,924,000 which is Maddow’s fewest total weekly viewers since MSBNC premiered her nightly smarmfest.
Keep up the good work, Rachel. See you back on Air America with a live show real soon.
The only thing falling faster than President Obama’s approval ratings are MSNBC’s cable news ratings. Especially those of the irrepressible Rachel Maddow.
Rachel Maddow. Or Ron Reagan, Jr. Or Andy Dick. We can never tell.
The only things falling faster than President Obama’s approval ratings are MSNBC’s cable news ratings. Especially those of the irrepressible Rachel Maddow.
The Ron Reagan, Jr. look-alike just racked up the worst one week ratings of her one year sojourn at MSNBC. For the first time ever, she went through an entire week without attracting a million viewers on any night. In fact, her total viewers for the week were a meager 4,147,000 people. That’s barely more than Bill O’Reilly nets in a single night.
Here are the sad specifics:
Date
25-54 Age Demo
Total Audience
Fri, Oct 16
283,000
937,000
Thu, Oct 15
214,000
894,000
Wed, Oct 14
227,000
787,000
Tue, Oct 13
281,000
913,000
Mon, Oct 12
158,000
616,000
At the rate she’s going, Rachel’s last viewer will turn over to Hannity sometime in 2012. Just in time to get a more realistic view of the mid-term elections.
The Huffington Post is getting a little pissy about the “The Clare Boothe Luce Policy Institute” and its “Great American Conservative Women” 2010 calendar.
Helen Thomas, Miss November in the 2010 the Great American Liberal Women Calendar
The Huffington Post is getting a little pissy about the “The Clare Boothe Luce Policy Institute” and its “Great American Conservative Women” 2010 calendar.
That pissiness may result from the fact that when HuffPo announced that it was going to respond with its own “Great American Liberal Women Calendar,” the Institute posted the following message on its Facebook site:
“The Huffington Post is trying to make a Great American LIBERAL women calendar.” This might be difficult considering that their women look like men *cough* Rachel Maddow* cough*.
The conservative calendar features the likes of Michelle Malkin, Anne Coulter and Carrie Prejean. All excellent choices.
Rumor has it that HuffPo’s calendar will feature liberal lovelies like Rachel Maddow, Nancy Pelosi and Helen Thomas.
