Rachel, are you our future?

When Junior’s guilty daddy Bush 41 saw how his political “ends justify the means” tactics with Roger Ailes and his vicious Willie Horton ad has led to angry, propaganda Faux News and the parody of reality Glenn Beck, senior told CBS radio that both the right and left were to blame. He then volunteered to name two sick cable puppies on the left, Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann.

The natural Fixed News approach would be for Rachel to attack back and show all of senior’s faults. Instead she sought the wise counsel of Ron Suskind author of The Way of the World: A Story of Truth and Hope in an Age of Extremism. She turned it into a political lesson and explained why senior struck back due to his inner demons and guilt over the disaster that was his son’s presidency. A presidency that went against some of the policies and style of the former Bush 41 cabinet members and now senior members of the Republican party who are very upset over the misdirection their party has taken under the Right Wing hardliners and incite to violence Fox “News.”

Before reading further, the reader here should watch Maddow’s show and Olbermann and Suskind’s comments.

Senior knew about the vicious “throw eggs at Obama” and “paint Hitler mustaches” that took place a year ago on the Texas A&M campus and where this year he had invited President Obama to join him in celebrating the success of senior’s “Thousand Points of Light” public service successes. He had plead this year for calm and kindness on the part of demonstrators instead of meanness. The pleas went unanswered.

I’m sure senior never dreamed of the full consequences of his desperate desire to win when he hired Ailes to work his ailing campaign. He proved the negative, whether truthful or not, wins when it preys on the insecurities of voters who see their way of life disappearing into a world of facts, logic and compassion.

It would seem that Rachel can’t win against the much larger Fear News audience numbers and rabid followers with her facts-based, rational evidence approach. Her success will ultimately be decided by the decision American voters make about the Right Wing tactics and propaganda cable news. Will the split Republican party be able to pull itself together and put the rowdies permanently on the bench? Or is the party doomed to irrelevancy for 20-30 years either by dominance by the Democrats or a third party? Will America decide that vicious partisan politics has damaged our nation enough? Will the people find a way to take back their government from Corporate Communism?

I invite commenters to provide their thoughts while I am away interviewing a new candidate for the state legislature in my district who like so many other Dem candidates that my county Candidate Recruitment Committee has found is fed up with the current political pay to play system both at county and state level.


  1. cocktailhag says:

    Great clip, RMP. It is odd that someone so sweet and well-behaved as Rachel would be called a “sick puppy.” She’s the exact opposite of, say, Bill O’Reilly, with his hectoring and bullying. The false equivalency here is particularly rich.
    Hope the interview goes well… Bring your camera.

  2. nailhead tom says:

    “. She turned it into a political lesson and explained why senior struck back due to his inner demons and guilt over the disaster that was his son’s presidency.”

    That wouldn’t be political lesson, that would be a lesson in psychiatry and there’s no doubt that Rachel Maddow carries an M.D. after her name. In fact, isn’t there a copy of her diploma and medical license on the wall behind her desk in the studio? Maybe she could analyze some administration figures as well and give us the mental poop on them, too.

    • rmp says:

      If you bothered to watch, which apparently you didn’t, the lesson was from Suskind. When you have a mentally ill president who makes millions suffer so he can prove himself to daddy, psychology is a necessary part of evaluating his presidency. Psychiatrists provide the needed treatment and unfortunately junior didn’t seek any help before he and The Dick did so much damage to our nation and the world. The Dick needed help even worse than junior.

      The point that both Olbermann and Suskind made was not so much a psychological point as it was why his son’s presidency has put so much strain on the father who although he feels obligated to remain quiet or defend his son while experiencing much anguish and guilt. It doesn’t take a psychologist to figure that out, just someone with an open mind who is capable of observing between the lines.

      The lesson from Rachel is the professional and humane way she responded. Guess you missed that too.

      • nailhead tom says:

        Neither Suskind or Olbermann is an M.D., either. But I guess we can characterize the speculations of “journalists” in regard to the mental processes of others as “facts”, like all the other utopian facts.

        • cocktailhag says:

          What is wrong with you? Where did this “utopian” thing come from? I hate to point out the obvious, but there’s a big gap between a bankrupt, militaristic police state and “Utopia.” Hours earlier, you were crowing about Bush’s MBA, and now you’re discounting Maddow’s PHD.
          I’m a history major, but even if I were a fourth grade dropout, I could easily see that Bush II has serious Oedipal issues.
          That family shows you that dysfuntionality afflicts the rich, too. As it clearly does their party, yourself being a perfect example.

          • nailhead tom says:

            The Democrats, at least the most visible of them and their water carriers, don’t really deserve that name, once proudly borne by genuine statesmen like Grover Cleveland. Nor can they truthfully be described as Liberals, whose ideas could never be twisted to fit the current Democrat platform. Progressive is a misnomer, as well. There’s no progress in shackling individual freedom to satisfy infantile desires for unattainable equality. But utopian fits. The utopians have always felt that the most intelligent among them have all the answers for all the problems, that, given enough power and resources, they can create utopia, which necessarily means equality, at least for everyone but them. As a historian, it’s surprising that you’re not quite familiar with this phenomenon.

            As for Bush II and his “Oedipal issues”, don’t you think there’s a little lingering “Bush de-rangement syndrome” in all this? It’s been almost a year since the election. Isn’t time to move on? And Bush and his immediate circle of pirates. Wasn’t there a US Congress in place almost the whole time that he held office? And a Supreme Court? Don’t you suppose that the US military had some input into how the Iraq and Afghanistan adventures were pursued? Blaming first Reagan and now Bush for every American misfortune on into the distance is what’s truly psychotic. Time to start thinking about the future, guys.

          • dirigo says:

            Nail in the Head, check out my latest links in Hag’s previous thread, one of which provided the backstory of Bush II’s efforts to get his marvelous MBA, which you’re so proud of.

            There’s no reference to psychology whatsoever.

          • Meremark says:

            nailhead, check out.

            Answers for your questioning are found in reflection. not projection.
            Get thee interior and look for meaning in your life.

  3. cocktailhag says:

    Are you retarded? The Republican-packed Supreme Court Put Bush in office, for the sake of Christ. The only “Utopians” I’ve seen are crazy authoritarians who wiped their asses with the constitution all those years, while the rich got richer and the country went down the toilet. I know reality is difficult for a guy like you, but please. We’re not that dumb here, even when you’re around, dragging down the averages.
    How, exactly, did empowering oil companies, bankers, telecoms, the federal police state, and heiresses contribute to “individual freedom?” I’d really like to know.
    Bush’s alcoholism, lifetime of failures, and bizarre but telling obsession to living up to his father’s legacy, which actually included quite a bit of achievement, explains, in skywriter’s letters, the psychological problems he wreaked upon the country as he created disaster after disaster. If you have any more genius theses to proffer, “bring ‘em on.”

    • dirigo says:

      Hag, why not invite Nail in the Head to post as a guest commenter and see what kind of numbers he pulls by his own self on Google analytics?

      I mean, if the numbers are good, you might as well whore him around a bit for the sake of CHNN and its onerous debt service on the flying boat, its far-flung yet somewhat dithering correspondents, its pointless bimbo meet and greets at this n’ that Hilton banquet room, and whatnot.

      Fox would do it. Right?

    • nailhead tom says:

      Indeed, a “Republican-packed Supreme Court”. There wasn’t much talk in any part of the press about the peculiar timing of Souter’s retirement, a Republican appointee who waited for the outcome of the election before announcing his retirement from the court.

      Anyway, the issue isn’t defense of Bush II, his role in the American slide into the abyss won’t be objectively defined for decades, if ever. The real issue is the ongoing class warfare that’s at the nucleus of perhaps all politics, certainly that of the U.S. It’s really amazing that in an era when the works of outstanding thinkers like Leszek Kolakowski, Hannah Arendt, Raymond Aron, Herbert Spencer, Ludwig von Mises, and F.A. Hayek are easily available to everyone, ignorance of how politics and economics function is still endemic. “Yet while elevation, mental and physical, of the masses is going on far more rapidly than ever before–while the lowering of the death-rate proves that the average life is less trying, there swells louder and louder the cry that the evils are so great that nothing short of a social revolution can cure them. In presence of obvious improvements, joined with that increase of longevity which even alone yields conclusive proof of general amelioration, it is proclaimed, with increasing vehemence, that things are so bad that society must be pulled to pieces and reorganized on another plan. In this case, then, as in the previous cases instanced, in proportion as the evil decreases the denunciation of it increases; and as fast as natural causes are shown to be powerful there grows up the belief that they are powerless.” Herbert Spencer, “From Freedom to Bondage”, 1891.

      • cocktailhag says:

        Neat historical reference, if it were relevant. In the real world, the rich, and especially the super-rich, have gobbled up more and more of the national wealth while the middle class has lost ground over the last 30 years. By design, I might add. The US has moved from number one to near the bottom in life expectancy, hours worked, savings rates, educational attainment, and any other meaningful measure during that period. That’s class warfare, all right. Society has been pulled to pieces, by an insatiable and overbearing overclass, which has been quite successful in marshaling a lot of dumb people (take a bow, Nail Head) to cheer the process on. This ain’t 1891, but thanks for playing.

        • nailhead tom says:

          Spencer was relevant then and now, more so than you’ll ever be. And your rankings of the US are just so much b.s. The new government health program doesn’t want to waste money on prolonging the life of useless geriatrics so the life expectancy thing is out the window. Hours worked, savings and education are personal choices, not really something you can blame on “the rich”.

          Now would be a good time to tell you something I’ve been meaning to bring up. The lady that cuts my hair, Mai, is a refugee from Viet Nam. After the US deserted its allies there and the commies overran the south, her husband, an ARVN pilot, was arrested and imprisoned for eight years. She waited for him and after he was finally released they spent two years planning their escape and finally got away with some others on a raft. After being robbed of what little they had by pirates, the Phillipine Navy picked them up and they spent another two years there in a refugee camp, learning English (not very successfully) and trying to find something to eat. Today she is partners in a barber shop with another Vietnamese lady and her husband works in a printing shop. She doesn’t have any socialist leanings.

          I know another fellow, a big guy and an obvious Mexican. Only he ain’t. He’s the son of a Saigon prostitute. When Uncle Ho’s guys took over he was sent to an orphanage and his mother to a “re-education camp” out in the country. He never saw her again. By the time he was fourteen, every time he went out on the street he was arrested. Now he lives a normal life, with a job, house, car, family, things that he’d never have had in Viet Nam. He’s pretty much of an anti-socialist, too.

          You can call me dumb, but those folks have walked the walk. They know the difference between statism and the somewhat free market. They like the ability to make their own choices.

          • Meremark says:

            Well, I call ‘em like I see ‘em and what I see you say is dumb.

            For the principle of individual freedom, why is the nest of anti-authoritarian (little psychy lingo there) broad-minded liberals gathered here, individually arrived and consensual, so much your individual buttinski to reform and convert? or is that your assigned mission statement?

            State your case. We see it is dumb. Thanks for playing.

          • rmp says:

            I really can’t figure out what you really are trying to tell us. I worked for 14 years at a social service agency in Chicago called the South-East Asia Center which was founded in 1979 to support Vietnam refugees. I have seen refugees and immigrants from all over the world take any kind of job to support their family. The infusion of these newest Americans has revitalized Chicago and our country. It is agencies like SEAC and ACORN where outstanding people work very hard for very low wages to help others.

            I find it extremely disgusting that for political purposes these agencies who are taking care of the poor so the wealthy can dominate our country can become political footballs to kick around in congress while the Wall Street thieves have stolen billions and caused untold suffering around the world and nobody even wants to investigate them.

            Of course America has a lot of broken systems and people and major changes are needed to bring power back to the people. We have a chance to do that because of the Internet and through it the truth of these criminals who buy our congress critters is being exposed like never before.

            I would find it a lot more useful to talk about solutions rather than history and how bad things are. So please tell me, because I can’t figure it out, what solutions are you offering?

          • cocktailhag says:

            That’s about as brilliant as what Tom Friedman comes up with talking to cab drivers. Do you have any idea what socialism even is? I didn’t think so.
            And no, hours worked, savings, and education reflect the fact that because our rich are so insatiable, everyone else has to live like Tiny Tim’s family in Dickens. You are one dumb bunny, but sooo overconfident. What a combo.

          • rmp says:

            Here this article says it better than I can.

            The ACORN Standard by Jeremy Scahill http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/10/18-4

            None of this is germane to my point about Rachel and the cable media.

  4. cocktailhag says:

    No, but it’s germane, anyway, RMP. The point is that fraud is only punishable when the non-rich benefit.

  5. rmp says:

    Just for the heck of it, back to Rachel:
    Maddow Responds to Bush Sr. – And 9 of 10 Republicans Fear Her http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion/485675/maddow_responds_to_bush_sr_and_9_of_10_republicans_fear_her

    I don’t remember any right winger who went on the show who dared to make a repeat appearance.

  6. Kitt says:

    Do you think George Bush the first really watches Rachel Maddow or really even knows anything about her or her show or her radio show? I ask because he pronounces her name as if he were teaching a three year old how to pronounce ‘C-A-ow’ (cow). One can’t have watched a program enough to understand what the program host or hostess is about without, at some point, hearing the name often enough to have learned how to pronounce it, unless one is stunningly stupid. I know George is older and slower now, but he ain’t stunningly stupid. I think George was just passing on some bilge that some Frank Luntz type trollop told him might get some mileage and lots of ‘Rah! Rah! We Want OUR Country Back! by the crowd that he is pretending to dismiss from his Grand Ol’ Party.

    • cocktailhag says:

      I think you might be right about that. Remember how the Bush II White House insisted that all TV’s but tuned to Fox? I can’t imagine George and Babs settling in with their TV trays to watch an evening of MSNBC.

    • rmp says:

      Good point. He wanted to use the same old saw that the other guys are just as bad but the other guys don’t have any shows, MSNBC is the closest but not really, that are anything like Right Wing propaganda shows full of lies and deception. I would bet senior would be rather shocked and embarrassed to see how professionally Rachel the “Mad Cow” handled his comments and how she uses facts and evidence to back up everything she says.

      • cocktailhag says:

        They said the same BS on Morning Joe today; citing people calling Bush a Nazi and a Fascist. Who? One entry in a MoveOn contest. And Bush was a Nazi and a Fascist, arguably.

  7. rmp says:

    Another Rachel admirer:

    Fix ‘Meet The Press’, Hire Rachel Maddow

  8. Kitt says:

    I read what was written on the link you provided, RMP. Thing is, I couldn’t disagree more with that person’s assessment of Tim Russert, and even of his assessment of David Gregory – including the bit about Gregory being handsome. In my opinion David Gregory is revoltingly homely in a strange way. ‘Not that there’s anything wrong with that’. But anyway, so that makes me wonder if what he sees in Maddow is what I see in Maddow, even though we both agree that she is good at what she does.

    Personally, I wouldn’t like to see Maddow hostessing Meet The Press. Meet The Press should just be replaced all together. Or actually I mean that there has to be some Sunday news program in that slot but it should have its own unaffiliated name, not MTP, and have a format that is recognizably not Meet The Press. Meet The Press should have died along with Russert. We had a clue about that needing to happen when Russert was temporarily replaced by old, old, old school Royalty Tom Brokow.

    • rmp says:

      Agree with all of that. Rachel would do her own thing or she wouldn’t accept the job. She would also want to take her gang with her because they seem to be doing a very good job for her. NBC would have a very hard time killing such a long lasting show and the emotions surrounding Tim. Rachel should be on every week to help MTP but Gregory wouldn’t like that because she shows up his shallowness.