Rachel Maddow's attacks seem strangely personal

[CMoore]

I can't stand that woman. She even gets under my skin. Just the sound of her voice gets me riled up. So I can't blame Rand for getting upset at her attacks. Having said that, I can't help noticing that she was after him back in 2010 about the Civil Rights Act. She wants to attack him so badly, but she can't seem to find anything substantive to latch onto. It sort of reminds me of kindergarten children when one will pull another's pigtails to get attention. It infuriates the pullee, but what the puller wants is for the pullee to notice him. Could this be what is going on? She really wants Rand's attention? I know this seems far fetched, but there is something going on here beyond just what it seems like on the surface. I mean, after all, he is pretty good looking. :)

[RJB]

I think it is her internal conflict lashing out at Rand. I think that hair of his makes her want to renounce her current lifestyle and bow-chick-a-bow-wow. But of course, she can't. Hence her anger.

A ScientificWAGuess :)

But seriously. I've felt like there is some personal animosity too.

[jtstellar]

she probably requested interview and was repeatedly denied.. the same thing has pissed off some libertarian radio hosts but they usually remain quiet

[Cleaner44]

She almost certainly see Rand as a MAJOR threat to her socialist vision for America. Rand actually is sincere about wanting limited government and voters love him. This is very frightening to statists and central planners.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

I think she's just mad her Civil Rights Act smear went over like a lead balloon, and Rand Paul beat Conway by double-digits back in 2010.

[JK/SEA]

Lest we forget.....


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_WVmZUi2mHU

[alucard13mm]

Media still bringing up plagarism and most of the comments are negative =|

[ObiRandKenobi]

she sucks.

[lib3rtarian]

This is just a very unfortunate incident for us. Rand was definitely sloppy in his work. And no it's not a footnote issue like he has been spinning it. A lot of passages in his writings were directly lifted without credit. This makes me mad, because I think Rand could have done better. Now, the media will dredge up every single thing he ever wrote and check for plagiarism and I am afraid there may be many, many more. The idea is to drill into people's psyche that Rand is a plagiarist so that in a few months' time, the first thing someone thinks about when they hear Rand is "oh the guy who stole others' speeches and writings". This is a bad label to have. We just have to sit this one out. Hope Rand does something of importance on the national scene which buries this story. Maybe the passage of the Justice Safety Valve Act or something such.

[CPUd]

Lest we forget.....


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_WVmZUi2mHU


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3RIn-g9JGO4

[anaconda]

I think she's just mad her Civil Rights Act smear went over like a lead balloon, and Rand Paul beat Conway by double-digits back in 2010.

She seemed extremely frustrated during the May 2010 interview that she could not lure Rand into a soundbite that could thereafter be taken out of context. He knew what was going on so he simply played chicken with her for 20 minutes. It was nearly her greatest moment of personal glory but it failed. Rand even tried to explain it to her with a firearms analogy. She new what he meant yet she wanted a dishonest representation from a soundbite that could be taken wildly out of context. She was "spreading hate." Or at least hoping to.

[wetroof]

She should oddly intricate herself into the Kentucky 2014 senate race. that would be fun to see :)

[randomname]

but she can't seem to find anything substantive to latch onto.Plagiarism is still pretty substantive to many people...

[alucard13mm]

As I said before this blew up, equivalent to Ron's Newsletter.

[LibertyEagle]

As I said before this blew up, equivalent to Ron's Newsletter.

Oh, bullshit. :rolleyes:

[twomp]

She is just a corporate slave doing what her corporate masters tell her to do like everyone else on that corporate media network. Her academic accolades (Rhodes Scholar) give her credibility. Her status as a female homosexual also gives her a sort of credibility as a champion of the "progressive/liberal/left/democrats/labels/blah/blah/labels." In the end though, she just does what her bosses tell her to do.

[puppetmaster]

Plagiarism is still pretty substantive to many people...

BS. Most people don't even know what it means, let alone how to spell it. This is will stay a non issue with the shit storm we have coming. I hope the hell they stay focused on this because it is a non issue with anyone that is not a hard core liberal. They will use any lame excuse to try to justify their lunatic behavior.

[JK/SEA]

Rand needs to hit MSLSD hard on their editing skills on topics like that open carry march when der fearless leader was in Texas. They showed a guy now later identified as a black dude with an AR, and never showed his face in their 'story', ....anyone remember that?

c'mon Rand, if you're gonna engage these idiots, hit them so hard they run and hide...

[Brian4Liberty]

She almost certainly see Rand as a MAJOR threat to her socialist vision for America. Rand actually is sincere about wanting limited government and voters love him. This is very frightening to statists and central planners.


She is just a corporate slave doing what her corporate masters tell her to do like everyone else on that corporate media network. Her academic accolades (Rhodes Scholar) give her credibility. Her status as a female homosexual also gives her a sort of credibility as a champion of the "progressive/liberal/left/democrats/labels/blah/blah/labels." In the end though, she just does what her bosses tell her to do.

Both of those.

Additionally, has Maddow ever criticized Lindsey Graham? Marxists and Trotskyites have a lot in common.

[thoughtomator]

She is in love and doesn't know how to handle her feelings. I've seen this in countless teenage girls.

[Warlord]

Rubin and Maddow are like rabid dogs. Best to ignore them, They have zero audience/influence

[Thanatos]

I have not looked into all the details of this matter yet, but I did watch the exchanges that were reported by Time Magazine and wondered a couple of things when watching them. First, what is the most rhetorically strategic way that Rand could have approached this issue? Second, was an adversarial response the most effective and rhetorically sophisticated strategy? As someone mentioned above, attention is the name of the game for the MSM so why play into the games by responding in a disturbed or angered way? Why not say something like the following: ""I know that Rachel Maddow has the interest of the American people and my own interest at heart and I appreciate her willingness to report on this important issue. I hope I still have the opportunity to continue to discuss important issues with her, issues such as poverty, civil liberties, transparency." It seems to me this message of humility is extremely persuasive in these situations and could go a long way in defusing the issue.

[Warlord]

Welcome to the forum Thanatos

[phill4paul]

I have not looked into all the details of this matter yet, but I did watch the exchanges that were reported by Time Magazine and wondered a couple of things when watching them. First, what is the most rhetorically strategic way that Rand could have approached this issue? Second, was an adversarial response the most effective and rhetorically sophisticated strategy? As someone mentioned above, attention is the name of the game for the MSM so why play into the games by responding in a disturbed or angered way? Why not say something like the following: ""I know that Rachel Maddow has the interest of the American people and my own interest at heart and I appreciate her willingness to report on this important issue. I hope I still have the opportunity to continue to discuss important issues with her, issues such as poverty, civil liberties, transparency." It seems to me this message of humility is extremely persuasive in these situations and could go a long way in defusing the issue.

^^^ Someone hire this poster. Welcome aboard Thanatos.

[RM918]

Rand definitely screwed this whole thing up and should've been more careful with his sourcing stuff before this. Those two things aside, the opposition is CLEARLY blowing the whole thing way out of proportion in order to hurt him. He screwed up, but the response is far greater than it should have been because they smell blood in the water.

They're acting horrified at this whole thing while they are actively supporting a man who kills children. I don't even mean in that cutesy pro-lifer sort of way, I mean he literally fucking bombs kids. Anyone who considers this some sort of serious flaw that disqualifies him from running for office is an excellent argument against democracy, as it proves people don't care about real issues and just care about petty bullshit like this.

And guys, is it possible to avert the lesbian cracks when talking about Maddow? It has absolutely no bearing on the fact she's a bought and paid for shill for the Blue Team and making the comments only lowers you into the shithole she's arguing from. There are PLENTY of things to criticize her on rather than low-class grade school shit like calling her ugly or a big ol' lesbo.

[acptulsa]

Her boss has been pressuring her for years to discredit this threat to the profitability of the status quo, but Rand Paul has simply not given her any ammunition to use in discrediting him in any substantive way. This is, therefore, her first opportunity to do what her boss sees as her job. Of course she's out to get everything she can out of it.

Fortunately, 2016 is still some distance away.


And guys, is it possible to avert the lesbian cracks when talking about Maddow? It has absolutely no bearing on the fact she's a bought and paid for shill for the Blue Team and making the comments only lowers you into the shithole she's arguing from. There are PLENTY of things to criticize her on rather than low-class grade school shit like calling her ugly or a big ol' lesbo.

Yes, please. Our best bet for damage control does not involve getting 'strangely personal' ourselves. We do much better when we don't stoop to the mainstream media's level.

[Warlord]

Rand definitely screwed this whole thing up and should've been more careful with his sourcing stuff before this. Those two things aside, the opposition is CLEARLY blowing the whole thing way out of proportion in order to hurt him. He screwed up, but the response is far greater than it should have been because they smell blood in the water.

They're acting horrified at this whole thing while they are actively supporting a man who kills children. I don't even mean in that cutesy pro-lifer sort of way, I mean he literally fucking bombs kids. Anyone who considers this some sort of serious flaw that disqualifies him from running for office is an excellent argument against democracy, as it proves people don't care about real issues and just care about petty bullshit like this.

And guys, is it possible to avert the lesbian cracks when talking about Maddow? It has absolutely no bearing on the fact she's a bought and paid for shill for the Blue Team and making the comments only lowers you into the shithole she's arguing from. There are PLENTY of things to criticize her on rather than low-class grade school shit like calling her ugly or a big ol' lesbo.


Good point on what they support. See this article:

http://news.yahoo.com/new-book--obama-told-aides-that-drones-make-him--really-good-at-killing-people--144734667.html

[Thanatos]

Thanks Warlord.

[Thanatos]

Thanks phill4paul.

[Thanatos]

And guys, is it possible to avert the lesbian cracks when talking about Maddow? It has absolutely no bearing on the fact she's a bought and paid for shill for the Blue Team and making the comments only lowers you into the shithole she's arguing from. There are PLENTY of things to criticize her on rather than low-class grade school shit like calling her ugly or a big ol' lesbo.

I agree. I think in the long run this type of response is counter-productive.

[politics]

It all begun when Rand begun his campaign about the Audit the Fed and the nomination of the new chairwoman.
That was the moment, and obviusly MSM made it great, more people is talking about this issue and less is doing it about the Audit the fed case

[XTreat]

Possibly a bit miffed that he is demonstrably more anti-war/non-interventionist/anti-MIC/pro-civil liberties/anti-drug war/ than her heroes Obama and Hillary and it makes her lash out.


Edit: also anti-banker/wall street.

[Todd]

I think it is her internal conflict lashing out at Rand. I think that hair of his makes her want to renounce her current lifestyle and bow-chick-a-bow-wow. But of course, she can't. Hence her anger.

A ScientificWAGuess :)

But seriously. I've felt like there is some personal animosity too.

You are close. She's just jealous she can't get her hair to do what Rand's does.

She should have stuck with her highschool look.

http://i.huffpost.com/gen/181875/RACHEL-MADDOW-YEARBOOK-PHOTO.jpg

[AlexAmore]

Rachel without any make up on (she forgot to shave that morning).
http://cdn.gofobo.com/files/imagecache/tall_180_width/uploaded/Screen%20shot%202011-10-31%20at%2012.56.59%20PM.png