Rachel Maddow on lessons learned in Tuesday’s election
This is real good stuff. Hat tip to Laura, who posted the link to this in the comments.
November 9, 2012 - 1:36 PM
- Contact us |
- Customer care |
- Subscribe |
- Advertise |
- Submit news |
- Sign in
Coming Up
In the market for a new home? Don’t miss the Open House guide in the paper Saturday and Sunday.
November 9, 2012 - 1:36 PM
Join the conversation [ADD A COMMENT]
View our commenting policy and standards | Commenting FAQ | Report a problem
61 COMMENTS
Error submitting comment
Name is required
A valid email is required (test@test.com)
Comment is required
Add a comment
Your email address will not be published.
All fields are required to comment.
Saturday, May 18, 2013
THE ROANOKE TIMES
That is wonderful. Crazy honest and crazy optimistic as well.
Man, that is one crazy dude.
Give them time. The GOP will out-crazy itself into oblivion.
http://samuel-warde.com/2012/11/cry-babies-and-sore-losers/
“You didn’t lose because you “weren’t conservative enough” or because the country has become full of lazy “takers” who don’t want to earn a living or just want America to “turn in to Europe”.
You didn’t lose because of Hurricane Sandy or because Chris Christie hugged the President on TV – they were both doing their jobs.
You didn’t lose because of a liberal media, liberal college campuses, liberal polls that were “weighted to Democrats” (mostly because they were accurate), or because of “election fraud”… actually, that probably benefited you this time.
No. You lost because your policies, tone, conspiracies, rigid inflexibility and irrational rhetoric helped align enough moderates, swing voters, and minority groups whom otherwise could be persuaded by Republicans, to align with Democrats and a beatable incumbent.
It’s not that you didn’t get your message out, it’s that we all actually heard it and threw up a little in our mouths.”
Oh we got the message alright! I just got a memo from my company telling me that I know have 5 days less of PTO time next year (possibly permanently) because they are not sure what’s going to happen with the economy. Cheers, douchebags.
“Oh we got the message alright! I just got a memo from my company telling me that I now have 5 days less of PTO time next year (possibly permanently) because they are not sure what’s going to happen with the economy. Cheers, douchebags.”
As always, it’s never the company’s fault. It’s not that their business model sucks, or that it has bad managers, or that they’re manufacturing typewriters in the computer age.
No, it’s all OBAMA’S FAULT — and all those people who voted for him.
Nice, Walker!
Walker @#5: We can tell, and more importantly so can your employer, that even if the economy is no worse or gets better next year, you’ll always associate their policy change with the election results. They’re no fools, but someone is.
#5 Look, suzie, somebody else has used that offensive word “douche.”
Oh stop whining Walker. Run a winning candidate next time.
Wow, Walker, that sucks;
I got a bonus on Election Day, which happened to fall on my payday.
I work for a small company whose business has been great, but we have someone running the place that doesn’t use the economy to justify their poor management like it sounds yours does.
Bummer, dude.
For suzie and Walker: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_b3oPslctA
Yo, Walker. You have 5 days less PTO because you work for a crappy company.
Dan,
If a government agency made a regulation that raised the cost of paper and ink by a factor of 100 because they wanted to “save trees”, do you think that would affect the numbers of employees at your “company”?
Where would you place the blame?
Rachel Maddow is smart, and because more of the electorate have access to commentators like Rachel, the electorate is getting smarter. The demographics are changing, and Republicans know this. I don’t think they understand yet that we are smarter, too. The Republicans took us for fools, and it backfired miserably. Much of the 47% is well-educated and saavy. We heard what each party offered, and We the People chose wisely.
Lower case matt distinguishes himself with a comment about Rachel’s sexuality. Evolve, matt.
They really never get it that they prove the rule, do they?
“Dan,
If a government agency made a regulation that raised the cost of paper and ink by a factor of 100 because they wanted to “save trees”, do you think that would affect the numbers of employees at your “company”?
Where would you place the blame?”
mikeO, are you saying that the feds have forced a 100-fold increase in the price of coal? Or do you have some special knowledge about Walker and his company and some other commodity it uses that has suddenly gotten more expensive? Or, is your question completely hypothetical BS?
#2 So, maddie, are you just making a harmless joke and pretending that Rachael is a man? Is that comment meant to be absurd, based on the false premise that Rachael is a man? Maybe you’ll suggest euthanized Rachael next.
I’m guessing that matt knows Rachel is right, and he finds those truths she’s dishing out difficult to face. So, he insults her sexuality, I guess. It’s the only takedown he thinks he has.
But who cares, really, which way she swings?
Too bad Rachel is not so successful that she gets to hide in the safety of anonymity and insult people for fun like lower case matt, the best Hollins has to offer, does. Next thing you know, his misogyny will be showing up in commercials for them.
Walker,
You have 5 less PTO days next year because your company was looking for a way to cut expenses. The election was simply a convenient excuse.
matt,
The Republican party needs to learn and understand that most folks under the age of 30, and probably most folks generally, don’t care whether someone is gay or straight. Additionally, they don’t care if someone is white, black, brown or yellow. They don’t care whether someone comes from a home of great wealth or not so great wealth. They care whether they are treated with dignity and respect irregardless of what their personal circumstances might be. Unless and until the Republican Party and people like you understand that they will remain in the minority.
THAT is Rachel Maddow? Yikes. My fault, guys.
Maddow is Olbermann without the ego, Letterman calls her “the smartest person I know.” She’s another one of those “community organizers” we’ve heard so much about. Hmm…
I’m not a big fan of Rachael Maddow. Nonetheless, she is one smart lady. Bachelor’s degree from Stanford and a Ph.D. from Oxford.
This article is a clear indication that the Republican Party really didn’t learn any lessons from the election this past Tuesday. I’m not a member of the organization referred to in this article.
http://sojo.net/blogs/2012/11/09/rock-slut-vote
Great link, Laura.
Re: Comment by matt — November 9, 2012 @ 7:20 pm
THAT is Rachel Maddow? Yikes. My fault, guys.
—————–
Assuming that that was not facetious, please help teach Suzie that it is an OK and mature thing to do.
matt:
2.”Man, that is one crazy dude.”
22.”THAT is Rachel Maddow?”
matt, I was chastised by half the lefty bloggers here for giving my honest opinion of Rachel Maddow’s looks after hearing them talk about her outer beauty. Of course, If she were straight and Republican, they wouldn’t see all this supposed beauty inside or out. I find your comment hilarious!
JW@8:42
No surprise that you find that hilarious.
Butch Maddow (don’t worry, gdad can’t spell her name right either) loves having some real quality people on her show… check it out:
http://youtu.be/OUWgoFFbTVM
Chris Matthews relishing the fact people died during a storm.
As Dave Hicks observed in another thread, many Republicans do get the lessons of this election. In this clip, Rachel rightly observes that we need a strong two-party system to advance the debate and hash out the best solutions for the coming challenges. Folks like Mr. Wilburn and Marked Man and matt miss this very important message. The good news, I think, is that the Republican Party will move forward and leave such antiquated thinking behind.
When the value of her arguments cut to sharply, it’s time to insult her looks or her sexuality. So predictable. Stay classy middle school.
the re-pub-likens lost because the only one they could find to run was a bum……the dim-o-crats won because they were more in tune with the average american
#30 I didn’t know her name was Butch. Where did you find that, MMM?
Oh, you thought you were being funny. Ha, ha.
#29 It is pretty enlightening,m dave, to see which guys are so insecure in themselves and feel sooooooo threatened by Maddow’s sexuality that they have to call her “Butch” or a guy. I’ve come to expect that stuff from the OCD duo, though.
In the white conservative man-mind, women are supposed to be decorative objects, seen and not heard. When a woman is obviously smarter than he is, and equally obviously doesn’t give a fig for pleasing his male gaze, it’s supremely threatening. Such men think they can put her in her place by insinuating she’s a failure as a woman.
There are misogynists on both sides of the aisle and you can easily spot them by the way they react to smart and powerful women, attacking looks rather than ideas and resorting to ugly gendered insults rather than valid criticisms.
John Wilburn, what you say is true. If Maddow was a Republican, the blog posse would have nothing but wonderful and positive comments about his beauty inside and out.
Thanks!
Yup.
When folk cannot refute the facts and logic of the other side they often resort to the Red Herring of an Ad Hominem Fallacy by introducing irrelevant personal premisses or claims about his/her opponent in the hopes of distracting the opponent or the audience from the topic of the debate. In the process, they often reveal their own phobias, obsessions, disorders, hates, weaknesses, etc.
Not only is the introduction of an Ad Hominem Fallacy a clear sign of the user losing the incident debate, it is strong evidence of a very immature person.
I just think she looks like a dude. If she were a Republican, televangelist, worked for an auto parts store, or professional ice skater, or whatever, I would say the same thing. Please just take that at face value…. no pun intended.
.
Okay matt and JW, you think she looks manly. Point taken. Now that we have dispensed with the inconsequential, what do you have to say about the content of her comments?
Nosaj,
Her liberal bias is so strong that she misses the real point. Her point is that Republicans should make a pallateable agenda for society and there is an element of truth to that, but the bigger problem is that the honest agenda that we NEED to be following is an unelectable one. Yes, I agree that the Republicans should have cleaned house on the religious nuttery and really stupid rape comments, etc, but a serious platform of necessary sacrifice to restore solidarity would never fly with the public.
Re: Comment by Nosaj — November 10, 2012 @ 11:41 am
Well and succulence done, Nosaj.
What a flock of genitally-challenged and easily -threatened RW men. I’m sure there’s a tie -in to their fixation on handguns, but I’ll leave it to the experts to figure out what it is. Such a turn on. (Eyeroll)
I wonder if anyone from Holiins ever gets a look at this blog… So image enhancing.
I understand your comments, JW, and I agree that perhaps the real agenda for change this country needs is unelectable at this time. In my view, we should be pursuing a single-payer national healthcare system, and the banking/investment industries should be heavily regulated. What is electable probably lies somewhere in between. No shame in that. We can disagree without being disagreeable, and ultimately, I think that is Rachel’s point. Good discussion, sir. Thank you.
Nosaj, I disagree on a heavily regualted banking industry being the answer. Personal responsibility IS the answer. Thanks sincerely for your civility; that is exceedingly rare around here. That lack of civilty towards what I knew would be an unpopular viewpoint that I have, kept me from posting it in the first place.
#37 Actually, matt, you won’t generally see most liberals on this blog making caustic comments about the looks of right wingers (except maybe our buddy Rash, who deserves it). It’s the wingnuts who seem to focus on looks of all kinds, including size, big ears, not female or male looking enough, and on and on.
but a serious platform of necessary sacrifice to restore solidarity would never fly with the public.
Comment by John Wilburn — November 10, 2012 @ 12:06 pm
That is where I think you and the people who run the campaigns are completely missing the boat. I think Americans are crying out for someone to give them a specific plan, that is balanced and fair, to address the financial problems, safgety net program reforms that don’t effectively eliminate them, and that says specifically what sacrifices will be required of evrybody to put us on the right track. And I believe that, accompanied with an appeal to their patriotism, would be supported by the people.
Kristen: I wonder if anyone from Holiins ever gets a look at this blog… So image enhancing.
The area or the university? If it’s the latter, I’m an alumna, believe it or not. The campus has been “starting to open up to the outside world” for the past twenty years. The only way Hollins students would see the Roanoke Times or Dan Casey’s blog is if Casey skewered them a’la the Taubman Museum. Even then, the reaction probably would be mild amusement rather than a Reddit-style hatemob.
I dunno though. There were some nasty protest plans going around about Sandra Fluke’s lecture on the 1st but the folks who could attend (I had to work and could not) said there wasn’t anything all that major going on, mostly girls of privilege sneering at Fluke and regurgitating Rush Limbaugh memes. Sorry ladies, if it ain’t red and naked, it ain’t no Hollins protest.
dave:
“And I believe that [plan], accompanied with an appeal to their patriotism, would be supported by the people.”
Sorry, but I don’t think so. People don’t want to sacrifice one soft drink per day, three parking spaces farther from the door, or even a day without air conditioning. Sacrificing just ain’t their thing. Not as long as there is a candidate telling them they can have it all. Sadly, the only thing that will bring this to a head is when the government checks start bouncing. I would like to think better of my fellow citizens, but I don’t honestly believe so.
JW, I am all for personal responsibility. We can certainly manage our personal finances much better than we demonstrate. But corporate responsibility is equally as important, and to date, the financial industry has shown little interest in such resposibility – or so it seems to me.
Pirengle…our estimable lower case matt has bragged about being a Hollins alumna. That was what I was referring to. I don’t think you’d mentioned having attended Hollins before, but matt – sadly for Hollins – has.
Eh. Todd Akin’s wife is a Hollins alum. Not everyone from there gets to be Annie Dillard. Maybe not me, but certainly not matt.
Rachel Maddow becoming the man she’s always wanted to be.
rachel maddow kinda looks like Peyton Manning…Check out the forehead.
Sorry, Peyton.
The party of Man Coulter needs to shut up.
“rachel maddow kinda looks like Peyton Manning…Check out the forehead. Sorry, Peyton.”
Envy, that’s what Frank has.
#43 Add Maloof and Framkie to the list of the “genitally challenged.”
#57,they sure self -identify.
Memo to Rachel the Adolescent Boy; You forgot to mention the free stuff. It would have been nice had you gotten ONE thing right.
And, they continue to self-identify.
Screwzie and all the other Rachel-haters are jealous that Rachel’s balls are bigger than theirs.