Unethical Quote Of The Week: Rachel Maddow

“If Hillary Clinton can’t win when she gets the nomination and you can’t get the nomination and neither can Kamala Harris, and neither can Amy Klobuchar, and neither can Kirsten Gillibrand. I mean, I think part of what’s going on today is women around the country are like, ‘OK, honestly!’ If it’s not going to be any of them, let’s get real. Is it just that it can’t be any woman ever?”

——The allegedly intelligent MSNBC host Rachel Maddow, making a statement with stunning disregard of facts and logic, indeed reality, in order to advance a divisive and false narrative.

This was an irresponsible argument in the midst of a generally irresponsible and dishonest discourse by Maddow while interviewing Elizabeth Warren following the end of her campaign. She was attempting to bolster Warren’s ethically bankrupt claims that it was sexism that doomed her campaign, just as Hillary Clinton claimed the same, among all the excuses and rationalizations she assembled (and is still assembling) to duck accountability for her own upset loss to Donald Trump, who was generally dismissed as a pushover.

If she wanted to educate her viewers, which Maddow does not—she wants to push an ideological agenda—she would explain that none of the women she mentioned were successful state governors, and that state houses and military command, not Congress, have been the launching pad for the majority of Presidents.  She could explain that the failed candidates she mentioned all had thin resumes for a White House run, including Warren, who is a former university professor and lawyer barely into her second term as a U.S. Senator.

Hillary had the most impressive experience of the group, but there is no avoiding the conclusion  that the only reason she was in a position to get the nomination was by coasting on her husband’s resilient popularity. She had not been an especially outstanding Senator, and her tenure as Secretary of State was marred by many dubious episodes, not the least of which was the email scandal that she persisted in lying about. Moreover, Clinton disproved Maddow’s theory by getting a plurality of votes cast in 2016, an achievement that will elect a candidate President approximately 90% of the time. She was unlucky, that’s all. Hillary  nearly won despite more adverse baggage and dubious character than any Presidential candidate other than  Richard Nixon.

As for the others, the explanation for their failures is remarkably simple as well as obvious. They were weak candidates, and the public was not so gullible as to fail to notice.  Gillibrand packaged herself as the misandry candidate,  playing champion for anti-male Furies like Emma Sulkowicz, aka Mattress Girl, who dragged a blue mattress around Columbia University’s campus in 2014 to harass a male student she falsely accused of rape, according to the college’s investigation. Gillibrand used the height of #MeToo hysteria to drive Senator Al Franken out of the Senate without a fair hearing, permanently alienating many progressives.  She was never a serious contender, and left the 2020 field quickly. 

Despite unjustified hype from the progressive news media, Kamala Harris became a less viable candidate the more the public saw and listened to her. At the end, her staff leaked to the press about chaos within and mismanagement of  her campaign organization. She also had used a man to rise in California politics, as she had a very beneficial sexual relationship with  San Francisco mayor and California power broker Willie Brown.  She amassed a remarkable number of unethical quotes on Ethics Alarms; in reaction to one of them, I wrote, “Statements like Harris’s usually signal a politician who lives by smug half-truths, deception and exploitation of the foolish.” I nailed it. Later, she argued that that the Trump tax cuts hurts the middle class because people are getting smaller tax refunds. I wrote,

“The category is smart and educated politicians deliberately making an idiotic argument because they think the public is too stupid to see through it. If you get money back, it means you were over-withheld, and Uncle Sam got free use of your money for months, while you lost the interest you could have made if you had it in the bank. Tax payers who rejoice over big refunds are the same saps who signed up for Christmas Clubs before they became illegal. And, apparently, they are also the citizens Kamala Harris is counting on to make her President. You know…morons.”

It didn’t require sexism to decide that Kamala Harris had no business running for President. It just required paying attention.

Senator Klobuchar never was accorded the  front-runner status of Warren or Harris. She is a veteran Senator, again with no executive credentials, and not especially charismatic or compelling. Candidates like Klobuchar, male or female, seldom get nominated for President, and if they do, they literally never get elected.

That leaves Warren, who in a rational world, with a rational party, would have disqualified herself for serious consideration as a candidate many times over. Hmmm…which Ethics Alarms Warren alert should I choose? Here’s one! A sample:

For any normal politician in any normal political cycle, Warren’s humiliation on this point [her false claim of Cherokee heritage] would have made her candidacy impossible. She is a woman, however, and the Left wants a woman President by any means necessary. She also is running against a field of historic awfulness. Thus Warren can keep lying. Some of her lies are approved progressive whoppers, like when she said in a debate last summer, “Climate crisis is the existential crisis for our world. It puts every living thing on this planet at risk.”  Nobody, even the most unhinged climate change researcher, claims the “every living thing” is at risk. Another false narrative that Warren has endorsed, knowing well it is a lie, is the “Mike Brown was murdered by a racist cop” fantasy. Some of her worst lies go back to her Senate run, but are continued now. For example, she claimed to have represented women harmed by defective breast transplants. In fact, she represented the defendant in those cases, Dow Corning. The deceitful description by her campaign is a masterpiece, calling Warren : “a consultant to ensure adequate compensation for women who claimed injury.”

So how could and why would Rachel Maddow slander the American public and culture by suggesting that the failure of these five inadequate women to win the Presidency means that no woman will ever be  elected President?

It is because Maddow, like so many of her ideology, seeks to manufacture a false reality,  one that foments distrust, hopelessness, anger, hate and division. To accomplish this she relies on the ignorance and lazy intellects of those who foolishly, dangerously, trust her.

What do you call someone like that?

20 thoughts on “Unethical Quote Of The Week: Rachel Maddow

  1. I’m reminded of Branch Rickey’s selection of Jackie Robinson to integrate the Dodgers. Robinson was a four-sport athlete at U.C.L.A., college graduate, engaged, experienced playing on integrated teams, and an Army lieutenant during World War II. He ticked more than one box. Yes, Robinson had a temper, but his most infamous incident in the Army led to an acquittal on all charges. Not an easy feat at a court martial let alone in 1944.

    None of the women who entered the DNC primary this election cycle have equivalent ethics or credentials. Hypocrisy, lies, and very twisted ethics have linked them all. (The less said about Hillary Clinton the better.) To gain the support of the American people they need more. More than being able to tick the box that says “female”.

    If they have a temper and reputation for throwing things at staff it better be because she caught the that person in a horrible act. Lying repeatedly to advance a career and claiming status as a Native American shows a lack of character and respect. Prosecuting citizens for crimes one actively commits is hypocritical and callous. We obviously aren’t seeking perfection in a president, but to be the trailblazing first takes a level of character and competence these women don’t possess.

  2. Maddow didn’t slander all of us. Just Democrats!

    Seriously though you are correct. A liberal senator from the northeast has not won since Kennedy and many men have tried and failed (Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Biden 88 and 2008 come to mind). Warren was a terrible candidate – less charismatic than hillary without a Bill. Anyone who watched the I’m going to get me a beer video and thought, yeah, that’s it, is not cut out for politics.

    The governor of Kansas is a democrat woman – I don’t know much about her, but being an executive of a middle America state has worked in the past.

    I think the first woman president will be a republican.

    • “I think the first woman president will be a republican.”

      I may have to agree with you there-though I shutter to image how badly pundits like Rachel Maddow, and Samantha Bee will relentlessly smear and insult that candidate. I’ve noticed that progressives will support women-so long as those women are in complete ideological lockstep with their particular brand of politics, and should they fall out outside of the tribal boundaries, it’s no holds-barred open season on them.

      Lest we forget Samantha Bee’s remarks about Ivanka Trump…..

  3. Hecuba: Alas! Alas! Alas! Ilion is ablaze; the fire consumes the citadel, the roofs of our city, the tops of the walls!

    Chorus: Like smoke blown to heaven on the wings of the wind, our country, our conquered country, perishes. Its palaces are overrun by the fierce flames and the murderous spear.

    Hecuba: O land that reared my children!

    Opal writes:

    None of the women who entered the DNC primary this election cycle have equivalent ethics or credentials. Hypocrisy, lies, and very twisted ethics have linked them all. (The less said about Hillary Clinton the better.) To gain the support of the American people they need more. More than being able to tick the box that says “female”.

    As American progressivism moves into a more-or-less *terminal* phase, with every passing day the women seem to become more debased, more aggressive, more mannish, more asserting, not to mention more perverse, and in essence they carry forward the Marxian-feminist activism against ‘the patriarchy’. The more that I understand what this means, to them, to the degree they can be said to have self-consciousness, the more that I link it to the general rebellious anti-whiteness movement that has the nation in its grip. Warren is I think an example of a strange psychological feature that Wilmot Robertson refers to:

    It has already been pointed out that race consciousness is one of mankind’s greatest binding forces. From this it follows that when the racial gravitational pull slackens people tend to spin off from the group nucleus. Some drift aimlessly through life as human isolates. Others look for a substitute nucleus in an intensified religious or political life, or in an expanded class consciousness. Still others, out of idealism, romanticism, inertia, or perversity, attach themselves to another race in an attempt to find the solidarity they miss in their own.

    Shall I quote from MacBeth? 🙂

    Warren took advantage of a ‘false identity’ to further her own professional life, but she had to have believed in her identification, and it had to have for her some spiritual significance, certainly some psychological significance. I would suggest that this is one of the features of a *race traitor* and I would also suggest that Marxian feminism, which has its object of taking down the patriarchy, is a series of codes for the ultimate treason: the treason of one’s own people and the willing dis-service to them by serving ‘the other’ through betrayal of *one’s own*. This is a common feature really and as I say it operates, to one degree or other, in all of us.

    That ‘other’, for American progressives, has become the colored multitudes. Therefore, the identification with *them* is linked to the dis-identification with one’s own self, and when linked to an anti-patriarchy sentiment, which is also rather obviously linked to a *turn against one’s own fathers*, one can easily grasp how this rebelliousness quickly moves into pathological territory.

    And this is one of the *features* of this sick, deranged present: women who have been given far too much power by men but women who for various reasons do not and cannot serve the trajectory of their own civilization. They become traitors to it. They become *undermining agents*. They usurp their own fathers, and their own husbands. By declaring that they seek power, but power divorced from and independent of men, who fashioned for them a more equitable social arrangement, they reveal the Marxian *spirit* that moves in them.

    It is natural then that they ally themselves with other rebellious, undermining groups. And of course it is natural and inevitable that this culminates in what we see developing all around us now. A crazed, hysterical movement that stops at nothing to *topple* the patriarchal structures (read: proper hierarchies) that stand in their way.

    When one loses, has taken away, or cannot define a proper spiritual and philosophical ground in traditional ideas, one falls into the grip of rebellion. The opposite of that, and the necessary remediation of it, is the recovery of those traditional categories. Then, one serves them and builds with them. Not as a rebellious, independent agent though.

    • The goal of Feminism, since the movement’s 2nd wave, has always been the destruction of the family, which it views much the same way that Marxists view capitalism-which would account for much of the movement’s adoption of Marxist rhetoric.

      Indeed one could make the argument that the two movements have always been closely intertwined, as evidenced by the DSA, and much of the feminist literature written since then.

      • On that same page I found a reference to this documentary: American Heretics: The Politics of the Gospel

        What is interesting, from my perspective, is that there are some — Steve Bannon being one — who predict ‘revolution’ unless a way is found to orient politics back again to support of the American worker. He says, I think it is true, that the Republicans sold out the American worker insofar as they became operatives of *the Swamp*. I also suspect this is true.

        I am also very interested in the faith-angle. That is, Catholic social teaching. But the entire religious-existential program has to be followed, you can’t subtract out of it just a portion. It does become heretical at that point.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.