Our Obama-Approved News Team At Work

Rachel Maddow is Obama Approved!  So how is this trusted source for President Approved Punditry doing?  Uhh, not so well on the accuracy front, but she still delivers some good Bush-bashing!  Bob Somerby has been keeping an eye on Ms. Maddow, heroically sparing us the trouble:

That brings us to the latest non-correction correction on last night’s Maddow Show.

Rachel Maddow opened the show with an utterly pointless topic. She did an interview with Tamara Lowe, executive vice president of the Get Motivated Seminars Incorporated [link]. Why was Maddow wasting viewers’ time on this topic? Here’s why:

George W. Bush is going to speak at two upcoming Get Motivated events. On Tuesday night, Maddow had devoted an entire segment to ridiculing this ludicrous notion. (To watch that segment, click here.) But on Wednesday night, she opened with Lowe—and soon took part in one of her program’s familiar non-correction corrections.

I followed the link and watched the Tuesday segment; if you want to join me in feeling bonded with retired NFL players, go ahead.  Let's press on to the non-correction correction:

After a bit more fawning about Lowe’s greatness, this was Maddow’s first question:

MADDOW: What do you expect that President Bush will be speaking about? Do you expect that it will be a political speech?

LOWE: Usually, the former presidents who speak for us—and President Bush will be our sixth former U.S. president to speak at the Get Motivated Seminar—typically, they will share their experiences of their time in office and the things that they learned, the challenges that they faced.

Oops. On Tuesday, Maddow’s viewers got to laugh at how ridiculous and demeaning it was to think that Bush would take part in such an event. Last night, if you were listening carefully, you seemed to learn that Bush is the sixth straight former president to do so. (This takes us all the way back through Ford.) A bit later, Maddow endorsed what Lowe had said, referring to the way “you have had so many former presidents.”

I am having a hard time verifying the "six Presidents" independently, but I do believe it.  Back in 1994, TIME mentioned three - Reagan, Bush and Ford, as well as Lib Icon Mario Cuomo.  The Christian Broadcast News (not your go-to source?) claimed five Presidents in this profile of Tamara Lowe, adding Clinton and Carter as well as Gorbachev and Mother Teresa.  And in a bit of a twist for Ms. Maddow, the Free Republic crowd, affectionately known as the Freepers, picketed Lowe's events and helped bring down the company when Bill Clinton was brought on in 2001.  Apparently "Success 2001" was an epic fail.

So the Obama Approved Rachel Maddow had no idea whatsoever what she was going on about when she bashed Bush for taking a quick paycheck at a Get Motivated event.  But since she did bash Bush, I assume she remains a trusted source for President Approved Punditry. 

Whatever.  Since this whole research thing is too much for Rachel and her crack production team, I suggest they limit themselves to parroting whatever hard-hitting material they find at the White House website.

Barack Obama trusts Rachel Maddow to deliver the news.  How about you?

Comments

[hit and run]

TM:
I suggest they limit themselves to parroting whatever hard-hitting material they find at the White House website.

Only problem is Maddow thinks all crackers are racist.

[Melinda Romanoff]

I'm sorry. I saw "Maddow" and my eyes just blurred.

[clarice]

Do you suppose the Lowe's had a Clinton friend call Maddow and suggest she'd impugned the company unfairly ? You don't suppose she dreamed the second show up by herself...

[Captain Hate]

Madcow has no integrity? Hold the presses.

[clarice]

Ha ha ha..Just got a call from Newt's organization asking for $$$$

[Sue]

Do you expect that it will be a political speech?

Yeah. Because he has given so many of those since leaving office. These people are parodies of themselves.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

Madcow has no integrity? Hold the presses.

Now now, Madcow is someone completely different.

[Captain Hate]

Ha ha ha..Just got a call from Newt's organization asking for $$$$

Strike 1: Glowbull warming with Pelosi Galore
Strike 2: Touring with Al Sharpton
Strike 3: Shilling for Skeezerfava

GFY Newt

[Captain Hate]

Madcow is someone completely different.

Who?

[Cecil Turner]

Bob Somerby has been keeping an eye on Ms. Maddow, heroically sparing us the trouble:

The part about Maddow was reasonable enough (though he probably ought to've provided a couple of actual quotes where she demeaned the former President's participation in the seminars for those of us who don't care to watch a clip). But the title of the piece, and the subsequent treatment of Davey in the bit that followed, was mind-numbingly stupid.

He takes issue with her for failing to properly slam Olympia Snowe for failing to harp enough on Glenn Beck's "vile conduct" regarding "death panels" . . . and noted that Grassley had said "death panels" too (or maybe he didn't actually, you know, say it, but . . .)! Either he's incapable of researching/reading a facebook page, clueless, or dissembling (or perhaps he's just too invested to admit there might be a kernel [or bushel] of truth behind the hyperbole). In any event, the idea that the truth has been given on health care, and that the lefty press is remiss any time it fails to hammer the partisan line, is so clueless it beggars belief.

The chutzpah of titling that mess "For Lack of a Press Corps!" because the Times hasn't been supportive enough of the current Administration and progressive goals turns the whole concept of a "watchdog press" on its head. If that's Sommerby's true paradigm (and I see no reason to believe that it isn't), then he's only useful when he fact-checks a liberal. If he thinks Maddow is off the reservation to the left (Duh!), then she probably is. But the tripe about conservative bias at the Times is beyond self-parody.

[Mike Myers]

I've occasionally clicked through a Maddow show on my way to some other channel.
But I've lingered there long enough (sorta like staring at a train wreck) to determine that Maddow's shtick is that she likes to crack wise about political topics of the day.

Only problem for Maddow is that if you want to successfully crack wise, you must first be fully witted. She comes up about half a cup short of that standard.

[MayBee]

You can tell the "death panel" bit hit home because Obama never ever talks about expensive end-of-life care anymore.
And nobody asks him, because they don't want to look like they are following stupid Sarah Palin's lead.

So everyone seems content to pretend a public option will magically reduce health care costs, and talk about rationing or limiting coverage is verboten.

[Old Lurker]

Cap'n didn't Newt team up on something offensive with Hilary in the last year too?

[Captain Hate]

OL, there were certainly an abundance of foul-tips that just eluded the catcher's glove; mine were 3 relatively recent ones that came to mind.

[ROA]

Newt Gingrich also received $300,000 in 2006 to oppose increased regulation of Freddie Mac.

[Gregory Koster]

But Clarice, Newt's call is the perfect chance to dispose of any subprime mortgages you might have in the old 401(k)...Myself, I keep trying to perfect a time machine, so I can bring the Newt of 1995 forward to meet The Ghost of Christmas Yet To Come who runs all the ads bawling Free Newt! when he isn't even in jail...

Cecil, Somerby's witlessness on this topic comes up in the first paragraph when he moans that there ain't no progressive politics in this nation as The Left (TM) can't even persuade the dummies in the voting booth who happen to be alive to reform their own health care. If you were to press him on, say, The Once's response to swine flu as an example of what he has in store for us, he'd go completely nuts, and we'd have to send Clarice off to the White House to push every reset button in sight...

[Sandy MacHoots]

Wow, Somerby is a liberal who realizes that conservatives aren't stupid and that liberals' smarter-than-thou schtick only alienates people and leads them to underestimate their opponents.

Let's hope the other liberals never catch on.

[narciso]

Somersby is still a fool as he is still willing to trade in the liberal's favorite
tropes and memes, which has us in this precarious position we are in now.

In the schadenfreude dept, as Nelson Muntz would say, in the LUN

[centrist]

I had never seen Maddow's work before. It was 100% juvenile snark. What a sad way to spend your life!

[snowguy]

People actually watch those shows?

Why?

[Buttered]

Flush Obama Mush!

[Additional Blond Agent]

"Now now, Madcow is someone completely different."

You aren't thinking of Mancow Muller, are you?

[Charlie (Colorado)]

Who?

Sorry, I was thinking of Mancow

[Charlie (Colorado)]

You aren't thinking of Mancow Muller, are you?

"Thinking" might be overstating it a bit.

[Gerbertz Nachriya]

I, too, have never really made myself sit and watch Maddow for more than 30 second. But wow. Just wow. I haven't seen that type of malice against "the other", combined with general ignorance of how the universe functions, since I left junior high school. You'd think Satan were speaking, but for the fact that Satan's utterance would at least have some slight appearance of intelligence and veracity. I'm really left wondering what kind of bizarre joke has been played on us, or what gross act of incompetence or malfeasance has occurred in the corporate management of General Electric and Microsoft, that allowed people of this sort to appear and speak on national television.

By the way, anyone noticed how at 3:00 in Maddow points out a typo on the GMSI website, then 27 seconds later has a typo in her own on-screen text. Jeez, even a 2:00 AM commenter on a Fark board flamewar knows not to criticize bad grammar with a sentence full of bad grammar.

/crosses fingers there's no typos in this one

[Jane]

I have a former close friend, a judge, ex politician, gay who I recently made contact with after several years. She advised me that Maddow is the one person on TV who has all the facts.

I kid you not.

[GUS]

A bit off topic, but isn't Rachel a female name??

[Sara (Pal2Pal)]

I kid you not.

I hope you weren't drinking any liquid when she said that. Were you able to keep a straight face?

[Captain Hate]

I kid you not.

What kind of judge?

[Constable Dogberry]

Somerby can't understand why the poll numbers are so bad on health care "reform" given the ludicrous state of American health care and suggests liberals progressives like Maddow are part of the problem. He might entertain instead the notion that at least half the populace doesn't consider American health care to be in such a "ludicrous state," certainly not one requiring a complete overhaul by the heavy hand of the federal government. I guess sometimes the obvious explanation is just too...obvious.

[ben]

I think there should be this little icon on the top left of the screen so we can know who has the Obama stamp of approval. Just to make sure a small banner should keep running on the bottom of the screen, "White House Certified" in the same manner ads for ambulance chasers on TV have disclaimers "Not Board Certified".

[Jane]

What kind of judge?

A Deval Patrick appointed very liberal one. WC.

[Captain Hate]

A Deval Patrick appointed very liberal one.

Well of course she'd like Rachel. You didn't happen to point out that there are very few facts on her show and that it's essentially all opinions, did you? Lots of libs have a hard time differentiating one from the other, which I like to point out to trolls when they're guilty of that.

[Wisco]

I guess I don't get what the complaint is. Even if she reports something accurate, you still complain. Seriously, you're actually complaining that Maddow interviewed someone who set the record straight.

WTF?

[clarice]

Perhaps if she'd behaved like a mensh and said yesterday I said...I've learned that was untrue and am interviewing Ms Lowe to establish that. I regret the error.

Let me guess, Wisco--you are a boomer or a kid still living in your parents basement.
Older and younger people seem to have more deftnedd with questions like this, and a surer sense of manners.

[Gerry]

I thought this reaction by a Canadian radio personality normally suspicious of Bush might interest you.

"Bush vindicated during visit to city
By John Gormley, Special to The StarPhoenixOctober 23, 2009
If vindication means anything its name is spelled George Bush.

As former U.S. president George W. Bush spoke to a Saskatoon audience, I stood in the wings, sneaking a peek through the curtains at the spectators beyond the footlights.

The crowd was friendly to be sure. But more than that, the relationship was like a musical virtuoso carrying the audience through every nuance, crescendo and dynamic of a composition.

With every pause, smile, laugh and down stroke of seriousness, Bush had the crowd in his hand.

Before the show, a friend who recently dined with the former Texas governor and two-term president put it bluntly: "Whatever you think you're going to see with this guy -- good or bad -- your reaction will be anywhere from pleasantly surprised to completely blown away."

Bush was open, charming, humble and self-deprecating. But as he spoke, the internal voice asked: "How is this guy the same evil manipulator who 'stole' the 2000 election from poor Al Gore?"

As the 43rd president talked about events and decision-making, accountability and principles -- not only within political life but also within ourselves -- he was passionate and uncompromising.

As Bush spoke of families held together by love, of HIV-AIDS projects in Africa and of educational reform designed to raise up the most vulnerable of children, was this the same moron, the dark and shifty war criminal we've been treated to in the mainstream media?

How could this be the same bumbling klutz, the man-child of spoonerisms that the smarmy David Letterman mocked on television every night?

As the president spoke of regrets, the intelligence reports and legal options open to fight an enemy that had declared war on America, where was this one-dimensional warmongering puppet so demonized by filmmaker Michael Moore and the truthers and haters on the Internet?

Was this guy on stage talking about dissidents, free speech and opening Middle Eastern dialogue through a commitment to free elections and democracy really the same shallow ideologue that the editorial boards of major U.S. newspapers, CNN, NBC and CBS told us he was?

My impression -- both from a couple of personal conversations with Bush and hearing him speak -- was that this is an essentially decent man with more charisma than any rock star will ever have.

While the media can do some creative editing and taking out of context, the cartoon-like George Bush of modern hate culture can't simply be made up. So how can this be the same man? Easy.

Speaking style is one thing. A passionate and articulate speaker, Bush lacks the natural eloquence and polish of a Bill Clinton.

Having now spent time with both former presidents, Clinton has an almost supernaturally smooth, flawless ad-libbed delivery and the ability -- on the fly and without a note -- to weave in often abstruse concepts alongside the banal and make it all sound like poetry.

Bush is an engaging speaker but more lineal and direct. And occasionally he stumbles. In 90 minutes Bush tripped twice -- once referring to the "universality of freedom" as the "university of freedom." Another stumble had him invert idealistic and ideologue.

Clinton doesn't do this. He can make a take-out menu sound like the Magna Carta. The problem is when Clinton's done and you reflect on his words, it's still a menu.

Bush's speech was much more memorable for the audience. But the hate-bloggers and YouTube gang can clip three seconds of the Bush stumbles and the story repeats itself.

Bush also has a directness of speech -- unlike the circuitous Clinton delivery -- that comes to a point, often abruptly. When you hear the premise, argument and reasoning, the blunt point is very effective. But the point, taken alone, can make the speaker -- particularly when he is George Bush -- sound simple.

And, seeming not to care that it'll end up in the hands of his enemies, Bush pokes fun at himself with the cleverness, edge and abandon of good standup comedy. As he unloads hilarious quips about how hated or dumb he is, Bush plays into the hands of detractors by actually repeating many of the same things they've said about him.

As people filed out after Bush's speech there were as many "wows" and glowing adjectives as at a Michael Buble concert -- and that's a lot.

Most telling was the early 20s woman who looked shocked, visibly open-mouthed, as she confessed how confused she was by what she had expected and how impressed she was by the experience.

For those who either admired president Bush throughout his term or thought there was something more substantive underneath the hatchet jobs of Hollywood and the Beltway, vindication is a good word. Things aren't always as they seem. You were right all along about George W. Bush.

Gormley can be heard Monday to Friday at 8:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. on NewsTalk 650

© Copyright (c) The StarPhoenix

[Sara (Pal2Pal)]

My Mother had just had her first stroke just before the 2000 elections and we watched the whole sordid scene unfold from her hospital room. I don't recall having any impression of W at that time, except that he wasn't Gore and that was a good thing.

The first time I really tuned into the man was in the weeks following 9/11. I liked what I saw and my impression was cemented in a positive way during the "wanted dead or alive" speech.

I'm blown away by the above description of his appearance, but not surprised that W is a whole lot more than the media would like him to be or like for you to think he is.

As my Mother used to say, "class and character always will out in the end."

[bour3]

OK, now let me get this straight -- I'm a little bit slow on the uptake -- it's the "deplorable state of our national healthcare," is it?

[Hucbald]

Hey, Maddow is an highly educated Rhodes scholar (And yes, you use "an" before a word beginning with "h": Pretend the "h" is silent). She's better than you. You should listen to her. Oh, and she's a carpet muncher. The thoughts of sexual deviants should always be trusted. So what if Air America failed? SHE'S GREAT! Just ask her.

Read it and weep:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Maddow

I hope I'm never that smart or that cool. No, I PRAY.

Maddow is just another brain-damaged leftist moron. Don't waste any more time on "her."

[JM Hanes]

"(And yes, you use "an" before a word beginning with "h": Pretend the "h" is silent)."

First we'd have to pretend you know what you're talking about. I won't embark on a history of such usage, despite the fact than an historical perspective might prove salutary.

[narciso]

Yes,she's a Rhodes Scholar but she was ultimately hired by Soros's Air America, and not surprisingly the same dynamic that
made her 'a miserable failure' there applies
to MSNBC. She is utterly humourless even in the unintentional sense.

On the other question, Tammy Bruce is probably to the right of most people here on
this site, except on one particular issue, yet Shep Smith and Geraldo have a show on Fox, mysteries of the universe

[Captain Hate]

Tammy Bruce is probably to the right of most people here on
this site, except on one particular issue

Bwak lollers.

[JM Hanes]

Obama's bus is back in business! After first trying to claim that FOX News hadn't put in a request for an interview with Obama's pay czar, the White House finally "acknowledged a mistake on the part of a Treasury department staffer."

[Porchlight]

the White House finally "acknowledged a mistake on the part of a Treasury department staffer."

There are Treasury department staffers?
Last I heard it was Turbo Timmy still making his own coffee.

[You poor fool, George.]

The evidence shows
An empty heart in Maddow.
I miss Cowboy Ray.
=================

[bgates]

She advised me that Maddow is the one person on TV who has all the facts.

I'd want some proof of life before agreeing to any demands Maddow has made for the safe release of the facts.

Gerry, that was pretty cool.

JMH, I think you might have been too rough on Hucbald, there.

[Allende]

Part of me wants to make an excuse for this local girl from the Central Valley, but she hasn't made good...

[And were they ever passive-aggressive about the two minute limit. Whew.]

Well, JMH, it's nice that the realization is there that the Obama White House wants to cross the line, and will do so unless called upon. I predict more bullying from the White House. I guess we'll just see where it goes.
===================================

[glasater]

I believe that when Milton Friedman was asked if he had to choose between free speech or free trade--he would choose free trade.
Gerry's excellent comment reminded me how the libs tore President Bush up--terribly.
I'm almost ready to surrender on free speech if it would shut up the idiot left.
I've barely heard of Maddow--never have seen her show--ever!

[Ann]

Gerry:

That was delightful. Thank You.

[Ann]

I keep telling you guys that Ronnie Jr.:

[Ann]

is really Maddow:

Please spread it around!

[bgates]

Ann, I'll see your Ron Jr and raise you one Wil Wheaton:

[Neo]

Yeah, that stock market is going every where and the Dow is just maddening.

It's a real Mad-Dow

[Ralph L]

Last year, someone put on a motivational show in Greensboro with Rudy and Colin and others, charging $4 a head in advance, $200 at the door. There was massive advertising for weeks. Rudy on the radio, daily full page newspaper ads. Who paid for all that, when the speakers were expensive, too?

[fit]

http://tunedin.blogs.time.com/2009/01/14/msnbcs-inaugural-gloating/

[Matthew]

Heh. Maddow needs to stop imitating Olby.

[Michael]

The issue isn't that a former President is giving a motivational speech. The issue is that this particular former President is giving a motivational speech; a former President whose entire tenure--nay, his entire professional career, from the oil business to the Texas Rangers, was mired in abject failure. Why would anyone want to hear "the recipe for success" from a man like that?

[Steve]

This is why Fox has the top 11 watched Cable TV shows. Even the reruns of O'Reilly at 11PM bean every other show!!
COMMON CENTS
http://www.commoncts.blogspot.com

[Victoria]

Just caught this site!!! Thank goodness you're out there. I have been so disgusted with the charges that "certain news networks" have been Obama Bashing....yet Madcow and O(whatever) have used their considerable snide and Oh-so-cute asides on every program to smear anything remotely to the right!!! I'm sure not all your posters will agree with me, but I have heard so many absolute distortions voiced by these two, that I amd glad to see it is they are not widely accepted.

[JohnR]

Maddow is a Left wing version of Hannity; a party-line hack who parrots Dem talking points, says NOTHING bad about the Left, and NOTHING good about the Right. I often watch/read pundits I disagree with, but I don't watch Maddow (or Hannity) because I can predict what she'll say before she says it; not an original thought or interesting comment to be had.