Wednesday, August 3, 2011

Ashamed of Something Comrades?

Deception, thy name is liberal. By now, you may have seen these new ads for MSNBC. One has Ed “Sgt.” Schultz blabbing on about healthcare and the other has Rachel “Madcow” Maddow blabbering on about bridges. There are probably more ads in the series, like Chris Matthews tingling his leg, but I haven’t had to endure them yet. What’s interesting about these ads is how they carefully hide what these two liberal miscreants really believe.

One of the things I learned about liberals during the Reagan years is that they lie. They lie like their lives depend on it. If a Democrat tells you they believe something, you can put money on it that they intend to do the opposite.

The reason Democrats lie is because they have learned that the public not only doesn’t share their views, but finds them stupid and scary. Tell the public that you want to raise taxes, give more money to people who don’t work, socialize their healthcare, nationalize their companies, divide the spoils of the nation by race and gender, disarm the military, and send all dissenters to jail, and people are more likely to give you a pitchfork in the eye than their support. So the Democrats lie. They claim they don't believe any of this. . . in fact, they assure us, they believe the exact opposite! But then they get to Washington and they push the very agenda they just denied. Imagine that.

Well, MSNBC is putting a new spin on this tactic.

Let’s start with Sgt. Schultz. He’s talking about healthcare in the commercial. He begins by noting that healthcare reform was only “half done.” Then he acts as if he’s been asked whether a public option would be needed to complete the reform (you don't hear the question, just his paraphrase of it). Surprise. . . he avoids the question. Instead, he talks about healthcare being a necessity.

Notice what he’s doing. This is a man who was SCREAMING for months at the top of his lungs that he wanted a public option. Yet, here he acts as if he hasn’t really reached a decision on the issue. In fact, he basically dismisses the question as if he thought the public option was just a sideshow. And thereby, he gives the impression of a man who isn’t sold on the public option.

Why would he act this way since anyone who knows the Sgt. knows he desperately wants a public option? The answer is above: he’s misleading you. He knows that no one who isn’t a hardcore liberal will watch him if he speaks the truth about his views. Thus, he hides his views to make himself seem moderate. Is he actually lying? No. But he’s being misleading by creating a false impression.

And there’s more. Do you notice the word “necessity”? Ed and his friends on the left never call healthcare a necessity. . . they call it a “right.” So why isn’t Ed using the “right” word? Because he can’t tell you what he really thinks and still pull in anyone who isn’t already a hardcore believer. He has to mislead you about his beliefs.

The Madcow commercial isn’t a straight up distortion of Madcow’s views like the Schultz commercial, but it is misleading. Madcow is standing before some bridge and says (roughly) “we need government because no private contractor is going to build that (the bridge) on spec.”

First, let me say that I do prefer my infrastructure built at the direction of the government. But that said, she’s wrong. Private companies will happily build toll roads all over the place. Some of the first interstate roads were built by private companies as toll roads. And in places like Virginia and parts of the Midwest, they are itching to get back into the business. Roads, bridges, trains, airports. . . all have been built by private companies on spec.

Secondly, this is again deception. The implication of the commercial is that when Maddow thinks of things the government should do, she's thinking of things like this bridge. Things that most people would agree should be done by the government. Heck, even I agree with that -- I don’t like toll roads or toll bridges. But that’s not Maddow’s real view of what the government should be providing. She believe government should be delivering your healthcare, telling your boss what you should earn and who he can hire, taxing your income at 70%, telling you what lightbulbs you can buy, dramatically increasing social benefits, etc. etc. There is no end. Yet, the ad implies that her view of liberalism is summed up in bridges.

So why doesn’t Madcow mention any of the other stuff? Why does she only mention the bridge? Because, once again, that would scare people. Just like Schultz and the Democratic party, she knows she can’t tell the public her real views of they won’t tune in. So she lies and she presents an intellectual Potemkin village of her views.

It must be pretty horrible to realize that you have to lie to people about your true beliefs to get them to like you. In fact, that puts you in the company of cultists and perverts. But even more, doesn't this tell us that the "progressives" know that their views won't wash? If they aren't even willing to speak their views in public, should we ever trust them to implement their views?


Tennessee Jed said...

A comment and a question:

1) The comment - it surely does appear not all that many people watch MSNBC. Their ratings are always pretty low. I guess the "we'll be the liberal version of Fox" hasn't worked out all that well. I don't know who they think they are kidding. People have recognized how over the top they became a few years back. I don't kid myself, though. There are 5 stations that are liberal and only one conservative. I do believe the majority is slightly right of center, but Fox's ratings dominate because it is the only station doing "conservative."

2) The question: Is Rachel Madcow gay? I don't really care mind you, but she sure seems to be going for that look with her little matador outfit and haircut. Just wondering.

Joel Farnham said...


Doesn't Schultz look like Kruchev or Goldfinger? Both enemies of the United States? At least with those guys, they didn't lie about their intentions. Yeah, one is fictional, but the fictional character is better known.

With Maddow, are you sure her first name is Rachel? Not Ralph? Believe it or not, this is the first picture I had ever seen of her. I believe I had seen only one picture that even remotely made her look like a female. All the rest make her seem like an adolescent school boy, especially this one.

Try as I might, I can't get past the way these two look. And I am from California where the strange look is normal. MSNBC executives must be really stupid to not see that. At least Chris Matthews looks like he is from Kansas. Put some overalls on him, a straw hat and he can blend in with the regulars from Hee Haw.

Unknown said...

Andrew: And when somebody sees through the smokescreen, the liberal gets all wounded and asks "are you questioning my patriotism?" Answer: You're damned right I am."

Along with MSNBC, I've seen a lot of ads (including on Fox) for Anderson Cooper's 360 on CNN. The squib is that he "goes beyond the headlines to tell stories in depth from many points of view so you can make up your mind about the news." Yeah, right. Stories. If he's claiming to be "fair and balanced," I ain't buying it. In fact, he's just another unbalanced liberal. Still, if MSNBC really does make Al Sharpton a regular, they win the prize.

AndrewPrice said...

Jed, I think what they were aiming for was the anti-Fox market. Most liberals don't understand how biased they personally are. They think that they are moderates and conservatives are the ones who are far outside the mainstream. The major networks cater to that by being left/center left and pretending to be unbiased.

When FOX came along, which is much less biased to the right than the networks are to the left, the MSM kept up the deception by attacking FOX as far-right biased. As a consequence (combined with the response to Bush), a new angry openly far left audience was born. They felt that if Fox was going to be "openly spouting right wing propaganda" then they deserved a network that was openly spouting leftwing propaganda.

MSNBC gave those people a home. And that is who they have sought as an audience. But there aren't very many people in that audience. So they are trying to pull in more people from the major networks by tricking them into thinking that while MSNBC is "openly liberal," their version of liberalism is right in line with that of "unbiased" liberals.

They aren't changing their programming of course. They are just using these ads to pull people in and hopefully keep them.

It would be like an opium den advertising itself as a liquor store.

AndrewPrice said...

Jed, P.S. I'm pretty sure she's gay, though I've never looked into it. She certainly acts like she is. I think she makes herself look like K.D. Lang.

USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

MSNBC has taken snobjective reporting to new lows.

Jed: I think Fox is more populist than conservative. And while they may appear conservative I think it's only an appearance, since they do have several liberals and moderate conservatives.

I also think they appear conservative because there is no other major network that even attempts to be objective or fair anymore.
Simply by not being biased (or as biased in some cases) they have gotten the label of being "conservative shills."

Fox does a pretty good job of being more objective than their counterparts, although I do have problems with some of their hosts (Geraldo especially).

Cavuto is one of my favorites and he nails the business reporting. :^)

USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

"MSNBC gave those people a home. And that is who they have sought as an audience. But there aren't very many people in that audience."

Even liberals don't wanna tune into 24 hours of hate n' stupidity (otherwise, Err America would've been profitable).

USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

Joel said:

"I believe I had seen only one picture that even remotely made her look like a female. All the rest make her seem like an adolescent school boy, especially this one."

LOL! Reminds me of that character "Pat" in the old SNL scetches. Everyone was always trying to figure out if Pat was a woman or a man and they never could.

AndrewPrice said...

Joel, Chris Mathews on Hee Haw is a hilarious thought!

On their looks, I have to admit that Maddow looks like a high school friend of mine -- a male. So every time I see her I think of him. Schultz looks to me like a union thug who is in the middle of deflating.... like a cake that someone took out of the oven too soon.

But it's the ugliness of their politics that really bugs me, not their looks. They are two ultra-nasty people.

Tennessee Jed said...

agreed, Andrew. There is also the age old question about the news programming portions vs. the oped sections, but the one I watch regularly is Brett Baier. I'll admit that it is usually 3 to 1 for the right, but even there, everyone is an adult about it. My favorite line-up is Steve Hayes, Krauthammer, and the woman from Fortune (whose named I just spazzed on.)

I have to tell you, though K.D. Lang is one hell of a great singer; more than can probably said for Rachel.

AndrewPrice said...

Lawhawk, That's true. If you dare to question anything a liberal tells you, they jump all over you with attacks like -- "are you questioning my patriotism." Um... no, there's no question that you hate America.

On Cooper and CNN, I will give them this: they have tried to make themselves seem less biased. They have given it a genuine effort. BUT it's a bunch of leftists and liberals and their version of not-biased is basically moderate leftist. If they want real unbiased, then they are going to have to hire conservatives and listen to them too. Having a room full of liberals say "that doesn't sound biased to me" ain't working.

USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

"It must be pretty horrible to realize that you have to lie to people about your true beliefs to get them to like you. In fact, that puts you in the company of cultists and perverts. But even more, doesn't this tell us that the "progressives" know that their views won't wash?"

Indeed. The lie of deception and the lie of ommission is a couple of the left's favorite tools (besides Shultz and Madcow that is. Madcow...LOL! Good one!).

This is why my wife and I still have relatives who vote for their "conservative" democrats.

I try to tell them that Zell Miller was the last conservative democrat and I got oodles of proof but they don't listen to me.

They will say, often condenscendingly: "There's no way the democrats will hurt gun rights and to say they would hurt free speech is crazy talk."

They basically are conservatives for the most part but they have always voted for democrats and they believe their lies.

It's odd, because many times they'll agree with my wife or me but then it's like they forget and go back into their trance.
Like pod people.

Not surprisingly, they also watch the major network news (except for Fox) and they hate Sarah Palin, although they can't give any specific reasons.
Needless to say they don't like talking politics with me, LOL.

They have fallen hard for the deception because they desperately want it to be true.

Or perhaps they really are pod people from mars.

AndrewPrice said...

Ben, I don't think I would call FOX populist, except for some of their talk shows. I see their coverage as basically reading wire stories while center-right news anchors spin the news to the establishment right.

In either event though, I don't see FOX as particularly conservative, though they are more conservative than the other networks. If anything, I would say they are center right.

AndrewPrice said...

Ben, I think it's more than that. I think liberals have grown up in this cocoon of liberaldom. Everything they see on the networks, in films, in books is all liberal. All their friends are liberals. They live in liberal enclaves in liberal cities. So as far as they are concerned, their views are shared by everyone and are clearly moderate views.

That's why I think they stick with the networks rather than MSNBC, because they don't understand that they are actually biased. They think they're absolutely dead center. And since the Networks are providing the identical views they have and are calling themselves dead center and unbiased, it gives them comfort to think that they are indeed unbiased. Switching to MSNBC would force them to accept that they are out of the mainstream.

AndrewPrice said...

Ben, She does a lot like Pat, only thinner. There are worse pictures where your first thought is "that's a teenage boy."

Personally, I don't really care about her looks, except that she clearly goes out of her way to give herself this image.

AndrewPrice said...

Jed, I like Lang a lot. She's got some really top notch songs.

On the news, there should be a huge difference between the news portion of the programming and the talk portion. Sadly, that's not as true as it used to be. These days both FOX, MSNBC and the networks are getting more opinionated in the news itself.

In terms of the talk shows, I agree about Bair. His show is very adult, very respectful, and very thoughtful. There is no shouting over people and there is very little knee-jerkism. I compare that with the leftists on the other channels and there's no point in even listening to them anymore, they just repeat the same old tired lines. . . like angry parrots.

USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

"Ben, I don't think I would call FOX populist, except for some of their talk shows."

I agree not every show is populist or even center right (or left in the case of Geraldo).

Greta is a liberal but she seems to be objective most the time.

I think I get populism from the morning Fox and Friends show but it makes more sense that that particular show is populist and so is Bill O'reilly (although he is, nominal;ly, center right but not always).
Also, the egenda they lay out or what they choose to cover or the questions that are asked.

Plus, I don't mean populism as an ideology or in a political sense, but rather in this sense (taken from the Cambridge dictionary)"

"defined by the Cambridge dictionary as "political ideas and activities that are intended to represent ordinary people's needs and wishes".[9] It can be understood as any political discourse that appeals to the general mass of the population, to the "people" as such, regardless of class distinctions and political partisanship—"a folksy appeal to the 'average guy' or some allegedly general will"."

Again, this doesn't apply to all their shows but I do see this underlying populist theme in most of their programming. Of course, that's debatable. :^)

AndrewPrice said...

Ben, I think the problem is a psychological one. Supposed your whole life that you believed in something like the Democratic Party.

You thought it stood for something specific and it told you that it did. And in election after election, it kept telling you that. The nightly news told you that. All the other Democrats told you that. The only people who told you the opposite were people you have been told were basically Nazis.

Now someone comes along who they know is not a Nazi and tells them, everything you believe is a lie and everyone you trust has lied to you.... here's the proof.

Most people are not capable of hearing that. Instead, they will choose to continue to lie to themselves so they don't have to believe that everything they have done and believed for the past 30+ 40+ years was a total fraud.

That's the problem.

It's like the Matrix. If we learned today that the Matrix real, I'll bet that the majority of people would choose to continue inside the Matrix, even if they knew it was a fantasy world. That's the problem with "conservative democrats."

And that won't change until the whole herd of them starts to switch over in large numbers in the area. Then they will finally switch too (and become fiercely anti-Democratic).

USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

AndrewPrice said...
Ben, I think it's more than that. I think liberals have grown up in this cocoon of liberaldom.

I knew it! They ARE pod people from mars! And I'm not just saying that because my mother in law is one.

Joel Farnham said...


Cable news is a visual medium. People are more likely to listen to newscasters who look like themselves and sound like themselves. If you check some local regional TV news, you will find Southern Accents in the south. New England Accents in the north west. Etc. Etc. Also you won't find women in the south trying to look like k d lang.

It behooves MSNBC executives to pick newscasters that are more like their target audiences. The k d lang look, as well as being passe, only appeals to a certain segment of the population. As does the Kruchev/Goldfinger/dock worker with a broken nose look.

This is the first thing that confronts the viewer of cable news. If the newscaster doesn't look like the viewer, there will have to be an added effort on the viewer's part to listen. Most of the time, it just isn't worth it to the viewer. Oh, and this is all subconscious.

AndrewPrice said...

Ben, I would definitely agree with that definition representing what Fox projects. They present themselves as the "average man" show politically.

Politically speaking, however, I see FOX as very much an insiders, establishment form of conservatism. They will never fail to offer the Big Business, K-Street line as true.

In terms of "populism," by the way, I see populism as something a little different than the dictionary definition though. Populism pretends to represent the "average man," but it really isn't that at all. Populism really has become a form of anti-establishmentism. It is neither left nor right, though it's roots are on the left and it does largely follow leftist thinking (even though many on the right mistakenly think its current form is right wing). It seeks to overturn the power structure of current society and replace it with a form of equality that looks a lot like communism disguised as freedom. It also relies on charismatic leaders who see the mob as a way to push their own agendas.

AndrewPrice said...

Ben, Yep, pod people! LOL!

AndrewPrice said...

Joel, That's true. That's also why the networks worked so hard for so long to find anchors without accents -- so they didn't turn people off.

The KD Lang look would never work on Fox. But then the Fox look would never work on MSNBC either. Different audiences with different expectations.

You know who Schultz reminds me of? Bob Beckell. Both look like union thugs.

USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

Re: populism, I agree, Andrew. The word has certainly become saturated over the years.
I'm thinking there must be a better word to use that doesn't have the political baggage (mostly leftist or socialist as you say).

I reckon the bottom line is, Fox does try to be fair and balanced, although the argument copuld be made that leftism is never balanced, it's insane, but I digress.

And Fox is also a business that wants to grow (and has been).
Therefor they wanna keep their viewers or potential viewers happy.

I do like Brett, Neil and some of Fox's programming, and I think they play a vital role in countering the leftist propaganda of MSNBC, CNN, PBS, etc..

However, sometimes the questions that are asked and brought up for discussion drive me nuts.
And sometimes they show the two sides (conservative or one conservative view and liberal) when there's more, so it doesn't usually get very in depth.

More in depth than the networks and other cable outlets but that's not saying a lot.

This may be all one can expect from a 24 hour cable news channel, and it's fine for what it is.

If I want depth I go here or to some other blogs that provide depth. :^)

Joel Farnham said...


I was thinking that too about Ed Schultz. I would listen to Beckel before I would listen to Maddow. I disagree with his politics, but I would listen. I do remember one time Beckel asked a question of a guest that was down on Terrorists. Beckel was surprised by the answer and was quiet for the rest of the segment.

Joel Farnham said...


You know what I would love to see, a point counter point show like Hannity and Colmes tried to be, but never could. Starring Ann Coulter and Bob Beckel. Not only would it be funny, it would be very educational.

AndrewPrice said...

Ben, I think Fox has been a valuable resource against the other networks as it's giving conservatives a place to go that isn't pandering to the enemies of conservatism.

My biggest complaints with Fox though are that they offer little more than wire service reports and opinion. I'd like to see them become a real news network and send people out to investigate stories.

I'd also like to see some of the anchors be less openly opinionated -- I think that needlessly feeds the reputation of Fox being biased. I also wish they would stop attacking guests. I really can't stand the format of bringing on a real guest, asking 2 mindless questions, the anchor talking over the answer and then sending the guest packing. What was the point of even having the guest?

What's more, many of the anchors aren't very good at their jobs. They have no idea what to ask. They just know how to spit out talking points. That's not useful and I think it's bad for conservastism to turn discourse into a talking points spitting event.

Some of the shows are different -- like Bair's show -- but too many of their news anchors just insult, spin and spit.

In the end, Fox to me is nothing more than news-entertainment, and should not be taken internally.

I'm glad they are there countering the other guys, but I see them as a massively wasted opportunity.

AndrewPrice said...

Joel, I have an odd respect for Beckell because while he mostly spews talking points, he will be honest at times. It's rather refreshing when it happens.

AndrewPrice said...

Joel, That would be an interesting show, although I'm down on the whole format of people fighting.

I would seriously like to see them get back to people not attacking each other and trying to speak over each other. It's time for a little respect in our news again.

CrispyRice said...

MSNBWhat?? Hmm, not really familiar with that term. ;)

AndrewPrice said...

Crispy, It's an obscure public-access-like channel where they let a few moonbat howl away. Nothing to be concerned about.

AndrewPrice said...

For those who are interested, the Elves finally got back to us about last night. They're rather unpleasant comment is at the end of the thread from yesterday.... union jerks.

StanH said...

PMSNBC as Rush calls them says it all. Blithering is a liberal’s natural state, Sgt. Shultz and the Madcow prove it.

Ed said...

Andrew, I despise MSNBC. I haven't seen the commercials yet, but I suspect I will be changing the channel when they come up.

AndrewPrice said...

Stan, They are a horrible network, there is no doubt about that.

AndrewPrice said...

Ed, These were innocuous and didn't even seem like MSNBC commercials at first, which is why I noticed them. They seem quite rational and professional... very misleading!

Tennessee Jed said...

For what it's worth, I happened to check out Rachel Madow. According to her Wikipedia article, she is the first "openly gay" talk show host. She grew up a jock in California in a very conservative community and graduated from Stanford.Got her first radio job in Holyoke, Massachusetts, which just happens to be the unofficial lesbian capital of the world. Later she did a stint on the most commercially successful radio program in history, "Air America."

The point is, it makes sense because liberalism generally chooses to play identity politics, and it's a perfect set-up. It's also why I love the notion of Condoleeza Rice, even if I realize she is probably not the ideal candidate. The notion of the first black female president is just such delicious irony.

Tennessee Jed said...

apologies - the article stated first openly gay person to host a prime time cable news show, not talk show. Clearly Rosie had that distinction.

AndrewPrice said...

Jed, That also happens to be where Smith College is located. I believe Lesbianism is a required course. That's also where my car's engine blew up one Sunday evening before Labor Day. Long story, but I got lucky that someone had broken into a gas station so I bought oil from him while pretending he wasn't actually breaking in. Then I burned the crap out of my hands... fixed my engine while working in the mud while it was pouring... then climbed back into my car covered in mud and cut off a cop as I got back onto the highway while my engine was belching black smoke. The cop very much regretting pulling me off as I was in no mood to deal with him. In hindsight, I'm surprised he didn't shoot me. ;-)

Good times.

On Madow, the identity politics thing fits. And I don't mind playing it against the left sometimes. In fact, I think the number of prominent black conservatives is slowly eroding the view that blacks need to be liberals. Not fast... but it's happening little by little.

AndrewPrice said...

That's ok Jed, I got your meaning.

USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

Great Scott, Andrew!

That's quite a story! I'm glad we can laugh about it now.
We can laugh, right? :^)
Seriously, glad you weren't shot.

AndrewPrice said...

Ben, In hindsight, it's hilarious. But when you're twenty, it's pouring rain, your car (1979 Rabbit) is sitting in a mud alley, and you're burning your hands trying to pull what's left of a fuel filter off your car with no tools... it wasn't very funny at the time.

I can only imagine what the cop thought. I was literally covered in mud from head to toe, blood on my hands, black smoke pouring from my engine where it was boiling off the oil that got everywhere when the oil filter exploded (I still have no idea what happened, but all that was left was the ring).... I must have looked like a mud monster. And I was in no mood for any grief. LOL!

rlaWTX said...

they scare me... as I am flipping through channels, Rachel M... words fail me.

BevfromNYC said...

All I will say is that I was disappointed that Olberman and Maddow's heads did not actually explode on Election Night 2010. I thought it would have made really good TV...

AndrewPrice said...

rlaWTX, They should scare you. People who foam at the mouth that easily are pretty messed up if you ask me.

AndrewPrice said...

Bev, Me too. That would have been great to watch. . . over and over on youtube!

USS Ben USN (Ret) said...


I'd pay good money to see that!
It would be a nice primer to the second season of The Walking Dead.

patti said...

ha! i glanced at the pic and thought it was al gore and edward horton!

maddow and what's his name make me sick, as do most wacked out libbies. even more, it ticks me off to know that they're preying on the uninformed, the weak and the stupid.

how's you like that to be the mainstay of your audience?!

AndrewPrice said...

Al Gore and Edward Horton! LOL! I see the resemblance.

Patti, Preying on the uninformed is what liberals do. That's the only way their cryptic ideology survives.

Post a Comment