Did anyone hear what Rachel Maddow just said on her show?

[Kiki at the Tiki]

Guest: You know, the non-romneys come up so fast and crash so hard, I always thought Newt rose as the non-romney at the perfect time, but it seems he was a bit early.

Guest: Now im looking at Ron Paul (Maddow showed new poll and added "Paul is virtually tied with Newt"), I really think Ron Paul could win Iowa. Then what happens?

Rachel Maddow: If Ron Paul wins Iowa, then you and me have the best job in the world. We can then start talking to about him.

 

[unknown]

She hates him.

 

[coastie]

Guest: You know, the non-romneys come up so fast and crash so hard, I always thought Newt rose as the non-romney at the perfect time, but it seems he was a bit early.

Guest: Now im looking at Ron Paul (Maddow showed new poll and added "Paul is virtually tied with Newt"), I really think Ron Paul could win Iowa. Then what happens?

Rachel Maddow: If Ron Paul wins Iowa, then you and me have the best job in the world. We can then start talking to about him.

Did she just confirm that they have orders not to talk about him? The implication is clearly that they can't talk about him now-i.e. help him win, but once he's winning, they "get to' talk about him?

 

[smithtg]

i think she was implying that it may be "fun" to talk about RP in a sarcastic way that all the lamestreamers feel deep down. You know, the name calling will come in (because that is what the libs do so well). like "kook", "isolationist", "too old", etc etc etc

 

[NewRightLibertarian]

Did she just confirm that they have orders not to talk about him? The implication is clearly that they can't talk about him now-i.e. help him win, but once he's winning, they "get to' talk about him?

I think she's saying that her and her media cohorts will do everything to destroy his candidacy after he wins Iowa

 

[Kiki at the Tiki]

sgt150, thats the impression i got. liek theyre going to have fun burying him

 

[sailingaway]

I think she's saying that her and her media cohorts will do everything to destroy his candidacy after he wins Iowa

this.

Remember Rand the night after he won the primary in Kentucky?

But she will have a tough time pulling that on Ron. Not that I see any reason he should go on her show. Matthews is better.

 

[Sola_Fide]

In a strange way, any leftist attack pieces might work in our favor.

 

[sailingaway]

In a strange way, any leftist attack pieces might work in our favor.

In a sense. She'll be trying to stop progressives bleeding from Obama to Ron, not trying to hurt Ron with the right.

 

[Lucille]

+rep, AB. I think that's true.

 

[emr1028]

I think that you guys are all overthinking what she said. Ron would be a fun person to talk about as a commentator, because he has such an enormous range and depth to cover. It's rather fun to get philosophical, and Ron brings it to that level. I'm sure the attacks will come but I don't think that's what Maddow meant.

 

[MikeM39]

In a strange way, any leftist attack pieces might work in our favor.

Obviously so, the support by Jon Stewart and Bill Maher has damaged us with Republicans who despise those people, we could use some leftist attacks against Paul.

 

[jason43]

I think she's saying that her and her media cohorts will do everything to destroy his candidacy after he wins Iowa

^This.

We have to know that they will try to destroy him if he wins. They will drag out all the old newsletters, anything that anyone he has ever referenced like Rothbard and Spooner and say how extreme he is and how he believes everything they ever wrote. They will break out the civil rights act of 1964. They will tie him to the John Birch Society and 9-11 truthers. They will break out the 3rd party run and "not a real republican" arguments. They will say he will crash the economy... Itll make what Johnson did to Goldwater look like a polite campaign. And it will come from all sides at once.

Pretty much everything that they have said in backwards ways will come out in full force and all at once. We need to expect it and prepare for it. The machine will not just let us make our case and win.

 

[squirekyle]

Just remember guys, The media has attacked Ron Paul so much over the last 2 elections, that, in my opinion, things can never get worse for him, they can only get better!

that's my view on the whole matter.

 

[Matthew Zak]

I think she's saying that her and her media cohorts will do everything to destroy his candidacy after he wins Iowa

That's how I took it.

 

[MaxPower]

I expect it was either a sarcastic statement implying that it's unpleasant to talk about Ron Paul, or a suggestion that it will be fun verbally tearing him down- and I admit, exciting as it is to see our man pushing to the front of the pack in the polls for the first major primary state, I am nervous about the storm that's coming if he does manage to win the nomination, or even Iowa. Remember what happened to Rand last year; we'll once again hear all about the '80s-to-early-90s newsletters, the Civil Rights Act, Dr. Paul's undying love of Islamic terrorists, the inevitable famine, plagues and pestilence that will rain down upon society if he successfully cuts one government program or another, etc. It is a little frightening even to conceive of what the media coverage is going to be like if and when he really gets close.

 

[ronpaulitician]

If Maddow's interview with Rand Paul is any indication, she will WAIT to grill Ron Paul until after he wins the primaries.

 

[gls]

Who cares? The people who watch her show would be very unlikely to vote for Ron anyway. He is going to need to win over moderates, not the far-left.

 

[Lucille]

Sheldon Richman: What’s the Matter with Rachel Maddow?
The MSNBC host champions bureaucratic power at the expense of regular people and their rights.

Progressives today say people should come before profits. Now in a privilege-ridden corporate state, that’s a worthy goal, though progressives have no clue how to achieve it. How nice it would be if they were equally committed to putting people before bureaucracy. Here they fall down rather badly because their signature ideas would subordinate regular people to the dictates of the power structure.

Take MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow. Maddow is intelligent, serious, and well-meaning—which makes her vision all the more unsettling: It has ominous implications not only for individual liberty, but also for its concomitant: authentic spontaneous social cooperation.

Maddow might say that if she had her way, the bureaucracy would reflect the people’s interests, perhaps even consult them from time to time. But the naiveté of that vision is apparent from even a brief reading of political-economic history. When has bureaucracy actually represented—or cared about—plain people rather than being a tool of the power elite she claims to abhor (at least when Republicans hold some branch of government)?

 

[milo10]

Obviously so, the support by Jon Stewart and Bill Maher has damaged us with Republicans who despise those people, we could use some leftist attacks against Paul.

Have you honestly seen that or are just extrapolating? I think Stewart is pretty broadly liked...you may not care for him, but not many people really hate him. Maher is hated by some people, but I don't think his occasional friendly remark about Ron Paul really bothered many people. If someone is that small-minded, there is not a lot you can do.