Rachael Maddow Book - Drift - IT'S WORKING GUYS!! THEY ARE SLOWLY GETTING IT!

[cheapseats]

From where I sit, most #MainstreamMedia Stars & Starlets INSTIGATE & FAN FLAMES.

Notice how UNAFRAID they are of reprisal. They are EXTREMELY well-compensated for stoking the fires of a dangerously divided Electorate. They are sequestered in Ivory Towers, above the fray, like the Big Shots they "cover".

I don't think Americans could get OFF THEIR GIZMOS long enough to revolt but, if they ever did, I'd hope like hell that Media Super Stars would bite the bullet in the first round of action. They are not "merely" SOWERS OF DISCORD, but sowers of discord FOR PROFIT.

 

[anaconda]

Maddow would turn on Ron Paul at the first opportunity if it meant furthering her agenda. Maddow needs the big government apparatus to realize her agenda. She is a hypocrite and part of the problem. She is classic "left cover" or a "left gate keeper" of which Webster Tarpley refers to. I did like her piece on the Herman Cain Art Project, however.

 

[anaconda]

Written with bracing wit and intelligence, Rachel Maddow's Drift argues that we've drifted away from America's original ideals and become a nation weirdly at peace with perpetual war, with all the financial and human costs that entails. To understand how we've arrived at such a dangerous place, Maddow takes us from the Vietnam War to today's war in Afghanistan, along the way exploring the disturbing rise of executive authority, the gradual outsourcing of our war-making capabilities to private companies, the plummeting percentage of American families whose children fight our constant wars for us, and even the changing fortunes of G.I. Joe. She offers up a fresh, unsparing appraisal of Reagan's radical presidency. Ultimately, she shows us just how much we stand to lose by allowing the priorities of the national security state to overpower our political discourse.

And let me guess: when November rolls around she will enthusiastically endorse Obama and cast her vote for him. Enough already.

 

[cheapseats]

Maddow would turn on Ron Paul at the first opportunity if it meant furthering her agenda. Maddow needs the big government apparatus to realize her agenda. She is a hypocrite and part of the problem. She is classic "left cover" or a "left gate keeper" of which Webster Tarpley refers to. I did like her piece on the Herman Cain Art Project, however.

LOL, agreed.

Another HOWEVER, however: The source of the hilarity was HERMAN CAIN. Given a nationally televised stage, anyone with half a brain and an ordinary wit coulda had 'em in the aisles with HERMAN CAIN as material.

I find it particularly galling when they use the POWER of a supposedly news-and-information pulpit to INTERVIEW EACH OTHER, AND PIMP THEIR OWN & EACH OTHER'S BOOKS.

NEWS & INFORMATION...because we said so, and they corroborated it. Two sources, what MORE d'ya want?

 

[John F Kennedy III]

Seriously? This is what we're becoming? The Koch Brothers are evil ,and Rachel Maddow is a must-read.

Don't you want to be one of the cool kids?

 

[JasonM]

In my experience with left leaning statists, they are among the worst self righteous, arrogant, violent, intellectually dishonest, incredulous, dogmatic, and angry bunch of people on this planet. Their religion is the state. I would not advocate giving kudos to anyone who's endorsing the progressive left liberals ideology.

So, in other words, even if she started repeating everything Ron Paul said word for word, you'd still hate her guts and assume she's just being dishonest and trying to make money off you. Got it.

 

[JasonM]

I wasn't using corporate owned as a technical term, but meant it more as "owned by private interests".

As opposed to "publically owned interests"? As is owned by the state? That's no good either.

People in the media (the actual people) only say what they do partly in order to get higher in the social order of things by trying to make those connections. Social connections is what it's all about folks.

 

[coffeewithchess]

Sorry, I consider her like most of the media...part of the problem, not the solution. Throwing around a few good lines doesn't mean she has changed, it probably means she is pitching a product to an audience trying to make a buck.

Trust, but verify? In this situation, there isn't much trust (if any) to begin with. I wonder if she even wrote it, or if it was a ghostwriter...using her name, and making some $$$$?

 

[JasonM]

Sorry, I consider her like most of the media...part of the problem, not the solution. Throwing around a few good lines doesn't mean she has changed, it probably means she is pitching a product to an audience trying to make a buck.

Trust, but verify? In this situation, there isn't much trust (if any) to begin with. I wonder if she even wrote it, or if it was a ghostwriter...using her name, and making some $$$$?

Here's what you need to understand about the media: they only tell people what they THINK they want to hear in order to make $$$.

Now sometimes they try to fudge and try to shape what people want to hear.

But overall, the one thing these people care about is $$$$$$$$$$. Even if they don't believe it (it's very hard to write a book you don't actually believe), the fact that these guys publish these books and they sell at all is at least an indicator that they are smart enough to know that "Anti-War sells".

Besides, she really does expose some good stuff in her book. I had no idea that we actually used afghanistan war funds to build McMansions in afghanistan for rich people that don't even live there. Very appalling.

 

[cheapseats]

People in the media (the actual people) only say what they do partly in order to get higher in the social order of things by trying to make those connections. Social connections is what it's all about folks.

So true.

#NoamChomsky: The media want to maintain their intimate relation to state power. They want to get leaks, they want to get invited to the press conferences. They want to rub shoulders with the Secretary of State, all that kind of business. To do that, you've got to play the game, and playing the game means telling their lies, serving as their disinformation apparatus.

And partly they "just" DO AS THEY'RE TOLD, which may manifest in what they do NOT say as much as in what they DO say.

DOING WHAT THEY'RE TOLD TO DO is very common for EMPLOYEES of all stripes.

 

[JasonM]

But in the past generation or two, we've drifted off that historical course. The steering's gone wobbly, the breaks have failed. It's not a conspiracy, there aren't rogue elements pushing us to subvert our national interests to instead serve theirs. It's been more entertaining and more boneheaded than that. The good news is we don't need a radical new vision of post-Cold War American power.We just need a "small c" conservative return to our constitutional roots, a course correction. The book is about how and why we've drifted. It wasn't inevitable. And it's fixable."

Final paragraph of her book intro.

I don't care who you are, it's quite a sight when even a "Big L Liberal" like Rachel Maddow is saying we need a "small c conservative" to set things right.

And like it or not, most folks aren't conspiracy nuts (for better or for worse, depending on who you are), so the fact that she's saying "It's not a conspiracy, there aren't rogue elements pushing us to subvert our national interests to instead serve theirs." is just her way of preventing people from dismissing her arguments out of hand.

 

[JasonM]

I mean come on. Am I the only one who thinks it interesting that someone like her is starting to say this shit?

 

[FrankRep]

Final paragraph of her book intro.

I don't care who you are, it's quite a sight when even a "Big L Liberal" like Rachel Maddow is saying we need a "small c conservative" to set things right.

And like it or not, most folks aren't conspiracy nuts (for better or for worse, depending on who you are), so the fact that she's saying "It's not a conspiracy, there aren't rogue elements pushing us to subvert our national interests to instead serve theirs." is just her way of preventing people from dismissing her arguments out of hand.

We have a problem because she's a "Big L Liberal" who likes Big Government.

That's not a conspiracy.

 

[cheapseats]

So, in other words, even if she started repeating everything Ron Paul said word for word, you'd still hate her guts and assume she's just being dishonest and trying to make money off you. Got it.

Would YOU wonder why she is saying in the months before an election what she has pointedly NOT been saying for the lion's share of Obama's term?

If she has SEEN THE ERROR OF HER WAYS AND CHANGED, that's swell. For her, for everyone. The more people who reject WAR AS WAY TO MEANS, the better. Ending the wars would be winning, no matter who wins.

Me, I think this is very much part of Obama's reelection effort (not to say she isn't making a career push, she IS). I sense she will influence fundraising among LGBT's...for Obama, not ANTI WAR.

EITHER WAY, even if she has changed, she ain't changed THAT much. She's with the BLUE team.

Her book IS an opportunity to juxtapose an election-season epiphany with Ron Paul's CONSISTENCY OVER MANY YEARS.

 

[JasonM]

Would YOU wonder why she is saying in the months before an election what she has pointedly NOT been saying for the lion's share of Obama's term?

If she has SEEN THE ERROR OF HER WAYS AND CHANGED, that's swell. For her, for everyone.

Me, I think it is very much part of Obama's reelection effort. I expect she'll be significant in fundraising among LGBT's, too.

EITHER WAY, even if she has changed, she ain't changed THAT much. She's with the BLUE team.

Her book IS an opportunity to juxtapose an election-season epiphany with Ron Paul's CONSISTENCY OVER MANY YEARS.

Sure, I'll give you that. It just goes to show we're starting to shape the demand for liberty and a sane foreign policy, and Ron Paul is given the credit.

I think it's awesome that Ron Paul's ideas are starting to take root in even people like her. And even if her automatic knee jerk reaction to Ron Paul is "this guy is crazy", if that makes her do her own research (which is more than most folks do for their book), then that's a positive outlook.

Don't forget, many of us used to be neocons that drank the kool aid. Back in 2004, I actually wanted Bush to win the election instead of Kerry and thought the Iraq war was a good thing to get rid of Saddam. It wasn't till 2007 till I started hearing Ron Paul and started reading his arguments.

Lets see if she continues to recover from her Liberalism, or if she reverts, shall we?

 

[FrankRep]

Sure, I'll give you that. It just goes to show we're starting to shape the demand for liberty and a sane foreign policy, and Ron Paul is given the credit.

Oh look! The Progressives (Communists) loved peace during the cold war. I think they're really understanding liberty!

JasonM, please don't be duped by Progressive Propaganda. This is a trick that they've played before.



Wikipedia: Soviet influence on the peace movement

During the Cold War (1947–1991), when the Soviet Union and the USA were engaged in an arms race, the Soviet Union promoted its foreign policy through the World Peace Council and other front organizations. It has been claimed that it also influenced non-aligned peace groups in the West.

The World Peace Council (WPC) was set up by the Soviet Communist Party in 1948-50 to promote Soviet foreign policy and to campaign against nuclear weapons at a time when only the USA had them. The WPC was directed by the International Department of the Soviet Communist Party via the Soviet Peace Committee,[1] a WPC member. The WPC and its members took the line laid down by the Cominform that the world was divided between the peace-loving Soviet Union and the warmongering United States. From the 1950s until the late 1980s the Soviet Union used numerous organizations associated with the WPC to spread its of view of peace.​

 

[NewRightLibertarian]

I mean come on. Am I the only one who thinks it interesting that someone like her is starting to say this shit?

Most people can see through her bullshit because of the way she treated Rand. She's a propagandist who can't be trusted.

 

[angelatc]

I mean come on. Am I the only one who thinks it interesting that someone like her is starting to say this shit?

She isn't just "starting" to say these things though - that's the problem. She's said these things many times before, and she'll likely say them again. But she didn't capture the anti-war movement from Ron Paul. She's leading them back home to the Dems for the election.

I can't believe you don't remember the things she's said and done in the past. But rest assured there are lots of people here who held out hope that Maddow (or Beck) were "starting to come around!" at some point over the last few years.

Nobody is dismissing her arguments, and if you're still wasting...I mean, spending your time arguing philosophy with the Liberals all day, then it's useful to have Maddow quotes to throw out there.

What we're dismissing is her reason for introducing those arguments at this particular juncture - as in, right before the election.

 

[JasonM]

Well, if the anti-war left goes back to the Democratic party, it will be because Obama fulfilled his promise and stuck to his "timeline" for getting out of Iraq. Then he'll say "see? I kept my promise in Iraq, now I will keep my promise to get out of Afghanistan by 2014". Never mind that Obama did the whole Libya thing, and then he sent a couple hundred marines to Africa for some reason.

 

[cheapseats]

But she didn't capture the anti-war movement from Ron Paul. She's leading them back home to the Dems for the election.

NO ONE has captured the Anti War Moovement. IT IS UP FOR GRABS.

It has lain dormant while folks argue about more pressing things, like Gay Marriage and Birth Control.

Just like #OccupyWallStreet WAS up for grabs.

ORDINARY PEOPLE are getting increasingly Anti War. ANTI WAR is on the rise. So say (unreliable, yuck yuck, yada yada, but nevertheless widely circulated) headlines. I am sorry to say Anti War is not gaining traction because people have SEEN THE LIGHT, but because they have SEEN THE BUDGET. No matter, to the point at hand: A VOTING BLOC IS COALESCING...AND NO ONE IS PANDERING TO IT.

Don't give props to MADDOW, of the Lean Forward Ads, WHOSE MISSION IS TO (MAKE MONEY &) SWAY EMBITTERED/UNDECIDED/ET AL. BACK TO OBAMA.

Brace yourselves for this sort of angle: REACTIONARY REPUBLICANS BLOCKED HIM AT EVERY TURN. GIVE HIM A CHANCE TO REALLY BE PRESIDENT, WITHOUT THE REELECTION SWORD HANGING OVER HIS HEAD. HE'LL GIVE 'EM WHAT-FOR. YEAH, MAN.

Ron Paul/Supporters must generate buzz about Ron Paul's "slow and steady" appeal GROWING IN TANDEM WITH ANTI WAR SENTIMENT.

In the sprawling, indeed VAST landscape of American Government, is there anyone ALIVE who has longer, more consistently or more ardently opposed PERPETUAL WAR?

I can't believe you don't remember...

If I had a a hundred bucks for every time I've said that, I'd be a MILLIONAIRE FOR HIGHER TAXES. Not higher taxes CONCEPTUALLY. Not higher taxes PERMANENTLY. "Just" while we HOVER ON THE BRINK OF LOSING WHAT REALLY MATTERS.