Why is Rachel Maddow such a bit%#?

What was interesting was watching Chris Matthews defending Rand Paul. He even said that everyone else is saying the same thing EXCEPT for Rand Paul. People on MSNBC will always trash Rand Paul but to watch one of their main anchors defend him was pretty awesome. I'm sure he will lose his job soon.
 
Maddox said Rand didn't know anything about monetary policy.... Seriously, that's not even rational, and given that his dad is a clear expert on the topic you'd think he would have learned a few things growing up....
 
twomp said:
What was interesting was watching Chris Matthews defending Rand Paul. He even said that everyone else is saying the same thing EXCEPT for Rand Paul. People on MSNBC will always trash Rand Paul but to watch one of their main anchors defend him was pretty awesome. I'm sure he will lose his job soon.
Click to expand...

I missed the start but the only one that was fully anti-Rand was Maddow. Even Sharpton wasn't that anti-Rand (although he always calls him Ron).

Maddow was basically saying Rand is awful at everything and an idiot. The others were moderate (either slightly pro or anti), Mathews was the most pro-Rand.
 
Bryan said:
Maddox said Rand didn't know anything about monetary policy.... Seriously, that's not even rational, and given that his dad is a clear expert on the topic you'd think he would have learned a few things growing up....
Click to expand...

She said he didn't know anything about monetary policy, drone policy or criminal justice reform without going into detail on why she disagrees. She is entering into Bill O'Reilly levels of stupidity. A simple search on google would show all the bills he's attempted to pass and all the writings he's made on those topics. IF she is a semi-intelligent person, she would refute him with facts. Instead she rambles aimlessly like O'Reilly does. Without stating any facts.
 
Her Reddit AMA came right after her coverage of Rand's filibuster, which she treated somewhat dismissively. People called her on it and she made a series of unconvincing excuses.

Does she still pretend to be an independent or whatever? Nick Gillespie never got an answer to the question (on Real Time) as to which Republicans she supported. No respectable liberal -- much less independent -- could still be in the tank for Obama like she seems to be.
 
blG2olJ.jpg
 
She probably won't have a job much longer. MSNBC's ratings are already in the toilets this should push them over the edge into total irrelevancy.
 
orenbus said:
htt p://www.msnbc.com/msnbc-live/watch/kentucky-dems-hand-rand-paul-a-tough-choice-352748099750
Click to expand...

Thanks! I enjoyed that immensely. Some other good videos to choose from as well.

Maddow comes across as having a personal grudge against Paul. It impairs her objectivity and looks rather unprofessional. Matthews comes across as the wise sage in that group. What are we to make of Sharpton's inability to distinguish between "Ron" and "Rand" Paul? The dude with the glasses had a fascinating segment a few weeks back where he compared Rand's finesse of his talking points to that of Ronald Reagan's methodology.
 
Last edited:
Rachel is a real hater and no she will not lose her job. Liberals will tune back to her show they lost the senate. She shines bright when there are republicans in power to bash. Chris Matthew really impressed me in that panel and Al Sharpton was his ignorant self. He said Rand doesn't have any policy proposal for prison reform. Yea, I don't know exactly what his policy is but I have heard him talk about it before. These people are supposed to be experts in politics but they are just partisans
 
God forbid anyone tell Rachel she's wrong about something or disagree with her. I almost enjoyed Chris Matthews when he tried to wipe the smug off her face.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top