MSNBC / Maddow Off The Rails

[kcjohn1]

First Matthews goes Republican talking points on Bernie.

Now Maddows wants us to believe Bernie = Todd Akin. Establishment is going all in the Clinton campaign.

[Kelvin Mace]

1. Huh?

Need more details. That does not sound like Rachel.

[elleng]

15. It's not at all what she's doing.

[Kelvin Mace]

26. Again, specifics please...

[ecstatic]

38. Here is a detailed article from Maddow's blog (and the video):

A “super PAC” founded by the former TD Ameritrade executive Joe Ricketts is spending more than $600,000 on a television ad in Iowa lashing Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont as “too liberal” in the final days of his close race against Hillary Clinton in the state’s caucuses.

This commercial touts Sanders’ support for tuition-free college, single-payer health care, and higher taxes on the “super-rich.” It concludes that the senator is “too liberal,” which isn’t much of an insult in an ad directed towards liberal voters in Iowa.

In other words, we’re talking about a Republican mega-donor investing in a faux attack ad to help Sanders win because he sees Sanders as easy to beat in November.

It’s the mirror image of the tactic Sen. Claire McCaskill (D) used in the 2012 U.S. Senate race in Missouri, when she invested in ads intended to boost then-Rep. Todd Akin (R) in his primary race, with commercials touting his far-right positions and calling him “too conservative.” The point was to make Akin look better in the eyes of Missouri Republicans so he’d win the primary, making it easier for the incumbent Democrat to defeat him on Election Day.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/anti-sanders-attack-ad-isnt-quite-what-it-seems-be

and here is the video ad:

[Kelvin Mace]

43. Ah, thanks

I think the OP is inferring something not there.

[synergie]

80. There seems to be a whole lot of that going on.

[SusanCalvin]

51. That's hilarious!

It's a Bernie ad and, apparently, they don't even know it.

[ecstatic]

55. They do know it? It's a very helpful ad to Bernie that's

pretending to be an attack ad.

[SusanCalvin]

56. Well, another case of misinterpreting/underestimating Bernie.

So apparently they prefer to run against Bernie. Good luck with that.

[Hortensis]

83. We'd be needing the good luck ourselves.

Bernie's great, but he's be dreadfully weak against the Right Wing election machine. Susan, think about it: the better part of $1 BILLION devoted to making people scared that Bernie was just too radical and too rackety. (If that doesn't scare you, it should.)

Fear is a far stronger motivator than hope. That is why the right wing media, including especially Fox, specialize in scaring people right.

[SusanCalvin]

93. I know.

I persist in believing this time will be different. It's sure been different so far. Given the status quo, I'm a big fan of different, and it looks like a lot of other people are as well.

[Hortensis]

96. This time IS different. You're very right so far.

Bernie is proof.

[Metric System]

2. Vroom...vroom...you're next Rachel!

[workinclasszero]

48. Get under the Bernie bus Rachel!!

[DarthDem]

3. ?

Yeah, I doubt this.

TV threads usually need some details and context.

[ProudToBeLiberal]

4. There goes Rachel Maddow under the bus. How predictable. nt

[handmade34]

5. no... not what she is implying...

[elleng]

10. Right.

Thanks.

[RobertEarl]

6. It's a good test

And he sure is getting press, finally. Bring on Trump!!

[farleftlib]

7. Wha?

How does Bernie = Todd Akin?

[elleng]

11. He doesn't,

and she's not suggesting he does.

[farleftlib]

18. Whew.

I can't turn it on right now but I couldn't believe Rachel would go there. Thanks.

[kcjohn1]

17. She spend

First 5 minutes talking about Akin vs McCaskill race, and how she funded ads in favor of Akin, so she can face him in the general election.

She is saying republicans are doing the same thing with $600K ad buy in Iowa basically running fake negative Ads. Implication being that Akin = Sanders are similar bad candidates, and McCaskill is so great for letting us know, and vote Hillary!!! She didn't out right say the last part, but implication being we should listen to Republicans, and vote for Hillary because she is the strongest candidate.

[farleftlib]

21. Aha

Thank you. I couldn't get to a TV so thanks for explaining. That makes sense.

[elias49]

31. THAT makes sense to you? Wha???

[leftynyc]

70. It makes PERFECT sense

and it's exactly where Nader got his money for his run in 2000. From the republicans. I know it pains people here but Bernie would get CREAMED in a general election. I still remember what happened to our last candidate that promised to raise taxes.

[Gothmog]

77. Here is the podcast

[Empowerer]

47. She hasn't implied that at all

In fact, she's saying that the REPUBLICANS are assuming that Sanders = Akin and they're wrong and their tactic is going to fail.

How you get from her commentary that she is saying that Sanders is as bad a candidate as Akin or any of the other bizarre claims you're making is beyond me.

[elleng]

8. No she doesn't,

she's explaining what Iowa repugs are doing.

[Skwmom]

14. If she is trying to argue that the one ad is to help Bernie she is either an idiot or a sellout.

They were pushing the same theme in the Town Hall.

[Motown_Johnny]

16. It is an opinion presented as fact.

There was no qualifier. She would normally say "it appears to me" or "seemingly".

She did not present this story that way.

I like Rachel, but this was bias reporting.

[elleng]

22. This is the untenable opinion:

'First Matthews goes Republican talking points on Bernie.

Now Maddows wants us to believe Bernie = Todd Akin. Establishment is going all in the Clinton campaign.'

[Motown_Johnny]

27. I'm not going there. I was addressing only Rachel's segment.

Now she is showing Bernie saying he wants more debates. It would appear that she is pushing for him to do it even though he is way ahead in New Hampshire and this is much more of a risk for him than for Hillary or Martin.

[kcjohn1]

23. Funny

Similar thing came up on Hayes show. He though brought up the fact these Republicans don't know what the hell they are doing. They have spend like $200M on Rubio/Bush Ads and where is that getting them? This guy running these Ads supported Walker, and he was the first guy out.

Why trust these billionaires in terms of their judgement on what they feel is electable to the general public?

[Motown_Johnny]

30. I didn't see his show, barely got home in time for Rachel

so I won't comment on it.

Sorry.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

50. He was talking to two different people.

First a senior advisor to the Hillary campaign (Joel something-son) who was talking about how she could win. Chris seemed to be laughing at him at the end when he thanked the guy.

Then he talked to Katrina Vanden Heuvel, Editor in Chief of The Nation, and she was schooling him on why Bernie could win and she made the point that he was getting Independents. He brought up the stat that 43% of the Democratic voters polled in Iowa said they were socialists, and she told him that that was not a dirty word. Bernie has aligned himself as a 21st century New Dealer, and that can win.

[Jarqui]

19. Yep, I'll save us some typing:

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/anti-sanders-attack-ad-isnt-quite-what-it-seems-be

[Skwmom]

9. What does she care. She can silence her conscience with her trip to Flint. n/t

[reformist2]

12. I cut the cord on my regular cable months ago. It isn't worth it.

I pay for just the basic-basic service now, called "Broadcast," which about $18 a month, just so I get clear reception of the free channels. Sometimes I think even that isn't worth it.

[Kelvin Mace]

32. I listen to Rachel via her podcast for free.

She is the only corporate media person I listen to.

[VulgarPoet]

69. It's really not.

For leisure watching, I have Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Prime, and Crunchyroll. For political aggregation, I have arsTechnica, this site, HuffPo when they're not huffing Hillary, and CNN. ...Really wish I had a news source that wasn't biased and could reliably deal in nothing but facts.

[LexVegas]

13. Maddow under bus. Lmao. nt

[Fawke Em]

53. Apparently, not.

See, many Bernie fans asked questions and found out that the OP wasn't true before making a knee-jerk post - like you just did.

[Puglover]

71. It's what most of them do.

So terribly clever. Not.

[Snotcicles]

72. If she is it would be because she jumped under it. nt

[synergie]

79. Sure, because whenever the Bernie guys attack people, it's because they've asked for it.

[Snotcicles]

87. No matter how hard you try to make it. What I said wasn't sexist. nt

[Blue_In_AK]

20. My personal feeling is that this Republican trick

may backfire on them.

[SusanCalvin]

94. Ditto. nt

[ecstatic]

24. The republicans are interfering in our election. She is reporting on it.

They're spending millions to help Bernie win Iowa. Should she be silent about obvious rethug shenanigans?

[kcjohn1]

29. Why bring up McCaskill vs Akin election

Unless you believe Akin = Sanders are the same in electablity?

[ecstatic]

33. she ALWAYS sets the scene with a backstory to provide context

She breaks it completely down to people who are new to the topic. But I guess even that's not enough for some people.

[kcjohn1]

42. I understand that

But she spend the whole time gushing over McCaskill. Then told us of her brilliant strategy to basically pick her opponent, and than defeating him by HUGE numbers in a red state.

Now McCaskill who is such a great person, great political instincts, is warning us that Republicans are doing with Bernie what she did to Akin. Republicans want Iowans to vote for Bernie, and we should heed her warning. That is what I got from that segment. Basically 10 minutes of infomercial for the Hillary campaign talking points without any repudiation.

[ecstatic]

45. I think McCaskill is simply warning Iowa voters not to base their decision on

rethug dirty tricks. If someone is already for Bernie fine, but don't let a RW super PAC sway you one way or another.

[kristopher]

64. kc - Your recitation & interpretation are accurate.

[elleng]

57. Got it. Thanks for 'explaining,' ecstatic.

[demwing]

62. care to support that "millions to help Bernie win Iowa" claim? /nt

[ecstatic]

74. Sure:

GOP super PACs and outside groups have already spent about $5 million attacking Hillary Clinton, while they have spent $0 hitting Bernie Sanders, according a Democratic source who tracks media buys.

The only attack ads against Sanders this cycle have come from a super PAC tied to Martin O’Malley, the third candidate in the Democratic race, according to the source.

This week, American Crossroads, the group founded by George W. Bush strategist Karl Rove, released an ad attacking Clinton from the left that echoes many of Sanders’ talking points against her. (They also have more anti-Clinton ads that bring up the email scandal, and attacks Chelsea Clinton) “Ever wonder how Hillary Clinton can afford so many ads? Chances are, they were paid for with Wall Street cash,” the narrator declares. “Hillary Clinton’s gotten 54 times more money from Wall Street interests than from all of Iowa. Hillary rewarded Wall Street with the $700 billion bailout. And Wall Street made her a multi-millionaire.”

It’s part of a larger effort of Republicans to boost Sanders vis a vis Clinton, in an effort to damage the former secretary of state.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/gop-super-pacs-give-bernie-sanders-pass

[elias49]

25. What bull shit.

It's generally good policy to attach a link when you make a controversial comment like you did.
You're new here. Just thought I'd point that out.
Now about the Sanders=Akin crap...what the hell are you talking about?

[CharlotteVale]

28. When she let Cory Booker on her show to absolve himself of defending

Bain Capital in 2012, just because they were friends and went to Stanford together, she also made some comment about how both sides sometimes went too far.

I was frankly stunned and I stopped watching her show after that.

[Kelvin Mace]

35. People aren't perfect

They have their blind spots. She occasionally does stuff I disagree with, but you would be hard pressed to find a better reporter.

[CharlotteVale]

39. That wasn't reporting, that was giving her pal special treatment

after he had just taken a public potshot at Obama during the election in favor of Mitt Romney's company.

Some things I can shrug off but I thought that was downright unethical when I watched it in shock, and I still do.

[Kelvin Mace]

46. I don't disagree,

but again, people have lapses of judgment. Made a few horrible ones myself when I was younger, some that make me cringe to this day.

Just my opinion.

[onecaliberal]

34. Unfortinately she sold her soul to the company. She does what she's told.

[Robbins]

36. she can go to hell

if nbc debate happens she will be just as bad as cuomo.she just dismissed bernie's electabilty and said mcCaskil is right.

glad i cutoff MSM from my viewing.

[wildeyed]

37. Under the bus!

Bye-bye Rachel, it's been real Vroooooooom

[hrmjustin]

40. Someone is off the rails but it is not Maddow!

Try listening next time.

[elleng]

58. :thumbsup:

[NurseJackie]

61. Ha!! :-D (nt)

[jberryhill]

41. IMHO, people read waaaaaaay too much into every fart on TV

She's not "comparing Sanders to Akin" - that's utter bullshit.

She is comparing situations where someone funds advertising on the other side of the fence.

If the GOP thinks Sanders is the "better" candidate for them - i.e. they think Sanders is the worst candidate for the electorate - then you have to bear in mind that the GOP thinks Trump is their best candidate.

[jillan]

44. I changed the channel. I knew the minute she started talking about Hammer & Sickle McCaskill

what her first segment was going to be about. But I kept watching in hopes I was wrong, afterall it's Rachel.

But she went there.

[Robbins]

49. what she did

was say dems should pick clinton and not bernie because the establishment says republicans want to run against bernie.

she is just as corporate as anyone on MSNBC who claims to be progressive.and no ally of prrogressives.

[mythology]

52. Somehow I suspect I'm going to hear something very different when I listen to the podcast

[Hekate]

54. You don't seem to have an iota of context for this bizarre statement

[BlueStateLib]

59. “dog whistle” ad

Using the guidance of my campaign staff and consultants, we came up with the idea for a “dog whistle” ad, a message that was pitched in such a way that it would be heard only by a certain group of people. I told my team we needed to put Akin’s uber-conservative bona fides in an ad—and then, using reverse psychology, tell voters not to vote for him. And we needed to run the hell out of that ad.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/08/todd-akin-missouri-claire-mccaskill-2012-121262#ixzz3yQHziH5I

[Betty Karlson]

60. She's merely describing what a pro-Clinton attack ad says.

She's not suggesting she or anyone working for MSNBC agrees with the message in that stupid, over-the-top, lying ad.

[kristopher]

65. That isn't accurate at all.

It is exactly as kc described.
The facts that:
the ad is so obviously a dogwhistle and;
that the person so proud of using it in her campaign (McCaskill) also happens to be the person trying to use it to make Bernie look weak and;
that same person has been Clinton's lead attack dog going after Bernie just strongly suggests that this is another of Clinton's famous dirty tricks.

As for Rachel, after years of trying and failing to get an interview with clinton (since 2007 campaign) she has recently had 4 IIRC.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1074384

[Vinca]

63. Wow - did you miss the point on that part of the show!

[riversedge]

66. Did you know that Sanders advisor said that Sanders was part of the Establishment......

From your OP
.............Now Maddows wants us to believe Bernie = Todd Akin. Establishment is going all in the Clinton campaign.................

BTW--the OP makes you look foolish.

[NurseJackie]

67. Well said!

[DrDan]

68. wow - I watched it and you are miles off-base

geez louise

[riversedge]

73. I think the Sanders fans have a contest to see who wins the most foolish post each hour?

Last edited Wed Jan 27, 2016, 03:30 PM - Edit history (1)

[NurseJackie]

85. Ha!! :-D

I'll say nothing more because... well... I'm sure you know why. (But I assure you that the things that I'd originally typed were very amusing. You'll have to use your imagination.)



Note to Jury: Whatever reason was given for alerting on this post, I assure you that it's all in their imagination. Although I did invite readers to use their imagination, I didn't actually post anything that is alert-worthy.

[riversedge]

89. Chuckle. and I do wonder who has the most ponies so far (a few handles come to mind-but

like you, I will say no more.

Take care

[olddots]

75. MSNBC and CNN

sell alot of anti depression meds = this shit isn't news and these talking heads are not ,have never been or will ever be our compraitriots .

[Gothmog]

76. Anti-Sanders attack ad isn’t quite what it seems to be

This so-called attack ad is really an ad designed to help Sanders. The fact that the Sanders supporters think that this is an attack ad and do not realize that the purpose of this ad is to help Sanders is amusing http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/anti-sanders-attack-ad-isnt-quite-what-it-seems-be

Republicans have made no secret of the fact that they’d prefer to run against Bernie Sanders in the general election. Whether or not their assumptions are correct is a separate question, but GOP officials, convinced that the senator would be easy to defeat, have gone out of their way to help Sanders in the Democratic race.....

At first blush, the move may seem encouraging to Sanders supporters. After all, if Republicans have gone from defending Sanders to attacking him, maybe it means GOP insiders are getting scared of the Vermont independent?

It’s a nice idea, but that’s not what’s going on here. In fact, far from an attack ad, this commercial, backed by a prominent Republican mega-donor, is the latest evidence of the GOP trying to help Sanders, not hurt him.

Indeed, in this case, it’s hardly even subtle. This commercial touts Sanders’ support for tuition-free college, single-payer health care, and higher taxes on the “super-rich.” It concludes that the senator is “too liberal,” which isn’t much of an insult in an ad directed towards liberal voters in Iowa.

In other words, we’re talking about a Republican mega-donor investing in a faux attack ad to help Sanders win because he sees Sanders as easy to beat in November.

It’s the mirror image of the tactic Sen. Claire McCaskill (D) used in the 2012 U.S. Senate race in Missouri, when she invested in ads intended to boost then-Rep. Todd Akin (R) in his primary race, with commercials touting his far-right positions and calling him “too conservative.” The point was to make Akin look better in the eyes of Missouri Republicans so he’d win the primary, making it easier for the incumbent Democrat to defeat him on Election Day.

This ad is just another example of the GOP trying to help Sanders become the nominee because the GOP knows that Sanders is the weaker candidate.

[synergie]

78. That's not what she said, and they've been going full GOP talking points on Hillary for months.

[Ferd Berfel]

81. Maddow is trying to keep her job just like Tweety and the rest

MSNBC is in transition now to fully right wing.

[Mike Nelson]

82. I think she was just being...

...informative about this Republican ad.

[stopbush]

84. This OP is a perfect example of the delusion that has seized many of Bernie's

DU supporters.

Everybody is not against you!

[DrDan]

88. isn't that the truth - paranoia run amok

[NCTraveler]

86. Some people are a little trigger happy with respect to wanting to unleash attacks and anger.

Maddow has not done what you describe.

Anger is debilitating.

[mr_liberal]

90. Heres the Maddow show video

?t=6m28s

People can decide for themselves.

But its clearly an attempt by Republicans to help Sanders win the Iowa Caucus because they think he would be easier to beat in the general election.

Sanders = Akin is correct.

[cry baby]

91. One would have to have a pretty big chip

on their shoulder to believe that she is in the Hillary camp by watching this story on her show.

Over the last couple of months she has covered Bernie very favorably.

Have you watched her shows? Are you able to put this story in context? Obviously not.

[Gothmog]

92. Hillary Clinton attacks Todd Ricketts' super PAC over Sanders ad

This is an ad designed to help Sanders. Conservatives and the GOP do not fear sanders and want him to be the nominee and these same conservatives are scared of Clinton http://chicago.suntimes.com/news/7/71/1283025/hillary-clinton-attacks-todd-ricketts-super-pac-sanders-ad

“And then just the other day, another billionaire, called Joe Ricketts puts up an ad to try to really muddy the waters to confuse Democrats about who has the toughest, most comprehensive plan,” Clinton said, referring to her Wall Street reform plans.

“I got to tell you. I do find this perversely flattering. But I also find it very instructive. Because if they weren’t afraid of me, they would be just sitting back just hoping I would get nominated. … They know me. They know I say what I mean. I mean to do what I say.”

“And I will never let them do what they did to us before. So they are trying to stop me before I get too far. Well, a lot of folks have tried to take me out before. And I am still standing.”

A Clinton spokesman, Nick Merrill, said after the event the Sanders assault was “sleight of hand” and its real intent was to “fire up his base.”

I am amused that Sanders supporters think that the conservatives are worried about Sanders being the nominee

[Gothmog]

95. Republicans Take Their Sanders Advocacy to the Next Level

This ad was designed to support Sanders just as McCaskill's ads against Todd Akin were designed to do http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-01-28/republicans-take-their-sanders-advocacy-to-the-next-level

Add Republican operatives to the list of strong Bernie Sanders supporters in the Democratic primary, along with progressive activists and young voters.

A super-PAC founded by Republican billionaire Joe Ricketts is making its first foray into the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, spending $600,000 on a television ad in Iowa calling Sanders "too liberal," according to The New York Times.

The ad then spotlights two of the policies that have helped fuel his rise in the Democratic primary—his calls for "completely free" college education and more taxes on Wall Street and the "super-rich."

"It's exactly the same thing we did with Todd Akin," said Caitlin Legacki, who served as communications director to Democratic Senator Claire McCaskill's during her successful campaign in 2012. "They're clearly trying to use the exact same playbook."

Four years ago, McCaskill spent nearly $1 million in TV ads calling Akin "too conservative" in an effort to promote him, rather than his two opponents. He won the primary, then McCaskill trounced him on Election Day.

"More than anything that should be a concern for Democrats, because you don't make those kinds of investments in support of a candidate from another party unless you believe there's a good reason for it," Legacki added.