Skip to content

A Spoonful of Saccharine: Maddow’s Continued Blindness to Irony, Hamsher’s Continued Inability to Let the Past Go

November 4, 2009

blog 11-4

Last night’s special live post-election Rachel Maddow show was about as one would expect: Maddow and her guests touched briefly on the election results, and then jumped right into the pre-arranged leftist talking points. You know the ones: this election in no way reflects on Barack Obama. This election is not a precursor to 2010. This election shows that conservatives are only interested in extremist candidates. The election has no bearing on the health-care bill, which must move forward as fast as possible. Never mind that the winner in New Jersey, Governor-Elect Chris Christie, is very moderate. Never mind that though Doug Hoffman lost his election to Bill Owens who ran against Obamacare and was the only Democrat of the night not endorsed and stumped for by President Obama. It was all by-the-book leftist spin on display, and about what we expected given the results last night.

But on a night when the news focused on newly-elected officials, Maddow found time to invite on Jane “Blackface is Still Funny, Really” Hamsher to attack her long-time nemesis Senator Joe Lieberman in an amusingly ironic fashion.

Hamsher, a blogger at and far-left activist, is of course most known for watching “her” attempt to primary Lieberman succeed, only to watch Lieberman trounce her candidate of choice in the general election. On a program where Maddow runs a repeating segment amusingly-if-inaccurately titled “Fringe and Purge” about how Republicans are kicking out all of the moderates, it is a bit humorous to see her and Hamsher continue to go after a man who they actually and successfully purged from the Democratic party for having one policy difference with the platform. Lieberman, of course, still caucuses with the Dems and is a fairly reliable D vote in the Senate.

Lieberman is in the spotlight now for his potential-possibly-maybe opposition to Obamacare. And in attacking his position, Hamsher makes an analogy that is altogether very apt–just not in the way she thinks. Hamsher had this to say of the Senator from Connecticut:

“He‘s the Carrie Prejean of the Senate.”


Carrie Prejean--more like a certain Senator from Connecticut than you'd think.

Carrie Prejean. That would be the Miss USA contestant whom the leftist establishment and the media demonized, ridiculed, and mocked for daring to think differently than the leftist groupthink that all beauty pageant contestants are apparently now required to follow. She eventually lost even her Miss California USA title for her views, under a flimsy pretext.

So maybe Lieberman is like Prejean. Lieberman took a principled stand — that the war in Iraq was justified — and he suffered the consequences for it. He did not lose his job, however, since the constituents of Connecticut are far saner than the Hamsher wing of the Democratic party.

Make no mistake about it: there is a systematic movement in America for one political party to purge any members who show even the slightest ideological deviation. But it’s not who Maddow and Hamsher would have you think.


Raise your hand if you weren't ideologically pure enough for the Democrats!

It’s a strange Democratic party indeed that has no room for Lieberman, who voted 91.3% of the time with his party. It’s strange that Maddow considers a party where activists like Hamsher can threaten (and if past is prologue, succeed) to primary Senators like Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas who voted with their party 75% and 88% of the time, respectively, the party of “inclusion.”

None of this is in and of itself “wrong”– the Democratic party is free to shift its membership as far left as it wants. Dem voters are free to vote for the furthest left candidate they can in any and all primaries, if they so wish.

No, the sad thing is that Maddow cannot see the irony in hosting a segment where she actively hopes that the Republican party becomes more extreme (even as it demonstrably is not) because she believes that it will lead to electoral ruin for them, while at the same time very vocally cheering her party of choice to do that very thing.

Perhaps we can’t blame Maddow for wanting to exist in some alternate reality where these positions make logical sense. After all, it must be tough to have bought into the idea that Obama’s election ushered in a permanent leftist majority in this country. Surely, after The One was elected, a newly-leftist electorate wouldn’t hesitate to send more and more radical-left politicians to Washington. And then, only a year later to have that belief so quickly and publicly snuffed? It must be traumatizing.

Perhaps a little congitive dissonance, a little repression, is just her way of coping. If so, we wish her a speedy recovery. After all, we may wholeheartedly disagree with her politics but we don’t wish her actual mental harm.

  1. November 4, 2009 2:40 pm

    Gee…. maybe Racheal and co. were right, since the election was for electing state officials, and nowhere on any of the ballots was the question “Do you like the President? Yes/No.

  2. Michael van der Galien permalink
    November 4, 2009 3:30 pm

    rwheflin: that question isn’t asked, no, but when people go to the voting booths, they are always influenced by what the ones in power are currently doing. Both statewide and nationwide. Polls show that Obama did have an influence – a negative one. 18% said afterwards he influenced them positively, 24% said negatively. That’s a net difference of 6%.

  3. November 4, 2009 6:25 pm

    So that means 66% of Va. voters looked only for the best man for the job. Since you did not qoute the numbers from N.J. anad I remember them only vaguely, I can only say that some 70+% of the voter is N.J. were only concerned with finding the best man to be the governor of their state. Seems like the White House was not their concern as I said.

    • In the Know permalink
      November 5, 2009 7:54 am

      I agree, Obama had nothing to do with those elections. Just like he has nothing to do with this economy, the auto company take overs, The attempted healthcare takeover, the aide to Hamas, the apology tour. It was all GEORGE W. BUSH!

      *this comment has been brought to you in the spirit of “A Modest Proposal”.

  4. Margo permalink
    November 6, 2009 12:49 pm

    The current economic disaster is the direct result of the Bush admin. The working poor, should get health care, especially since the insurance industry had a 400% increase in revenues in the Bush admin.
    Don’t like Maddow, I do not care, but get rid of the absurd notion that Bush was a good president;he was horrible.

  5. Charlie permalink
    November 12, 2009 9:48 am

    Back in November 2001, were you folks proclaiming that the loss of Republican control in the New Jersey and Virginia governor’s races to Democrats was a glaring indictment against the Bush Administration?

    What happened last week was nothing more than an ongoing electoral trend that has been taking place for the past 20 years in New Jersey, and the past 32 years in Virginia.

    Republican wins the White House – VA and NJ elect Democrats as governors the next year.

    Democrat in the White House – VA and NJ elect Republicans as governors the next year.

    In both states, exit polls showed that the voters had an overall positive view of the Obama Administration. This was state politics in which it was a bad deal to be in the incumbent party. As has been the case for the past two decades in these two states.

    Nothing to see here, just as there was nothing to see in the Democrats’ victories in the 2001 VA and NJ governor’s races.

    What is different however is that a Democrat won NY-23 for the first time since the Civil War, thank to the teabagging meddling of Sarah Palin and friends. Thanks for handing that seat to the good guys.

Comments are closed.