CK_John
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Nov-07-08 10:49 AM
Original message |
Why all the Rachel Maddow madness (as an employee of GE) she is just doing her job. She is tied to |
|
a troubled corp that is in panic mode, as all major corps are, she read the memo. Layoffs coming, 401k contribution cutting, be a good GE'er or start floating your resume. She is in survival mode, that's all.
|
Armstead
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Nov-07-08 10:52 AM
Response to Original message |
1. That's bunk. Maddow is far from being a corporate stooge. |
|
Edited on Fri Nov-07-08 10:53 AM by Armstead
I don't know why Progressive Intellectual Honesty is so repugnant to so many on our side of the spectrum these days.
Maddow is simply voicing the same concerns that many progressives have about whether Obama will represent a true fresh start, or simply a replay of the more conservative aspects of DLC Clintonism, which is not all that different from Republican conservatism on many issues.
|
TornadoTN
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Nov-07-08 11:03 AM
Original message |
Maybe she needs to actually let him get into office first |
|
Let me clarify - I like Maddow, but she's doing herself no favors by playing "Chicken Little" 24/7.
I don't have a problem with questioning Obama's governance if he starts doing things that are contrary to our values, however, he hasn't even taken office yet and his picks for cabinet offices are far from decided. Her "concern trolling" is out of place because she has nothing to base her "concern" on.
|
Armstead
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Nov-07-08 11:10 AM
Response to Original message |
9. I believe the questions and pressure need to start early |
|
It's going to be real tempting for Obama to fall back on the same "wise men" who helped to repeal deregulation and encourage mega-mergers, bad trade deals and other fundamental problems that helped pave the way for W and the debacle that have led us to this sorry point.
So rather than wait until we're set on a course backward based on an illusion, those who ARE "concerned" need to be voicing concerns now, in the formative stages.
|
theboss
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Nov-07-08 10:55 AM
Response to Original message |
2. Clinton's DLC centrist positions gave us 8 years of prosperity |
|
I'm still puzzled as to why a move in that general direction is a bad thing.
Democrats are now the party of fiscal responsibility. Balanced budgets and the like.
Clinton's policies with a tempering of Clinton's desire to sell out on trade is a good thing.
|
justiceischeap
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Nov-07-08 11:01 AM
Response to Reply #2 |
4. I for one don't think it's a bad thing to look at models that ACTUALLY work |
|
Edited on Fri Nov-07-08 11:01 AM by thecorrection
And go in that direction initially to help our struggling economy.
Of course, we could encourage Obama to do something completely new and untested and if it fails, he's a lame duck President and doesn't get re-elected. But hey, as long as the DLC is out of the picture that's all that matters. :sarcasm:
|
theboss
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Nov-07-08 11:03 AM
Response to Reply #4 |
5. Here is what succesful Dems seem to understand: you need prosperity to build a safety net |
|
Obama has made some big promises over the last two years. And - unlike George W. Bush - he believes in paying for his promises.
So, he needs a booming economy.
|
Armstead
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Nov-07-08 11:13 AM
Response to Reply #2 |
11. Because that direction helped bring us to this point |
|
Deregulation, bad trade policies, rotten healthcare did not start with W.
They were the extensions of the darker side of those policies, which in the 90's created an illusion that glossed over underlying trends that were already hollowing out the middle class and the domestic economy, and helping to bolster the political power of the Corporate Oligarchs.
|
theboss
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Nov-07-08 11:27 AM
Response to Reply #11 |
18. These policies have been in place since 1960 |
|
The two biggest issue with Clinton's policies were his deregulation of the financial markets and the trade policies that put no requirements on trade partners regarding labor and environmental standards. I believe Obama recognizes that.
But Obama is certainly not going to go back to a 70 percent top tax rate. He sees the value of middle class tax cuts. He knows the importance of a vibrant investment class. He knows the drag that budget deficits put on the economy. He knows the importance of free trade in general. He knows the destructive powers of inflation.
|
OwnedByFerrets
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Nov-07-08 11:25 AM
Response to Reply #2 |
16. Im glad you added your last line. |
Beacool
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Nov-07-08 11:25 AM
Response to Reply #2 |
17. Shhh, why confuse them with the facts. |
|
Many spent so many months throwing the Clintons under the bus that they forget how great the economy was during his tenure. We should be lucky to have a Clinton third term.
|
theboss
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Nov-07-08 11:29 AM
Response to Reply #17 |
20. I want a Clinton-ish thrid term |
|
I don't want any of the BS soap opera stuff. I don't want the complete and total selling out to Wall Street.
But policies that are more Clinton than Bush are certainly in order.
We arent' getting FDR's policies, folks.
|
Beacool
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Nov-07-08 11:31 AM
Response to Reply #20 |
21. I was referring to the economy and not the other BS |
|
that marred his presidency, some of his own doing, but the majority caused by the Republicans.
|
NorthCarolina
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Nov-07-08 12:01 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
28. Screw the DLC, I voted for CHANGE n/t |
theboss
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Nov-07-08 12:10 PM
Response to Reply #28 |
|
You can either go for LBJ liberalism. Or Clinton liberalism (which is essentially what Obama ran on). Or a splitting of the difference. Or, you know, Reagan conservatism.
Obama didn't run on a radical platform.
|
Hamlette
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Nov-07-08 11:00 AM
Response to Original message |
3. oh stop. Just TRY to look at the facts before you blame some boogey man for your theories |
|
her numbers are kicking butt which MSNBC has never done before. Her job is NOT in jeopardy.
|
Hieronymus
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Nov-07-08 11:09 AM
Response to Reply #3 |
7. You bet ... she rates number two behind Keith. O'Reilly is three. Those |
|
who find fault with her are the real Chicken Littles.
|
CK_John
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Nov-07-08 11:17 AM
Response to Reply #3 |
12. Every job is at risk. n/t |
Ichingcarpenter
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Nov-07-08 11:07 AM
Response to Original message |
6. 'She is in survival mode, that's all.' .... yeah MSNBC doesn't like hit ratings |
ellacott
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Nov-07-08 11:10 AM
Response to Original message |
8. She can be a little too whiny at times |
|
It's gets frustrating for me and I change the channel. When she had a NY congresswoman on to talk about the latest drilling bill that was passed she didn't let the woman speak. She didn't talk Rachel down because kept whining.
Randi had the woman on the next day and she explained what's in the bill and why they voted for it.
I don't see Keith doing as much whining and his show is popular.
|
Hieronymus
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Nov-07-08 11:20 AM
Response to Reply #8 |
14. LOL, Randi isn't in the same league as Keith and Rachel. |
|
Edited on Fri Nov-07-08 11:21 AM by Hieronymus
|
ellacott
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Nov-07-08 11:22 AM
Response to Reply #14 |
15. Well, Rachel got outdone by a minor leaguer |
|
because Randi was able to allow the woman to explain the bill in a way that Rachel couldn't.
|
Hieronymus
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Nov-07-08 11:27 AM
Response to Reply #15 |
19. That is rare, indeed. Randi isn't known for letting anyone speak uninterrupted. |
ellacott
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Nov-07-08 11:33 AM
Response to Reply #19 |
22. That is very true, that does bother me a lot about Randi |
|
This time she let the congresswoman speak.
|
Turn CO Blue
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Nov-07-08 12:06 PM
Response to Reply #8 |
29. Randi has a ways to go. |
|
I won't listen to her. When Rhandi can present herself in a more sophisticated manner, without yelling over and interrupting every guest, then I'll give her a second chance. Bluster is bluster, regardless if it's Rhodes or Hannity or O'Reilly.
|
soleft
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Nov-07-08 11:11 AM
Response to Original message |
10. People haven't been paying attention to what she's been saying all along |
|
Edited on Fri Nov-07-08 11:12 AM by soleft
1. Yeah, she's happy Obama won - but she's not crazy about alot of his positions, she's particularly concerned about his plans for Afghaniston - so expect to hear a lot of critiques there. Especially since she's writing a book about the use of the military to achieve our global objectives.
2. Back in June when the pundits were accusing Obama of shifting to the center for the general election, she was outspoken telling them Obama has always been in the center. In fact, I think that was the topic that sent poor Joe Scarborough throwing off his mike and running off the set.
Apparently people on DU just aren't capable of holding two thoughts in their brain at the same time. Yes, it's great Obama won. We must remain vigilant in examing and questioning our leaders.
|
ellacott
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Nov-07-08 11:19 AM
Response to Reply #10 |
13. You made good points until the end |
|
I'm aware of her feelings regarding Afghanistan. When Joe threw off his mike it was about whether Obama had flip flopped on his position on withdrawing the troops within 16 months. Rachel was trying to tell him that Obama's position has been consistent and was trying to give examples.
There is a difference between having a legitimate policy debate and being a pessimist.
Rachel has admitted that this is a part of her personality. She says she's a glass half empty person.
It has nothing to do with us being incapable of holding two thoughts in our brain at the same time.
|
soleft
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Nov-07-08 11:50 AM
Response to Reply #13 |
25. How about two emotions at the same time? |
ellacott
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Nov-07-08 11:56 AM
Response to Reply #25 |
gravity
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Nov-07-08 11:40 AM
Response to Original message |
23. GE is one of the best ran corps in the country |
|
They don't have an agenda with Rachel Maddow, other than that she brings in the ratings.
|
jonnyblitz
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Nov-07-08 11:44 AM
Response to Original message |
24. People here want MSNBC to be a DEM version of FAUX News |
|
and they get pissed when anybody deviates from that script.
|
high density
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Nov-07-08 11:54 AM
Response to Original message |
26. I'm not a big fan of her |
|
But your analysis is way off. Her show is bringing in great viewership for the network. Layoffs hit the people behind the scenes, not the talent in front of the cameras.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Fri Jun 21st 2024, 10:40 AM
Response to Original message |