Patterico's Pontifications

2/1/2017

Rachel Maddow’s Opinion of Neil Gorsuch Just Might Surprise You

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 12:30 pm



Usually when I write a clickbait headline like that, it’s ironic. You know: you just might be surprised to learn that this radical leftist has a bunch of predictable pre-fabricated nonsense opinions!!! But no irony today. Maddow actually acknowledges that Judge Gorsuch is a “mainstream” pick:

The choice of Judge Gorsuch is a relatively mainstream choice that you might expect from any Republican president.

Wow.

Short clips like this taken out of context always concern me, so I sought out the entire show on YouTube. Maddow makes the comment at about 27:48, in the context of complaining about the treatment of Obama’s nominee Merrick Garland. There is no hidden “but Gorsuch is really awful!” comment in her quote that is excised by the clip above.

Earlier in the show, Maddow has lefty Dahlia Lithwick on, who says similar things:

This is not a bomb-thrower. . . This is an incredibly solid, respectable, conventional pick that anyone would have made.

Don’t let these comments worry you, by the way. The fact that Gorsuch is not a scary bomb-thrower, and that the left can’t lay a glove on him, does not mean he’s going to be weak. Remember: Justice Scalia was approved unanimously by the Senate. Non-controversial does not mean bad. Gorsuch is excellent and will be a fantastic Justice.

[Cross-posted at RedState and The Jury Talks Back.]

60 Responses to “Rachel Maddow’s Opinion of Neil Gorsuch Just Might Surprise You”

  1. the comments are very worrisome

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  2. Did Trump have to fire someone over an EO having to do with immigration??

    What was that all about again?

    LOL.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  3. Blurb writers touting “fabulous” reviews for movies that are actually panned by critics are the masters at this kind of “selective” editing.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  4. I honestly doubt if that is her own opinion. But Maddow (and Lithwick) have obviously been told by someone high in the Dem leadership to spread that calming narrative–that salve– to prepare her listeners on the left for the inevitability of the confirmation going through with a few Dem votes to prevent McConnell from having to go nuclear.

    This is quite telling and very good news.

    elissa (d39ea9)

  5. OK, who kidnapped Maddow and how did they substitute someone to take her place? I smell a rat.

    Elissa, you may well be right. The word has gone out that this one is going to be approved. Perhaps sanity is beginning to raise it’s head in the Democrat Party…Nah, I smell a rat. They have something up their sleeves besides a rotten fish.

    Bill M (906260)

  6. Would someone please get Mephistopheles on the speed dial?
    I’d like to know if Hell froze over…

    Evan3457 (9783e9)

  7. “I honestly doubt if that is her own opinion. But Maddow (and Lithwick) have obviously been told by someone high in the Dem leadership to spread that calming narrative…”

    – elissa

    Not exactly the Occam’s Razor approach, there…

    Leviticus (efada1)

  8. And you will know the enemy by who filibusters him.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  9. OMG President Trump says ‘go nuclear’ and drop that bomb!

    Relax, he means the Senate. Not Iran.

    Or does he?

    Sleep well.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  10. This would be interesting if I actually gave a damn about what that cow thought about anything. And I mean anything.

    Rev. Hoagie® (785e38)

  11. Pundits can be so… entertaining.

    “Because you’re on television, dummy.” — Arthur Jensen [Ned Beatty] ‘Network’ 1976

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  12. Well, NBC was talking about “becoming the next Fox News.” Maybe someone pointed out some fine print in Maddow’s contract.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  13. @12. “Hennnn Beeee Seeee, proud as a peacock!”

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  14. “Mainstream” means he’s with Anthony Kennedy on gay issues. Not surprising. So is Trump.

    nk (dbc370)

  15. Arthur Jensen [Ned Beatty] ‘Network’ 1976

    So, if Trump is “Howard Beale”, does that make Maddow’s show the “Mao Tse Tung Hour”?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CuqvlMxfGA4

    (This may be the best single scene from the movie)

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  16. “Mainstream” means he’s with Anthony Kennedy on gay issues.

    No, it means he accepts Roe/Casey as settled law.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  17. “Mainstream” means he’s with Anthony Kennedy on gay issues. Not surprising. So is Trump.
    nk (dbc370) — 2/1/2017 @ 2:55 pm

    No, it means he accepts Roe/Casey as settled law.
    Kevin M (25bbee) — 2/1/2017 @ 2:57 pm

    Silence! Let us hear from Sammy.

    felipe (023cc9)

  18. Trump’s T-Rex confirmed as Secretary of State, 53/46!

    “Now let us take the oath of allegiance.” – ‘Moscow On The Hudson’ – 1984

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  19. L.,
    D.C. Politics is, in general, not Occam’s Razor territory. It is all game theory. There’re always strategies, intrigue and chess games going on behind the scenes there. Clearly media is a part of this and employed/used regularly for narrative pushing and message enhancement by all sides, as proven from leaked DNC emails.

    Game theory is the study of human conflict and cooperation within a competitive situation. In some respects, game theory is the science of strategy, or at least the optimal decision-making of independent and competing actors in a strategic setting.

    Game theory creates a language and formal structure of analysis for making logical decisions in competitive environments. The term “game” can be misleading. Even though game theory applies to recreational games, the concept of “game” simply means any interactive situation in which independent actors share more-or-less formal rules and consequences.
    The formal application of game theory requires knowledge of the following details: the identity of independent actors, their preferences, what they know, which strategic acts they are allowed to make, and how each decision influences the outcome of the game.

    Game theory has a wide range of applications, including psychology, evolutionary biology, war, politics, economics and business.

    The Supreme Court nomination decision itself, the announcement, the necessary uproar, and the dance steps to certain confirmation (while both sides are also looking ahead to the next high court vacancy) is game theory at its finest.

    elissa (d39ea9)

  20. Very well said, elissa.

    felipe (023cc9)

  21. Game theory and Occam’s Razor are not incompatible. As you acknowledge, game theory requires data regarding “the identity of independent actors, their preferences, what they know, which strategic acts they are allowed to make, and how each decision influences the outcome of the game.”

    Occam’s Razor is about assumptions – such as your assumption that Rachel Maddow and Dahlia Lithwick take their orders from “someone high in the Dem leadership.”

    Leviticus (efada1)

  22. Patterico put “‘mainstream’ pick” right above Madcow’s sneer on my computer. The first time I read it, it was as “mainstream prick”.

    nk (dbc370)

  23. Yes, L. on this particular issue we are discussing that is my firm opinion–that they are helping their side on something that needs to be helped to make it palatable to their regular lefty listeners and readers. They are saying something that Schumer and Durbin (for instance) cannot publicly say. I am not faulting them in the least. I think it is part of the game. You apparently don’t, and you have every right to see it as you do.

    elissa (d39ea9)

  24. Fair enough, I guess.

    Leviticus (efada1)

  25. Greetings:

    Me, I’m thinking that that’s about the most pencilly neck I’ve ever seen. How’s she ever going to pass for a grown man with a neck like that ???

    11B40 (6abb5c)

  26. @Leviticus:such as your assumption that Rachel Maddow and Dahlia Lithwick take their orders from “someone high in the Dem leadership.”

    Occam’s Razor, to me, suggests that they get their “orders” from the same place the high Dem leadership does: what’s trending with journalists and SJWs on Twitter.

    Not a chain of command, more of a hive mind.

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  27. woman, n.

    1. the female human being, as distinguished from a girl or a man.
    2. an adult female person.
    3. a female attendant to a lady of rank.
    4. a wife.
    5. the nature, characteristics, or feelings often attributed to women; womanliness.
    6. a sweetheart or paramour; mistress.
    7. a female employee or representative

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  28. If I’m not mistaken, the host has selectively edited their comments in such a way as to make them appear to say the opposite of what they really believe. I think if you watch the whole video on YouTube or at MSNBC.Com, you’ll likely see that just before Madcow makes the remarks in the clip, she says “You know GOP Senators are going to claim …..” and then the clip starts where patrick starts it.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  29. @29. Occasionally ideologues only see what they want to.

    “Blinded By The Light” – Bruce Springsteen, ‘Greetings From Asbury Park N.J.’ 1973

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  30. Interesting and very funny:

    An LA Federal Court judge — appointed by Obama and formerly the US Attorney for the LA (Central) District, has issued the most sweeping TRO yet.

    He has ordered that DHS NOT block 27 Yemeni nationals who currenlty hold valid visas, from traveling to the US from Yemen.

    They have not departed, and have not attempted to depart.

    More significantly, his order states that DHS shall not block ANY traveler attempting to travel to the US from one of the 7 countries if that traveler has a valid visa for such travel.

    He did this based on one-sided briefing, as his order sets a briefing schedule for the gov’t to file its response.

    He set the hearing for 9 days out — Feb. 10.

    So, this one judge in LA is purporting to set aside the entire EO for 9 days until he’s ready to rule on the application for a Prelim. Injunction.

    I met Andre Birotte when we were both young AUSAs in the early 1990s.

    He went on to serve 9 years for the Los Angeles Police Commission’s investigative staff.

    Andre Birotte is not a legal scholar. His appointment as US Attorney was widely derided as a joke among people in that office.

    I expect the 9th Cir. will reverse him and vacate this order with the speed of light.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  31. I should have noted in 29 that he did it as a chuckle — he’s not intending to seriously mislead anyone about the true positions of Madcow and Lithwick. They are rabidly against Gorsuch — Madcow was all agitated over his opinion in Hobby Lobby on her show last night.

    He’s just showing that with the magic of editing, you can make even the harshest critics sound like they say the opposite of what they believe — which everyone should always keep in the back of their mind when watching edited video.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  32. @29. Occasionally ideologues only see what they want to.

    So do people who can’t be bothered to read past the first paragraph of the post, even though Patterico anticipated their demurer:

    Short clips like this taken out of context always concern me, so I sought out the entire show on YouTube. Maddow makes the comment at about 27:48, in the context of complaining about the treatment of Obama’s nominee Merrick Garland. There is no hidden “but Gorsuch is really awful!” comment in her quote that is excised by the clip above.

    nk (dbc370)

  33. There’s no irony, not on Patterico’s part anyway. Madcow actually says what he says she says.

    nk (dbc370)

  34. @15. This may be the single best scene from the movie.

    No.

    This is:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuBe93FMiJc

    (Because it’s truer than anyone wants to believe.)

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  35. You needed to watch her entire show.

    Basically her point was that Trump didn’t do something crazy, but did what might have been done by Rubio, Cruz, Jeb, or one of the others.

    But a “mainstream judge from a GOP President” is still a demon who must be resisted with every fiber of her body.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  36. She had Merkeley on the same show to explain how he was going to mount a filibuster to kill the nomination, and she was all for it.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  37. Yeah,nk, shipwreckedcrew made an oopsie in haste this time, but that’s OK. Just proves he’s human.

    elissa (d39ea9)

  38. @36/37. Correct.

    I did last evening. Her POV was clear.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  39. Plus she had kittens with the footage of mother gorsuch, who wasn’t given the leeway with govt records afforded with red quuen

    narciso (d1f714)

  40. My comment was directed to DCSCA. More precisely, to his Snark which is often a Boojum.

    nk (dbc370)

  41. And I respect Madcow’s opinion about as much as I respect the mooing of any other mad cow.

    nk (dbc370)

  42. @40. Yep. That ‘set a patch of the ocean aflame’ to burn trash was a bemusing concept in retrospect. Brought to mind the braintrust who wanted to set a nuke off on the moon to ‘impress the neighbors’ back in Ike’s era.

    “Smoke On The Water” – Deep Purple, 1972

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  43. @41.=yawn= Context. If you gotta explain w/qualifiers, you’re trying to pitch a point the hard way. Only a fool embraces punditry beyond what it is: entertainment.

    ” Hey boys and girls, let’s hear from the Peanut Gallery!”– Howdy Doody

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  44. =yawn= Whatevs.

    nk (dbc370)

  45. OK. I think we are all pretty much in agreement that Maddow and Dahlia Lithwick are inveterate far lefties through and through. Of course, they have to play to their base. Of course, neither were advocating for Gorsuch or praising him. But their usual hysteria was suspiciously muted on this, in my opinion. I may be wrong.

    elissa (7a863c)

  46. @46. Pundits don’t really matter. This is going to be a game between Schumer and McConnell and a battle over whether to go nuclear.

    “The convicts will know violence. But the file clerks will know organization. Who do you think’ll win?” – Prof. Groeteschele [Walter Matthau] ‘Fail-Safe’ 1964

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  47. DCSCA @ 5:43 pm- I tried to address this @4 and @19. YMMV. And as others have said– “whatevs”.

    elissa (7a863c)

  48. But… but… I thought Trump had sent Madcow to a camp. A camp for clowns.

    Colonel Haiku (20de56)

  49. I remember that when John Roberts was nominated to the high court, liberal lawyers whom I knew were expressing relief that at least Bush didn’t nominate someone like J. Michael Luttig.

    This is not encouraging.

    Alan (c2a49d)

  50. @48- And actually, E, Republicans -conservative ideologues and party pragmatists both– should be thrilled if not amazed and reassured that nearly three months after the election, Democrats do not appear to have any coherent game plan on how to effectively address/confront/stifle/stall any of President Trump’s initiatives– so far.

    It’s really quite amazing.

    Well, maybe not. They’re poorly led.

    “…. and so it was planned he command, F-Troop!” — ‘F-Troop’- ABC TV, 1965

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  51. It is easier for a Republican Senaor to vote against changing the filibuster rule for Supreme Court nominees than to vote against that nominee. Schumer can foresee a circumstance where Trump names someone to a Supreme Court seat who will not have quite that universal Republican support.

    Sammy Finkelman (8a673f)

  52. Rioting against alt-right speaker at UC Berkeley on CNN!

    Oh ‘dem pesky 1960s.

    “Feeling Groovy” – Simon & Garfunkel, 1966

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  53. I’m really torn between hoping the Democrats turn to the man who cost them 1,000 seats, the woman who lost to Trump or the San Francisco/NYC duo who can’t find their butts with both hands and a map to chose the path forward. I’m leaning towards the 1,000 seat loser due to his proven lack of ability but the Chuckie and Nan Show has definite appeal.

    Rick Ballard (0c6bf8)

  54. If the Dems keep their filibuster powder drive for this guy, who is a cinch to be confirmed and is popular with the folks, they will be able to say for the next nominee fight that they proved they were reasonable with the Gorsuch nomination and are not simply knee-jerk turds.

    This is what Maddow and Schumer are about right now. They are preparing the next battlefield.

    Ed from SFV (3400a5)

  55. 55. keep their filibuster powder dry.

    It’s not so much what they will be able to say, but that a filibbuster might work next time, if it still is in the rules, if the nominee is not as popular among Republican Senators.

    Although I am not sure what they get if they get that. They’ll just get a better Republican nominee for the Supreme Court which is good for the country, maybe, but not of any particular value to most of their causes.

    But I suppose every time they force another pick, there’s a chance of getting a Kennedy rather than a Bork.

    You could aay what is this idea of preserving the filibuster? The Republicans need 51 either way – either to abolish the filibuster for Supreme Court justices or to confirm the nominee. But it is easier for a Senator not to vote for ending the filiibustee rule for Supreme Court nominees than to vote against the nominee. In this case now, all, or all but onw or two Republican Senators, would do both, if necessary.

    Sammy Finkelman (8a673f)

  56. This is Maddow wisely choosing to pick her battles. Pity that her fellow leftists aren’t doing this too, largely.

    Some, SOME, “strange new respect” for Maddow. But only some.

    Maddow is not stupid. Far from it. She can read Gorsuch’s C.V. and recognize that (like hers, frankly), it is solid platinum.

    She also realizes that Gorsuch would be replacing a strong constitutionalist, like Gorsuch himself, and thus won’t change the outcomes much.

    Mitch (bfd5cd)

  57. I’d be tempted to think you selectively found two frame caps in the post that happened to freeze-frame her with an expression that gives on the impression of a very ugly soul inside that body.

    Except I once accidentally watched a minute or so of her show. Those could be randomly picked and would look the same.

    Not buying any reason at all on her part. I’m looking for the hidden knife.

    rtrski (8a042a)

  58. i don’t think this is about dems keeping powder dry even a little bit

    it’s about obscuring for as long as possible the sleazy pigsniffing republican senate trash like Meghan’s cowardly brainwashed disgrace-to-his-uniform daddy who’ll want to make a deal instead of going nuclear

    it’s corrupt sleaze like McCain and Murkowski what are the pigsniffer’s lifeline right now, and they need to play that hand carefully

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  59. pigsniffers’ lifeline i mean

    happyfeet (28a91b)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1405 secs.