Rachel Maddow Smears Ronald Reagan Again with Apartheid Facts

[Tx4obama]

Former Speaker of the House and current CNN host Newt Gingrich called out MSNBC earlier this week for using remembrances of late civil rights icon Nelson Mandela to “smear” former President Ronald Reagan by accurately reporting Reagan’s steadfast opposition to the sanctions that would eventually help end the racist Apartheid government in South Africa. MSNBC host Rachel Maddow was at it again Tuesday night, smearing Reagan anew with dastardly facts.

To be sure, Reagan wasn’t the only subject of Maddow’s commentary, but certainly the most consequential, and certainly only included with the likes of Jerry Falwell, Dick Cheney, and Jesse Helms in order to tarnish Reagan by association. “Republican President Ronald Reagan was opposed to sanctions against the Apartheid government, and had backup from the religious right which found itself in solidarity with South Africa’s racist government,” Maddow said, which is a true, verifiable fact, but also a smear, according to Speaker Gingrich.

“Democratic members of Congress were drawing up sanctions against South Africa’s racist Apartheid government,” Maddow continued, spouting truthaganda about Democrats, “and there was the Reverend Jerry Falwell, arm in arm with South Africa’s president.”

-snip-

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/rachel-maddow-smears-ronald-reagan-again-with-apartheid-facts/

[dembotoz]

2. so telling the truth is now a smear

[Tx4obama]

3. I think the author of the headline used the word smear tongue in cheek.

Since Maddow used 'facts'

[Major Nikon]

7. Par for the course with the GOP

[maddiemom]

11. Refer back to the article re: Newt Gingrich.

[jjewell]

4. A lot of idiots couldn't tell you the difference....

...between Nelson Mandela and Idi Amin... Unfortunately, the 'idiots" seem to be the ones in charge of "re-writing" HISTORY.

[catbyte]

5. "Smears"? I am hoping that was merely a poor choice of words.

Since when is stating facts "smearing" someone?!?

[erpowers]

8. Tongue in Cheek or Sarcastic

I think the author of the article was being either tongue in cheek or sarcastic. The use of the word smear was likely meant to mock the Republicans who have been complaining about some news coverage of President Ronald Reagan's stance on apartheid.

[Cha]

6. "Smears" him with reality. That's a hard pill

for the GOPropagandistas to swallow.

Mean Rachel! Good Job!

[Gothmog]

9. Rachel was in good form

It was a good segment. The truth is important

[Dustlawyer]

10. How can they call themselves men of "Gawd"?

They turn the teachings of Christianity on their head and their followers don't get the irony!

[heaven05]

12. religious southern baptists

I quit the church because of these racist clowns and after my own 'incident' with a racist southern baptist 'preacher'. The American southern baptist are still this way, racist clowns.