Terrorism Under Veil of Journalism is Still Terrorism

[freshwest]

215. Maddox never claimed to be a Democrat or support Obama. She has a job where she is paid to talk.

And she's a good voice most of the time, but it may be some bias she has that others not so situated may not have. She wouldn't be human if she didn't. The OP has a right to his opinion, and the nerve this has struck is over the top and not rational. This is from RM's Wikipedia entry:

Asked about her political views by the Valley Advocate, Maddow replied, "I'm undoubtedly a liberal, which means that I'm in almost total agreement with the Eisenhower-era Republican party platform..."

Distinguishing herself from others on the left, Maddow said she's a "national security liberal" and in a different interview that she's not "a partisan."[52][53] The New York Times called her a "defense policy wonk"[40][52] and Maddow has written Drift: The Unmooring of American Military Power (2012), a book on the role of the military in postwar American politics.

During the 2008 presidential election, Maddow did not formally support any candidate. Concerning Barack Obama's candidacy, Maddow said during the primaries, "I have never and still don't think of myself as an Obama supporter, either professionally or actually."[54]

In March 2010, Republican Scott Brown, the junior United States Senator from Massachusetts, speculated that Maddow was going to run against him for his seat in 2012. He used this premise for a fundraising email that read "...The Massachusetts political machine is looking for someone to run against me. And you're not going to believe who they are supposedly trying to recruit — liberal MSNBC anchor Rachel Maddow."

Maddow said Brown's speculation was false. On her March 23, 2010, TV program, Maddow said, "I have the best job in the world. I am not running for office. Scott Brown didn't ask me if I was running or planning to run for office before he wrote a fundraising letter with my name. No, it's completely made up by him." Despite her comments, the next day Brown continued along the same line, telling a Boston radio station, "Bring her on."

To help put an end to the matter, Maddow ran a full-page advertisement in The Boston Globe confirming she was not running, and separately demanded Brown's apology. She added that despite repeated invitations over the months, Brown had refused to appear on her TV program.[55][56][57][58] Ultimately, it was Elizabeth Warren who ran in 2012, defeating Brown...[59]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Maddow

She may be a libertarian, for all we know, or some other factor may have gotten her into this. She's not in politics, she's in media. That carries a lot of weight with those in the industry, they always support each other unless their bosses tell them no.

Do the media pundits support us, or do they play us? We can't tell and the idea DUers would attack each other with such viciousness over what they have to say over a public figure sounds like hero worship.

The OP doesn't agree with her one show there, and I never agree with Beck, Rush, O'Reilly and whatever. Does that mean I am deserving of unquestioning respect?

Does anyone think that Maddox, who is making millions of dollars a year, cares what a poster at DU thinks?

I think not. I signed up in the DU2 days to talk with Democrats and learned a lot from those who to the left and right of me, some that I felt uncomfortable with until I found we had common ground in other things. From them I have learned about what their life in the bigger world is.

But calling for people to be banned, piling on and name calling, is not about discussion. It's a mob going after a group in the minority to purge. This is Skinner's website and he chooses who will be a member here. This is spite and does nothing to change the world.