Please write and send praise, critique, interesting links or random musings to

Friday, June 10, 2011

Smearing Maddow

June 10th, 2011
F. Grey Parker

Tucker Carlson likes to pretend he's a journalist. Which would be amusing if he weren't taken as seriously as he is. The latest exploitation of the "Weinergate" debacle is an attempt to tarnish MSNBC's Rachel Maddow. Here's the "story:"

After publishing a love-link to Andy which includes video of Breitbart gleefully showing his cameraphone-pic of Weiner's actual naked weener (allegedly), Carlson began a series of near breathless "UPDATES." It would seem that Tuck was trying to re-cast the net, so to speak. Why just continue to humiliate Weiner when you can also attack the most prominent LGBT commentator in America, Rachel Maddow?

The first "UPDATE" involving Maddow sought merely to embarrass her.

In a piece published yesterday, I admonished those on the left who immediately cried "hoax" last week. Maddow was not exactly among them. She did ask some questions that everyone was asking about the picture's veracity, but that is not the same thing. Of course, a vast majority of Tuck's regulars wouldn't know what Ms. Maddow had said because they don't view her show. They trust guys like Tuck and Andy to filter that evil, liberal MSM for them.

Well. I guess Tuck wasn't satisfied with simply being smug...

This "UPDATE" was published in coordination with a piece by Ron Futrell over at Breitbart's Big Journalism. In it, he writes:

"Lisa Weiss, a Las Vegas blackjack dealer, says she first approached MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow to see if she would do the story about Anthony Weiner."

Wow. Now that does sound bad. That sounds like a confirmation of "liberal bias." Heck, any good Tuck-Head or Andy-Fan should probably assume that Maddow was complicit in a cover-up. Right? So, The Maddow Show "ignored" phone calls from the so-called "mistress?" No. The Maddow Show "ignored" letters or e-mails from the "mistress?" No. Rachel Maddow herself "ignored" numerous personal calls from the "mistress" or her representatives? No.

What kind of "approach" was so unprofessionally "ignored" by Rachel Maddow? A totally random person on Twitter calling themselves @liberallisa had sent a single "tweet" on June 3rd mentioning nothing specific at all.

Clearly, Maddow must have known that "have juicy political story i wnt to give u!"  was about the disgraced New York Representative. See how insidious the cabal of leftist propagandists are?

In all seriousness, Tucker Carlson's Daily Caller misrepresented a yellow piece from gossip site Radar which was, in itself, a creepy misrepresentation.

Tuck really had no choice. After all, so many people have been mean to Poor Andy. Poor Andy broke this story. As I noted last week, Poor Andy, in the name of freedom and truth and justice and moms and apple pie and puppies and "values" had devoted 38 out of forty links on two of his "Big" sites to would have been 40 but the other two were being reserved for the patriotic task of Andy trying to sell his book where he modestly says he is here to "Save The World."

Andy really is so worth defending. He does such a great service. He has such a strong sense of moderation on his always reliable websites. And, he has such a high caliber of reader. Just look at this choice and complex comment from one of his regulars named jesus_said regarding the Maddow appearance on Letterman referenced above .

You see? Breitbart runs the kind of solid news service where 56 people take time out of their day to click "like" when someone types the words "lesbian scum." God Bless Conservative "Journailsm!"

On another note, only socialist-communist-Kool-Aid drinkers would ever question why Andy has a picture of another man's penis on his phone that he shows to anybody that will look at it while he giggles... or dare to question his judgment.

No comments:

Post a Comment