Watching the Rachel Maddow Show, it’s quite easy to wonder if the receivers in her brain are tuned to quite a different reality from the one the rest of us inhabit.
Take, for example, her continued commentary on the NY-23 House race. That would be the race in which the Republican candidate, Dede Scozzafava, was so liberal that she garnered next to no support from anyone but the most stuanch “party-berfore-principle” Republican. Scozzafava withdrew from the race earlier this week.
To a lefty like Maddow, this race is an example of the right “purifying” and “purging” itself by “kicking out [Republican] moderates.” It shows that conservatives will only vote for “fringe” candidates, and indeed that conservatives (despite being a self-identified 40% of the nation) are a tiny, tiny “fringe.” It’s proof that, in her words,
“the tea party takeover of the Republican Party has begun in earnest and every Democrat and liberal in the country wishes them very, very well.”
Again, we have to ask, if this is how Ms. Maddow sees things, to which reality is her reception tuned?
As has been written countless times on this and other blogs, calling former candidate Scozzafava a “moderate” is to take a position so far left as to render the word “moderate” utterly meaningless. This “moderate” was to the left of the Democrat candidate (Bob Owens) on nearly every position: supported by ACORN, SEIU, and other unions; for government bailout and takeover of major industries; For more stimulus packages; and incredibly–because if there is a lowest-common-denominator for Republicans, its usually lower taxes–she was in favor of higher taxes. Scozzafava only signed a no-tax pledge, weeks after her Conservative-party opponent Doug Hoffman did so, in a transparent attempt to pander to conservatives after it became apparent that her support had evaporated. Despite what Maddow thinks, the fact that Scozzafava’s candidacy went down in such spectacular flames is proof that conservative voters will think for themselves. They are not a group that will blindly vote for anyone with an R in front of their name, and assume that the candidate stands for all the things they want.
In fact, the majority of people in NY-23 disagree with Maddow’s assessment that Hoffman is a “fringe” candidate. All of the latest polls have him ahead in the race (some decisively.) Now, the only poll that really counts is today at the voting booth, but suffice it to say, Maddow’s interpretation of events just doesn’t hold water. 51% of a district is not “the fringe.” All of these voters are not “the fringe.” And while the voters in NY-24 are more conservative than, say, New York City, we’re not exactly talking about a district in the heart of the Bible Belt.
But Maddow’s alternate reality doesn’t stop there. She goes on to accuse Hoffman of having
“pledged his sacred honor to a FOX News host, Glenn Beck.”
Yet in the very next sentence, she admits that she just lied — Hoffman did not pledge himself to Beck in some sort of blood-oath ceremony, but rather promised to uphold the small-government pro-freedom principles of Beck’s 9/12 project. Let’s see if Ms. Maddow can follow us here: ideas are not people, and pledging to uphold certain ideals is not some kind of creepy loyalty oath. Those ares what you’re forced to do in places like North Korea.
Really, what could Maddow have against things like Hard Work, Honesty, Civility, and Personal Responsibility (all part of the 12 Values section of the 9/12 Project)?Â Or does she disagree with statements like “It is not un-American for me to disagree with authority or to share my personal opinons” or “the Government works for me. I do not answer to them, they answer to me.” Or could it just be that the blindly-partisan Maddow is once again having a knee-jerk reaction to the mere mention of Beck, whose very name appears enough to cause the Left to suffer from bouts of abject insanity.
Nevertheless, we are pleased to see Maddow encouraging leftists and Democrats to cheer a conservative movement that is energized and expanding by holding to its principles–and seems poised to win some small but meaningful electoral victories. After all, we think that sticking to first principles is a much better recipe for success than building a movement around the creepy personality cult of a lightweight leader with no original ideas who surrounds himself with radicals. If she wants to urge leftists to cheer the nation in the direction it looks to be headed, than we have no problem at all in joining in. We hope she continues to point and laugh, and spend time in the alternate reality where an energized conservative movement only represents a “fringe,” while her leftist allies watch their best-laid plans to insert more and more government into all our lives crumble around them.