Skip to comments.Anyone Else See MSNBC's Maddow Get Pwned By Ridge Tonight? (EPIC FAIL!)
Posted on 09/01/2009 9:06:24 PM PDT by icwhatudo
Not since Whorealdo got all excited about that vault and got humiliated on national TV has there been such an epic failure by a "News" host.
I think Maddow was under the impression that since Tom Ridge had agreed to be on her show, and since he made the "political pressure" comment, that he was going to lend credence to what she and Olberman had been talking about for years. Maybe he was going to trash republicans on MSNBC to try and pimp his book.
Ridge shot down every conspiracy nutroots talking point she threw at him. Ridge totally backed away from his comment (about thinking pressure to raise threat level may have been political), he defended Bush and the decision to invade Iraq, and explained there was no lie-that many intel agencies thought saddam had wmd..and so on and so on. She was a mess! She seemed totally blindsided! She kept going to her notes for some additional quote or point that Ridge immediately would shoot down.
If you have a chance, try and view the entire interview on a rerun overnight. Do not believe selected outtakes or short clips from the interview that try to make her look better-see the whole fiasco for yourself.
If you are a news and politics junkie, you will understand what I mean when I say it was like watching James Carville put the trashcan on his head...SO SATISFYING!
she was so pissed off that Ridge didn’t say Bush ordered them to raise the threat level.....
Oh by the way, I wonder if SOB Chris Matthews will correct the record, he did 2 shows leading off with the Ridge story last week...
So she was a clueless angry dyke tonight?
Par for the course.
Perhaps she felt the urge to be allowed to take her guns home after this segment?
DU is going nuts about the interview!
Complaining she was caught up in the “congeniality” thing and
“Dont forget she works for a member of the CorpMedia.”
When DU attacks Maddow the mancow, you know she didn’t do well.
Was she pawned, owned, or both?
Wow. If you’re getting clowned by Tom Freaking Ridge, it’s time for you to get out of the business.
Rachel Mancow is a true loon. I turn on his show every so often just to see what the nuts are foaming about. He’s an imbecile’s imbecile. I might have to DVR this interview just to watch Ridge man-slap Mancow.
Wish I had seen it...she’s just so repulsive.
It's hard to believe that claim would be published, and then he'd try to walk it back. Hopefully this Maddow/Ridge interview makes it's way to YouTube.
Pwned (and Pwn3d) are both accepted "net language" for owned (or demolished, trashed, manhandled, etc.)
As I suspected! Shamed I missed it.
Interesting point, apparently she was focusing what was written on the promo jacket vs what he wrote in the book itself. He said repeatedly NO NO NO NO NO political pressure to raise threat level...that there were many MANY times others wanted to raise it when he saw no reason-it was just that since this time was right before the election he was just “musing” and people are wronging focusing on that quote.
Hey, that nickname is an insult to Mancow Muller! He’s heterosexual and pretty conservative to boot, let’s not tarnish his trademark :)
Thanks much for posting the link to the video.
Rove's version was to get some backwater Republican to make an outrageous commercial that is true but somewhat over the top. You float this video up to the network, engendering all of the requisite left/msm outrage. It gets played over and over and over and over
The national party stays quiet until the controversy's died down, then they come out and disown it, vociferously. This runs for several news cycles, and the original ad gets played again and again..
Then you have an out-of-the-limelight Republican, like Newt, come out and disagree with the party, vociferously. This, too, runs for several news cycles, and the original ad gets played again and again.
Them you have Newt come on some lefty show and change his mind. This runs for several news cycles, and the original ad gets played again and again.
Pretty soon the entire country has seen the ad and agrees with it.
I think some of this is what Ridge is up to. He is totally and completely playing the media. He's pointing out that Bush and his people were diligent and overly cautious that their work be for the good of the people and could in no way be interpreted as political.
Me? I think this whole thing would be hilarious if anyone else were in the WHite House.
My pleasure.....thanks to Justaham for providing the web address.
The word ‘homeland’ is creepy to her? Ridge: “Read the book not the dust jacket.” LOL!
She looks like that character named “Pat” that was on “Saturday Night Live” years ago, you couldn’t tell if it was a man or woman.
Unfortunately, “Pat” was satire ~ an SNL skit.
In Butch’s case, she is a real person and she has her own televison show and she is trying to impose her own reality on the former Secretary of Homeland Security.
Personally, I can’t decide if she is an ugly woman or a fugly woman?
I noticed she's on at 9 pm. Hannity must be blowing her away. This video is the first time I've ever watched her show.
The threat level was NOT raised. Evidently there was some discussion about the threat level following OBLs video just prior to the election.
Ridge is an a$$.
Well... Maddow did not get what she wanted from Ridge, but, I think she handled it fairly well and was civil.
There was no there , there. She could not get any traction on her agenda, but, Pwned? Nope, not in my opinion.I have seen the same thing happen to conservative talk show hosts too.
She needs an Addadicktomy. Maybe Obamacare will cover it.
She’s a dyke. She thinks she’s a man. She’s insane. Get over it.
LOL, Is that the Maddow rule now as laid down by you?
“Well... Maddow did not get what she wanted from Ridge, but, I think she handled it fairly well and was civil.”
Actually, I would have interviewed Ridge just as she did, which was to ask Ridge in 20 different ways the same questions about the controversial passages in his book. The reason being, each time she asked him, you could see Ridge looking down, barely making eye contact, looking shifty and lying through his teeth. She knew it, he knew it, and she gave everyone the opportunity multiple times to examine Ridge’s body language which wasn’t good as he was lying over and over again.
I can’t stand Maddow, but in this particular case, she had a liar on her hands, knew it, tried to play it up, and although she couldn’t crack him on his responses, she could show to the public someone incredibly unconfortable with answering her questions. I can’t stand Ridge, a RINO from the gitgo, a liar, as political as those he was accusing about raising the security level, it’s just that his politics are to say something he knew would be controversial in order to sell his book. Talk about self-serving. Plus, unless incredibly stupid, he had to have known that the far left, like Maddow, was going to take those controversial comments of his and run with it, which she and other leftists did with alacrity. All the talking heads on PMSNBC pounced on it and Ridge thus did no favors to his Party as a whole. I’m sure his fellow Pubs are just delighted with the pot he stirred. Thanks Ridge, we needed you, your book, and your comments, like a whole in the head.
So, he's either a lying piece of garbage because of what he wrote in the book, or he's a lying piece of garbage for what he said in that interview.
That’s something to do with mental, or masturbation or... both?
For those not acquainted with the cast of characters in the lesbian netherworld, the scraggy middle-aged blonde is Maddow's significant other. I don't know who the euphoric geek is.
>>>>>Unless an individuals sexual preferences, race, gender.... are relevant to the discussion, leave it out of your posts.<<<<<<
We got a new moderator here! Did you purchase FRepublic from Jim? How should I post? What should I type next?
Maddow is a bulldyke butch moonbat!
I will type it again when I see her name again.
Damn. What happened to Tom Cruise ?
There is nothing to get over. I am not compelled to defend Maddow in any way.
If you are posting for those that already agree with than post on. However, if you want to bring in those that are on the fence. I think unnecessary name calling will repel more people than you will attract.
You either elevate your argument beyond irrelevant name calling or argue like a liberal.
You seem to have made your choice.
My point has nothing to do with Maddow. I do not give a rats behind about her.
If you want to bring people into your way of thinking then unnecessary name calling is not the way to do it. it turns off thinking people in my opinion.
If you are just looking for pats on the back from those that already agree, then have at it.
What is you purpose for posting?? Pats on the back or to articulate a well thought out argument that just might help move others to a more conservative view point?
which one is intellectually challenging and which one is self-congratulatory.
There is nothing less stimulating that being in a room of people that agree with you.
I am speechless.You have intellectually painted me in a corner. I have no response. Please say “Check Mate” and put me out of my misery.
I really don’t care what you think of ugly, leftwing lesbian chicks that look like gay dudes, it was your pompous attitude that made us all chuckle.
Who is “us all”? Was there some sort of email discussion you had with others? Do you speak for FR as a whole or is it just a smaller group that sits in a circle and pats each other on the back?
I live in the Peoples Republic of Seattle. You sound exactly like the liberals I meet when I go to a party. It is usually me as the lone conservative being chuckled at by “us all” for being a caveman. A different perspective, but, the same group think response. These liberals are not used to being challenged in the slightest because they stay within their ‘us all’ warm cocoon of self congratulatory opinions.
How are you different?
I have no use for those who remain upon the fence this late in the game.
I am not presenting an argument either.
I am attacking my enemy, as well as an enemy of my country.
As I stated, she is insane. Her inability to understand something as simple as her own gender identity also illustrates that she is incapable of understanding complex issues, such as our country being destroyed from within by stealth communists.
I do not believe that gays, either male or female, should be given position of power or trust, because their obsessive insanity as it relates to their own self image causes them to be dangerously paranoid, i.e. Janet Napolitano.
If you want to see the result of such insanity being allowed to run amok, then you need look no further than San Fransicko. Homosexuality is being promoted, and it is out of control in this country. It destroys the family unit, and that is a necessary step in this silent, communist revolution.
I will attack it, and I do not care if it offends you or anyone else.
"the same group think response."
Which one is it?
I didn't mean to get your panties in a wad by challenging your pompous order to that freeper but then again I'm not an ugly, butch lesbian so I might lack sensitivity, when I lived in your area I was in the army, I was comfortable being conservative and describing lesbians as such.
I take it you are not a BudLight, pork rinds and NASCAR kinda guy are you? Thats OK, if I ever need to know anything about 16th century abstract art, I'll look you up.
You are telling people to be intelligent enough not to post unintelligently. Do you see the irony in that, professor?
Thanks for taking the time to articulate you opinion.
To be clear, you did not offend me in the least. My point was that I think you will not convince anyone to move towards your line of thinking by name calling. Since your stated goal is to attack your enemy and not influence those who remain upon the fence your responses make perfect sense.
I think you will influence few if any to move towards conservatism. The net effect of you efforts will zero in my opinion.
By and large I agree with your opinion, I just do not agree with your approach, because, I think it does not advance the conservative agenda.
Let me make it simpler for you.
Who is us all?
Everybody that is posting to you and agreeing with those posters that you are an arrogant little pris that is way out of line in ordering freepers how to frame their posts about that ugly lesbian thing.
Seriously, how “gay” can you get?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.