Partisan Hacks: Rachel Maddow ‘Would Bet’ That McCain Chooses Jeb Bush As VP

By  | 

[Republished from 2008Central.net]

This Tin Hat Protects Me From Me

Appearing on yesterday’s Race For The White House on MSNBC, Rachel Maddow discussed the likelihood of John McCain choosing Jeb Bush as his running mate. She stated:

Joe Scarborough: Rachel, you know, George W. Bush is like kryptonite to Republicans this year. But, is Jeb Bush, the good Bush to be standing next to in 2008?

Rachel Maddow: Well, Floridians like Jeb Bush and it seems like John McCain likes Jeb Bush. I mean everything you hear, I don’t know either of the candidates personally, right – I’m not an insider person who is getting that sort of information. But, the people who are close the candidates, when they talk about who John McCain personally likes, who he has good chemistry with, they talk about Jeb Bush. I think that when you hear McCain sort of bring up Jeb Bush unprompted in conversation, when you see Jeb Bush make this detour in Mexico City to go see McCain today – I think they’re testing just how important Jeb Bush’s last name is. Because, if he had a different last name, I think there’s no question he would be right at the top of the list for McCain.

Scarborough: …But Rachel, you’re not saying that McCain could possibly pick Jeb Bush as his vice president, are you?

Maddow: If I had to bet, and I don’t bet, but if I had to bet today I would bet on Jeb Bush. I honestly would.

It’s worth noting that last summer, Maddow put forth a conspiracy theory, which involved Cheney resigning for medical reasons and being replaced with Jeb Bush, who could then run for president as an incumbent VP. Onto, yesterday’s comment…

To begin, the mere suggestion that McCain would choose Jeb Bush as his runningmate is unbelievably silly. I don’t care what side of the aisle you are on, if you’re on television you shouldn’t say things this absurd. But, to Maddow’s credit, she did warn everyone how willfully ignorant she was. After all, she acknowledged that she wasn’t an insider and has no specific information to support her senseless contention. However, if you break down her analysis, it’s pretty obvious that she was solely saying it for political reasons, since, the more you tie McCain to Bush (either directly or indirectly, the better for the Democrats)…

She does provide a reason for her conclusion though: McCain is testing Jeb’s last name by meeting with him in Mexico City. I’m not entirely sure how a meeting that took place in Mexico City with significantly less coverage than it would have gotten back in the US somehow satisfies or signifies testing Jeb’s name. It actually doesn’t make sense. But, that’s okay, because it doesn’t need to. It only needs to link Bush and McCain.

It’s a shame when people, like Maddow, who spend so much time complaining about partisan hacks neglect to realize just what a hack they’ve become themselves. In my opinion, anyone that prefaces a statement with something to the effect of ‘I have no idea what I am talking about, but…’ should not be allowed to finish that thought on a televised news program. I guess I’m just reaching for the stars though…

  • http://westanddivided.blogspot.com/ mw

    As far as partisan hacks go, Maddow is one of my favorites on the left. She usually can articulate a pretty good rationalization for anything she says, and she will be pretty explicit about her own biases. As an excercise I like to pair off right and left partisan hacks with comparable levels of duplicity and annoyance factors (Moore & Limbaugh, Olbermann & O’Reilly, Coulter & Franken, Hannity & Joseph Stalin, etc. ). I find Maddow and Scarborough a good matched set, which is probably why they hate each other (Scarborough has walked off the set in the middle of a show with Maddow).

    BTW, I just noticed that when Justin is not here, this blog starts listing pretty heavily to starboard. He has got to be hanging way off the port transom to keep this thing tacking down the center.

  • Bob

    Haha, I noticed that too mw.

    She isn’t too bad normally. I did like how she couldn’t stop laughing when all the other analysts wouldn’t agree with her that Obama hadn’t changed on Iraq. I partially agreed with her that his website and handlers said the same thing than as now but in the specific instance in the debate he make it seem as though we will for sure have troops out in 16 months.


    A little harsh on Hannity there, run out of Lefties? I personally think Limbaugh is way worse than Hannity. I would probably go Hannity vs Rhodes but her star has fallen way down as of late.

  • http://2008central.net 2008Central.net

    Criticizing someone on the left doesn’t automatically make one right-leaning or vice versa. I wasn’t really criticizing a political position, but rather, a baseless one.

    I have a fundamental problem with someone on television proudly pronouncing their ignorance on a subject and then spewing wild conclusions anyway. The tenor of the press coverage, which relies heavily on blind partisans, is a significant contributor to some of the problems we’re facing.

    I’m just not sure why people should be rewarded for ignorance, that’s all.

  • stopdrugwar

    Come on, no one can be paired with Coulter, least of all Franken. Franken’s comments are meant to be humorous, Coulter is purposelessly and effortlessly mean.

    As for Maddow and the acussation of beignorant of her position as a partisan hack, the author is either ignorant or disingenuous. The guests on these shows are there to balance partisan hacks. She was obiediently filling her role as the liberal hack.

    As for Jeb Bush, he’s a good as any choice McCain can make. At this point he ain’t ducking Bush, why not embrace it and by doing so, guarantee Florida (Katherine Harris we need you again).