Taking a Close Look at Jon Ralston and Rachel Maddow's Criticism of Sharron Angle
by
Kris Zane
On June 29 and June 30, 2010, segments of The Rachel Maddow Show aired, in which Maddow scathingly critiques Nevada senatorial candidate Sharron Angle in the context of an analysis of Angle's interview with Jon Ralston on Face to Face with Jon Ralston. The initial accusation that Maddow hurls at Sharron Angle is that her beliefs and assertions are illogical because she never places herself out of the "conservative bubble," i.e., never has discussions with reporters, interviewers, etc. who have contradictory views. That because these illogical beliefs and assertions are never questioned, and therefore never exposed as illogical, that as soon as she places herself in the company of someone who questions her beliefs and assertions--i.e., in the company of a "real reporter" (enter Jon Ralston)--her beliefs and assertions fall apart. Problem 1. The assertion that Sharron Angle never talked to reporters of a left wing ideology is never proven (and later I will show to be false); and Problem 2. The assertion that one's arguments are always fallacious if unchallenged is itself fallacious.
I would additionally like to take a close look at the Ralston "interview," which I put in quotes, because, contrary to Maddow calling him a "real reporter" (versus, per Maddow, everyone that has interviewed or talked to Sharron Angle before), what Ralston's "interview" consisted of was predetermined, prejudiced views, and an attempt to twist what she had said before to match these views; and then to proceed to twist her attempt to clarify her beliefs to match these predetermined and prejudiced views. Ralston has neither a discussion nor an interview with Sharron Angle, unless a prosecutor vociferously cross-examining a witness, attempting to get them to admit to something that they neither believe nor assert to be true, is a discussion or interview, as this is the format of his "interview."
I will show that far from exposing Sharron Angle's illogicality, Maddow exposes her own fallacious arguments; that it is Maddow whose assertions are not questioned; and that further, Maddow goes beyond having fallacious arguments, and moves from fallacious arguments, to making patently false statements, and then goes even further by departing from the general meaning of words to make her argument.
Assertion: All Sharron Angle's beliefs and assertions are illogical because she has never spoken to reporters/interviewers outside of the "conservative bubble."
Rachel Maddow must have done her homework in order to track down every single contact that Sharron Angle has had with the media; to be able to categorize each and every person as either left or right wing (there is no middle ground, by the way, for Maddow), and to pronounce categorically that Sharron Angle has never spoken with anyone from the media other than "super-right wingers," as she calls them. Of course the problem with this assertion is that it is never proved.
Maddow states that Sharron Angle's avoidance of the left wing media has become a "national story," placing the visuals of two newspaper headlines on screen. We won't talk about how the two newspapers she references--the New York Times and The Washington Post-- have a liberal bias. We won't talk about how in 2008, Deborah Howell, The Washington Post Ombudsman, admitted that the paper had a liberal bias. We won't talk about how Dave Weigel at
The Washington Post recently resigned in disgrace after being a reporter assigned to the Tea Party/Conservative movement, after he was found from a release of transcripts from a liberal listserv to have a hatred for conservatives. (Ironically, this occurred a few days before the Maddow shows aired). We won't talk about how Rachel Maddow disproves her own logic of unchallenged assertions being automatically false, because she delivers her Sharron Angle harangue as a monologue, and in fact the majority of her shows are monologues; so that not only does Maddow not move outside of the "liberal media bubble" (to use her own verbiage), but doesn't have to worry about proving her assertions, because it is in the form of a monologue.
But this is not the end of unfounded assertions on this subject. Maddow goes from the assertion that Sharron Angle has never had an encounter with the left-wing media, to the even more unfounded assertion that Sharron Angle has never even had a discussion with anyone who disagrees with her. Maddow, contrary to popular belief, is not God, and cannot be every where at every time. So that if Sharron Angle is in her home, entertaining, and a discussion occurs at a party in which Angle and an individual argue about a certain issue, it is not automatically fed into the Rachel Maddow machine. It would be possible to research whether a candidate's dealing were exclusively with the media of a certain ideological spectrum; but to be able to state categorically that one individual has never had a conversation with anyone that they disagree with is ludicrous.
On this subject I do not need to drive the nail in the coffin of Rachel Maddow's fallaciousness; she does this herself: Ralston's "interview" that Maddow reviews takes the form of Ralston playing a series of audio or video clips, or reading a quote, somehow proving that Sharron Angle's views are illogical, contradictory or change over time, and having her (he thinks) try to worm out of this assertion. From what source does Ralston play the first clip? It is ironic for Maddow that it is from an interview on K-NPR (Las Vegas, Nevada), not in fact a "super-right wing" radio station, but a categorically left wing radio station. This kind of takes the air out of Maddow's five-minute harangue on how everything Sharron Angle says is false because she never speaks to anyone from the left. When the K-NPR reference appears on the bottom of the clip, Maddow doesn't even bat an eye. Perhaps she thinks the public is too stupid to notice Ralston mentioning the clip is from K-NPR. Perhaps Maddow thinks the public is too stupid to notice the "Sharron Angle on K-NPR..." reference on the bottom of the screen.
This first K-NPR clip is on the subject of Social Security, in which Maddow and Ralston allege Sharron Angle first shows her radical stance on wanting to "privatize" Social Security; to take all the funds out of Social Security and to put it into the private sector; and then her later (alleged) stance (from another quote) that she doesn't want to touch it, which they state is contradictory. First, in Maddow's harangue, she throws around the word "privatize," until someone from her staff whispers in her ear that the word was "personalize" and not "privatize," to which Maddow saves face by stating that the words are synonymous (leading, as I will show later, to Maddow's departure from definitional meanings of words to make assertions). Ralston vociferously attempts to make Sharron Angle admit that she desires to take all the money that has been paid into the Social Security fund and to put it into private hands. When she denies, this he claims she is being contradictory by saying that she later asserts it shouldn't be touched.
It is a simple matter. Sharron Angle has explained it before, she explains it on Ralston's show, and, as Ralston continues to press her about it and finally gives up, trying to save face by saying he doesn't want to take up the whole show with Social Security, she tries to explain it again. Simply put, Sharron Angle wants to prevent Congress from raiding the Social Security lock box as a slush fund for their personal projects. She wants Congress to return all the money that it has "borrowed" from Social Security. She believes that Social Security has been a failure. That because it has proven to be a failure, it should be phased out. That if younger individuals want to pay into Social Security, they will be able to do so. If they want to opt out of it and pay into a private retirement account, they should be able to do so. Even after Sharron Angle had explained this time and again before; even though it was explained on Ralston's show ad nauseum, both Ralston and Maddow somehow come out of it with the same false belief that they began with.
In the second series of quotes, Ralston attempts to show that Sharron Angle is engaging in a form of hypocrisy in denouncing Harry Reid for not creating jobs, and then later for saying, if she is elected, she would not be in the business of creating jobs, as this is not a senator's job. Sharron Angle explains very simply, that in fact senators do not "create" jobs; all that they can do is to pass legislation to create a climate for job creation; that--and this is the truth of Sharron Angle's criticism of Reid--that Reid, by passing massive regulations, for example, Obamacare-- deters businesses from creating and sustaining jobs. Angle states rightly (which Ralston agrees with--Maddow does not admit this) that Reid's support of the Stimulus Bill promised that unemployment would not go over eight percent, and in fact is at fourteen percent in Nevada. America bought the idea that somehow the Stimulus Bill was going to "create" jobs, whereas, as we know, it did no such thing, unless we count the bean counters necessary for creating huge bureaucracies
In the third series of quotes both Maddow and Ralston think they have trapped their prey, showing her callous attitude towards the unemployed. After playing a clip of Sharron Angle criticizing how unemployment insurance is administered, that unemployment insurance has "spoiled the citizenry," Ralston again tries to get Angle to admit to something that she doesn't believe, i.e., that those on unemployment are "spoiled." Ralston charges that Sharron Angle believes the unemployed are lazy, are sitting on the couch watching TV all day, to which Angle repeats herself, saying that unemployment insurance has "spoiled the citizenry," not that they are "spoiled." Ralston, along with Maddow believe these two statements are synonymous. Angle again states something that is very clear, in that those on unemployment are encouraged not to find a job, because they can make more on unemployment than they can in entry level jobs. It is the same problem that we had with those on welfare, in which women with children could make more money on welfare than they could working, so there was no incentive to get work. This, to anyone who does not have prejudiced views, is very clear, while to Ralston and Maddow this appears contradictory. The difference in meaning is grammatical. We could reword it and say 1. The government has spoiled the unemployed. 2. The unemployed are spoiled. In statement 1 the government is the actor of the action, and the unemployed are the receivers of the action. In statement 2, the unemployed are both the actors and cause of their spoiled status. An analogy would be: If I feed my child junk food and candy to excess, is my child a glutton, or do I gluttonize my child? The fault is on the parent, not on the child. In the same way Sharron Angle does not criticize the unemployed but the governmental system that administers benefits to the unemployed. This, to anyone who does not have prejudiced views, is very clear, while to Ralston and Maddow, they think this is their coup de grâce, finally positioning Sharron Angle in the middle of the road frozen by the headlights of an approaching car, thinking that they have shown her having disdain towards the unemployed (her electorate); but the only thing that Sharron Angle has disdain for is the behemoth of the "Stimulus" Bill not delivering the goods.
The next clip attempts to portray Sharron Angle in the way Obama in 2008 tried to portray small town citizens as "clinging to their guns and religion." Ralston plays a clip regarding Sharron Angle's position on the 2nd Amendment, which is clear: the Second Amendment was placed in the Constitution in order to protect the citizens against a tyrannical government. Both Ralston and Maddow attempt to show that Sharron Angle wants the Tea Party/Conservatives to take up arms against the Obama Administration and Congress if they don't get their way. As distasteful an idea as taking up arms against the United States government is, it is not a bunch of "far-right wingers" that thought up the idea of making a provision in our fundamental law to prevent a tyrannical government from overextending its power; it was the Founding Fathers. And no one wants to talk about it or admit it, but there may come a point--we are of course not anywhere near that point now, when the U.S. government flouts the Constitution beyond what it is doing now: I think the passage of the Healthcare Bill, the so-called "Reconciliation" was itself unconstitutional. I think the Healthcare Bill itself is unconstitutional, i.e., requiring all citizens of the United States to purchase a specific product (i.e. health insurance). Further--and this would be a possible example for a basis in utilizing the Second Amendment--that if a Presidential candidate utilizes illegal methods to come into power, it follows that they are governing illegally. So, for example, it is alleged by Gigi Gaston in her documentary We Will Not Be Silenced that during the 2008 Democratic Primary, the Obama campaign engaged in voter fraud, voter intimidation, and falsifying of caucus records (we won't even talk about the New Black Panther party's use of voter intimidation during the primary, and the Justice Department's subsequent dropping of the case after the defendants had already been tried); so that it follows that if voter fraud and voter intimidation is proven; that if it was tied directly to the Obama campaign with Barack Obama's full knowledge; that if the President was impeached by the House of Representatives, tried and found guilty by the Senate with the Chief Justice presiding, and removed from office; that if the President then refused to relinquish power, then we have a case for the use of the Second Amendment. Of course this is an extreme case and is only a possible example. But the point is that taking up arms against one's own country is not some idea espoused by a right-wing wacko fringe element, as Ralston and Maddow would have us believe, but part of the checks and balances built into the U.S. Constitution. No one wants to go to the extreme of taking up arms against their own country, but to state that the utilization of one's Second Amendment right is un-American is to call the Founding Fathers un-American.
On the subject of Social Security, Ralston attempted to show that Sharron Angle made contradictory statements. On the subject of whether it is a senator's job in creating jobs, a charge of hypocrisy is levied. On the subject of unemployment insurance, a charge of a disdain for the unemployed is charged. On the subject of the Second Amendment, they attempt to portray Sharron Angle as a right-wing wacko.
In the next quote Ralston attempts to portray Sharron Angle as a fool. Ralston quotes Angle as saying that the separation of church and state is not in the Constitution. This indicates to Ralston that Sharron Angle is a fool; that she doesn't possess the simple ability of reading the Constitution. But it is clear, as Sharron Angle attempts to explain, that there is no mention of the wording "separation of church and state" in the Constitution; that the Founding Fathers simply meant that a government shall not establish a national religion (i.e., as it existed in England); that it did not mean that religion should not be a part of government, as two centuries of prayer opening congressional sessions show; as Presidents, including Abraham Lincoln, quoting the Bible, calling on God's help, blessings, etc., in speeches show; as "In God We Trust" being inscribed on currency for over one hundred years show; and as Bible verses and Bible stories being a part of public school textbooks (for example the McGuffey series of books used to teach reading) for decades show. If all these things are now considered a violation of the "separation of church and state" clause (there is no such thing), then why have not the citizens cried "separation of church and state!" earlier. Why did not Abraham Lincoln, probably the most constitutionally-minded president we have ever had, cry against himself when invoking God and His Word on public lands and during public functions?
After Maddow pronounces Sharron Angle a fool, she then begins to quote the Constitution in mockery of the supposed idiocy of her prey: "Congress shall make no law..." Interestingly, Maddow doesn't finish the quote that goes on to say, truly, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"; not, "Congress shall enforce the false doctrine of separation of church and state."
Here Maddow accuses Angle of "hypocrisy and inconsistency;" that Angle is so immersed in the "friendly no arguing bubble," that when Angle "emerges from the bubble,"--i.e. speaks to an individual who does not share her views--this results in Angle's inability to recognize hypocrisy and inconsistency. Maddow here does not even pay attention to the meaning of words; for in order to be hypocritical, one would have to be aware that they were being false. If they were not aware of being false, then there is no hypocrisy. A hypocrite would be someone who criticizes another for using fallacious logic and not only does so themselves, but goes beyond that, dispensing with the definitional meanings of words to make assertions and support their argument.
Following the belief that Sharron Angle is a fool, it follows that Ralston and then Maddow would provide the ultimate basis of her foolishness: her Christianity. To trust in her God, to trust in His Word, to view his universe as something beautiful, amazing; to stand in awe of his creation; yes, even if that creation is formed out of an evil act. I speak of Sharron Angle's position on abortion that Ralston quotes with relish and Maddow salivates over: that abortion is not justified under any circumstances--even rape and incest. This is a hard pill to swallow for liberals, but somehow fallacious logic, deception, and lies seem to pass into the mouth and stomach without so much as a groan, and the murder of an innocent life is easily digested.
