The Ballad of Rachel Maddow, Eddie Chiles, and J.R. 'Bob' Dobbs
Friday A/V Club: One cable host's capacity for unearned smugness

Next week, Alex Wagner takes over the MSNBC slot once held by Rachel Maddow, who now broadcasts only on Monday evenings. (Wagner will handle the other four nights of the week.) Let's mark the occasion by dusting off the story that Maddow once declared her favorite. It wasn't a super-serious segment. It's one of those little items that's there to make people chuckle as much as it's there to make a point. But jokes can be revealing sometimes, and this one encapsulated the most aggravating element of The Rachel Maddow Show: its host's capacity for unearned smugness.
It was 2010, and Carl Paladino was the Republican nominee to be governor of New York. In the course of the campaign, he periodically said some dumb things, as he is wont to do. He also had lawn signs that said "I'm Mad Too, Carl!" This reminded Maddow of all the times she had seen the face of J.R. "Bob" Dobbs—the messiah of the tongue-in-cheek Church of the SubGenius—alongside the slogan "I'm Mad Too, 'Bob.'" Clearly, she declared, there was a method to all those Paladino gaffes. His campaign, she concluded, is a SubGenius-style art project.
She tells the story in a winding way, launching with a montage of Paladino proclaiming himself mad before she delivers a lecture on the history of "urban street art," which culminates with her introducing the "ubiquitous" image of Dobbs. We then get a review of various embarrassing Paladino moments, with a particular focus on his inability to back up his claims that Gov. Andrew Cuomo had cheated on his ex-wife. The "I'm Mad Too" bit is the punchline dropped at the very end—the wild fact that's supposed to tie everything together:
Now, I don't want to dwell on the fact that her chief beef with Paladino here involves his suggestion that Cuomo was an adulterer. Yes, it's pretty easy to believe that the Republican was right, given that Cuomo eventually resigned in the face of credible charges of sexual harassment. But Paladino didn't exactly do a convincing job of making his case, and it's fair to go after him for that.
Nor do I want to dwell on her description of the Church of the SubGenius as "iconic 1990s-era American urban street art." The first SubGenius pamphlet actually came out in 1980—but sure, the group was still around in the '90s. And while "street art" was never really the center of the project, it was certainly a part of it. It's an odd way to describe the church, but it's not what makes this piece of television so memorable.
No, the memorable thing is that punchline. The whole joke of the segment is that Paladino had somehow stumbled into accidentally recycling a countercultural slogan. That's what lets Maddow adopt that let-me-tell-you-some-history tone at the beginning of the story, and that's what's supposed to justify all the smirks along the way. But the joke is a bust, because Maddow didn't probe that history enough. When she recognized that phrase from some graffiti she'd seen in the '90s, she should have taken a moment to type "I'm Mad Too" into Google, just to see if there had been any prior art.
Ever hear of a Texas oilman named Eddie Chiles? He founded the Western Company of North America. He used to own the Texas Rangers. And in the 1970s, he started doing fiery radio editorials. Riffing on Howard Beale's famous line from Network—"I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not gonna take this anymore!"—he built a whole persona on how mad he was. His radio spots would start with an announcer saying, "What are you mad about today, Eddie Chiles?" The answer usually involved liberals and/or big government.

And what slogan did his fans embrace, buying it on bumper stickers, buttons, and baseball hats? "I'm Mad, Too, Eddie!"
The Church of the SubGenius was founded by a couple of Texans. When they dreamed up the phrase "I'm Mad Too, 'Bob,'" they were spoofing a slogan that was all over their home state in the '70s and '80s. Paladino is not a Texan, but that doesn't mean he wouldn't have heard of Chiles too. At their peak, the man's commentaries were airing on 650 stations around the country—and if you didn't hear the spots themselves, you still might see the stories about them on TV and in outlets like Time and The Christian Science Monitor. Or maybe you just saw the bumper stickers. They were at least as ubiquitous as "Bob" was.
Whether or not the slogan was the candidate's idea, his campaign clearly got it from the same place the SubGenius crew did: from Chiles. The only question for me was how much Paladino's general "I'm mad!" schtick was a riff on Chiles, how much it was a riff on Beale, and how much it was a riff on Howard Jarvis, the California anti-tax crusader who also liked to borrow Beale's line.
Look, I feel a bit ridiculous fact-checking a joke, especially when I'm doing it 12 years late. As far as I know, Paladino's people didn't bother to correct the record. (It's not like they'd be doing their guy any favors by calling attention to the segment.) And the SubGenii were happy to take the publicity, chatting about the story on their Hour of Slack radio show with what was, by their standards, only a small dose of snark. ("It's actually 1980s iconic street art.") When it comes to cable-news fuckups, this is about as harmless as it gets.
But it's the Maddow show in a nutshell. Scroll back up to that video. Watch the glee with which our host delivers her punchline, that smug certainty that she knows a little history that will make someone look foolish. If only she had known a little more history, she might have avoided looking foolish herself.
(For more editions of the Friday A/V Club, go here. For another one involving a cable host looking foolish, go here. For more on the Church of the SubGenius, read chapter nine of my book The United States of Paranoia.)
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
That's it? I'm not a big fan of Maddow because I'm not a big fan of long personal interpretations of the news by anyone, but this column ?
Kept waiting for the punch line.
The punch line is that it took until she was basically off the air for reason to publish the mildest of rebukes to this hack.
In her defense, her show was always opinion, so being a partisan hack is a defensible thing to be.
In defense of intellectual honesty, she is measurably worse than the partisan hacks that reason has no trouble calling to the carpet. Like their current favored target Carleson. The dude is definitely a firebrand who will make a mountain out of a molehill, but Maddow made an entire career out of outright fabrications, not simply spinning the news or torturing reason beyond recognition. No, Maddow is in a different category, delivering known lies with smug certainty.
It is comical that this last feature is what earned her the most coverage here. Her rampant dishonesty about her political opponents was her defense against defamation, which reason celebrated as a win for free speech. It was odd that they waited to step in until someone fought back using the legal system, but at least they acknowledged her dishonesty in covering it.
Which is more than I can say for their coverage of most of the issues she pushed during her tenure.
I never watched her show, but one of my favorite memories of her time in the spotlight was when she was shilling Obama's jobs plan by doing a spot in front of Hoover Dam, and talking about how Americans were still capable of accomplishing big projects like that. The whole thing was hilariously ironic because it's solely due to her political allies that monumental public works projects like Hoover Dam can't actually get built anymore--not just dams, but that dumb bullet train to nowhere in California, for example.
"Fuck 'Em If They Can't Take A Joke!"--Rev. J.R. "Bob" Dobbs.
I am creating eighty North American nation greenbacks per-hr. to finish some web services from home. I actually have not ever thought adore it would even (abt-13) realisable but my friend mate got $27k solely in four weeks simply doing this best assignment and conjointly she convinced Maine to avail. Look further details going this web-page.
.
---------->>> https://smartpay241.blogspot.com
Evajohn has no Slack.
You being a fan of Maddow is as close to a sure bet as death and taxes.
You may want to think about that, actually.
""Kept waiting for the punch line.""
Smugness has no punch line.
dude your entire schtick is long personal interpretations of the news
"Kept waiting for the punch line."
POW!
Jesse Walker must have some iron clad contract if something as trivial as this gets published. I wished they published the contract instead of this and the name of the lawyer that negotiated it.
Funny, I saw it the other way around... That it was funny that the only critique they dare publish is this oblique and years late takedown.
I enjoyed the daylights out of it.
Does anyone actually care about Rachel Mad-cow? I sure don't.
Rachel Maddow figured out Russians were literally controlling the US government long before Mueller's investigation proved exactly that.
#ItsMuellerTime
Educate yourself. The last part of this report was written in Aug 2020 when the Committee was under a GOP majority and it confirms Trump collusion with the Russians and Putins personal knowlegde of it, as well as Assange acting as a willing stooge of the Kremlin. Actual report linked at the site.
"Senate Intel Adopts Volume 5 of Bipartisan Russia Report
Aug 04 2020
Washington, D.C. — U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Acting Chairman Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Vice Chairman Mark Warner (D-VA) released the following joint statement after the Committee voted to adopt the classified version of the fifth and final volume of the Committee’s bipartisan Russia investigation:
“Today, the Senate Intelligence Committee voted to adopt the classified version of the final volume of the Committee’s bipartisan Russia investigation. In the coming days, the Committee will work to incorporate any additional views, as well as work with the Intelligence Community to formalize a properly redacted, declassified, publicly releasable version of the Volume 5 report. We want to thank the Committee’s Russia investigative staff for their years of diligent, hard work on this critical matter.”
Read the Senate Intelligence Committee’s previous reports:
“Volume I: Russian Efforts Against Election Infrastructure”
“Volume II: Russia’s Use of Social Media”
“Volume III: U.S. Government Response to Russian Activities”
“Volume IV: Review of the Intelligence Community Assessment”
Additional declassifications of “Volume IV: Review of Intelligence Community Assessment”
https://www.warner.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2020/8/senate-intel-adopts-volume-5-of-bipartisan-russia-report
Please provide the section of the report that confirms your statement:
"...GOP majority and it confirms Trump collusion with the Russians..."
Sure Idaho - from Volume 5:
"Beginning in March 2016, officers of the Russian Main Intelligence Directorate, the GRU, successfully hacked computer networks belonging to the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), and the email accounts of Clinton Campaign officials and employees, including Campaign Chairmap.John Podesta. Over the following months, these hackers carefully established persistent access in confidential areas of the victims' systems and stole massive amounts of politically sensitive data and personal communications. The data was subsequently leaked by GRU personas and WikiLeaks at strategic moments during the 2016 election, as part of a coordinated hack--and-leak operation intended to damage the Clinton Campaign, help the Trump Campaign (the · "Campaign"), and undermine the U.S. democratic process. ...
The Committee found that Russian President Vladimir Putin directed the hack-andleak campaign targeting the DNC, DCCC, and the Clinton Campaign. Moscow's intent was to damage the Clinton Campaign and tarnish what it expected might be a Clinton presidential administration, help the Trump Campaign after Trump became the presumptive Republican nominee, and generally undermine the U.S. democratic process. The Committee's findings are based on a variety of information, including raw intelligence reporting. ...
Starting in March 2016, the GRU used spearphishing techriiques to gain unauthorized access to the email accounts of individuals associated with the Clinton Campaign, including Campaign Manager John Podesta, and stole thousands of emails....
The influence activities using these personas spanned June 2016 through the election, and included attempts to obscure Russia's responsibility for the hacking operation.1113 In addition to publishing the stolen documents, the Russian personas used social engineering to seed information with specific individuals associated with the Trump Campaign.
WikiLeaks actively sought, and played, a key role in the Russian campai~knew it was assisting a Russian intelligence influence effort. The Committee found significant indications that Julian Assan e and WikiLeaks have benefited from Russian government support ....
After receiving the GRU' s materials, WikiLeaks timed its document releases for maximum political impact.. WikiLeaks released the GRU-hacked materials obtained from the DNC on the eve of the Democratic National Convention. It released materials stolen from Podesta's email account starting on October 7, 2016, and continued to release Podesta's emails up until the election. ' (U) While the GRU and WikiLeaks were releasing hacked documents, the Trump Campaign sought to maximize the impact of those materials to aid Trump's electoral prospects. To do so, the Trump Campaign took actions to obtain advance notice about WikiLeaks releases of Clinton emails; took steps to obtain inside information about the content of releases once WikiLeaks began to publish stolen information; created messaging strategies to promote and share the materials in anticipation of and following their release; and encouraged further theft of information and continued leaks. (U) Trump and senior Campaign officials sought to obtain advance information about WikiLeaks through Roger Stone. ...
Trump and other senior Campaign officials specifically directed Stone to obtain information about upcoming document releases relating to Clinton and report back. At their direction, Stone took action to gain inside knowledge for the Campaign and shared his purported knowledge directly with Trump and senior Campaign officials on multiple occasions. ..."
Plenty more, including the top 3 Trump campaign officials knowingly meeting with a Kremlin connected lawyer in Trump Tower in order to get dirt on Hillary. The guy's a scum bag and so are his relatives and stooges.
Oh yeah! Fuck Assange. Hope he rots in jail.
Th report says Trump may have benifited from the Russian nterference, but nowhere does it say Trump colluded with the Russians.
You flat out lied.
Ctrl+F "collusion"
0 results
""Starting in March 2016, the GRU used spearphishing techriiques to gain unauthorized access to the email accounts of individuals associated with the Clinton Campaign, including Campaign Manager John Podesta, and stole thousands of emails....""
If the emails shed light on behavior that would be perceived negatively by the public, why blame Russia for shedding light on the actions of the DNC? That's like blaming Wikileaks for the actions in Iraq.
Russia interfering with elections is a different subject than the Trump Russia collusion claims.
But you already know that and rather continue lying to keep your narrative going rather than embrace reality. It's no wonder you are a fan of Maddow.
""The Committee has seen no evidence that any votes were
changed or that any voting machines were manipulated.^""
From Vol 1 page 3, under Findings of your link.
Nothing has proven or shown that Trump was not duly elected despite all the people claiming he was not and having a shit fit for four years.
Trump was duly elected by the EC, even though the American people voted for Hillary and not him by 3 million. You are also avoiding the impact on Hillary's vote total of the Russian email hacks and the fact that Comey chose to announce an FBI investigation of her 2 weeks before the vote, but not the FBI investigation of Trump which was also ongoing at that point.
So, things happened that impacted the vote? You could argue this kind of stuff all day long. How about the media being completely against Trump and pushing Russia conspiracy ties? I imagine that also impacted Trump's support.
There is no evidence of a Russian email hack. None. You are a bigger joke than this column
""Trump was duly elected by the EC, even though the American people voted for Hillary""
It's so disingenuous to use the popular vote when the contest is not measured that way.
"You are also avoiding the impact on Hillary's vote total of the Russian email hacks and the fact that Comey chose to announce an FBI investigation of her 2 weeks before the vote,
Really, what was the total vote impact? You don't know if there is one. You are assuming so without evidence of.
From where I stood, those voting for Hillary were set on voting for Hillary. Those who did not like her would not vote for her anyway.
I suggest that the FBI impact was very minimal at best. People were already in their corners. And since you want to give credit to the EC, please explain how the FBI affected EC votes for Hillary.
Also, if Hillary would have won the EC and not the popular vote you would not cry foul, would be fine with it. I would be too because that's the rules of the contest.
Also, Hillary paid a former foreign spy for Russian information (unsubstantiated) for the purpose of a political campaign. That too can be viewed as Russian influence. It is definitely the use of foreign assesses to influence an American election. But let's ignore that and blame Trump for foreign influence.
Cite please.
You aren't aware of the famous Steele Dossier? I would think that basic chunk of knowledge is required for anyone to be discussing this matter.
I will see if I can dig up the court transcript. I've posted it several times before on this site.
But here's an article about the FEC fining the Clinton camp for it.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/30/politics/clinton-dnc-steele-dossier-fusion-gps/index.html
""Federal election regulators fined Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee earlier this month for not properly disclosing the money they spent on controversial opposition research that led to the infamous Trump-Russia dossier.""
I found this so I don't need to find the court document I was looking for.
https://www.cnn.com/2017/10/24/politics/fusion-gps-clinton-campaign/index.html
Admission is good enough for you, right?
""The law firm for the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee has acknowledged its clients’ role in paying for opposition research on Donald Trump that helped fund the now-infamous dossier of allegations about the now-President and Russia.""
So, Hillary paid a former foreign spy for Russian information (unsubstantiated) for the purpose of a political campaign.
If you believe outside influence is wrong, why do you try to deny this.
Oh wait, it's your team doing it.
You're avoiding the impact of the email hack and the bot farms on votes. We agree that just like in 2020, no voting machines or local election tallies were messed with .
So, you're now claiming a stolen election lite just like Trump truthers?
It's so funny how you tribalists are really all the same. You spend your time accusing each other of doing the same things that you do, all while trying to justify what you do as being different than what they do.
""You're avoiding the impact of the email hack and the bot farms on votes.""
What was the impact specifically? How many people decided not to vote for Hillary or decided to vote for Trump due to those?
BORING!
Now, I don't want to dwell on the fact that her chief beef with Paladino here involves his suggestion that Cuomo was an adulterer. Yes, it's pretty easy to believe that the Republican was right, given that Cuomo eventually resigned in the face of credible charges of sexual harassment. But Paladino didn't exactly do a convincing job of making his case, and it's fair to go after him for that.
I mean, that's surely part of the Maddow phenomenon, too. Mocking people who are saying things that are undeniably true as if they're insane. I don't know anything about Paladino, but I'm not about to trust Maddow, or Jesse Walker, if they tell me he wasn't making his case.
Beyond that, the clips she quoted from Paladino explicitly copied the line from Network, so I don't know if you need to dig at all beyond that to see what his inspiration was. A lot of people really liked that scene. I, for my part, find it to be a really shitty message because I don't think there's value in riling yourself up to be angry. People making decisions from an emotional basis aren't typically making the best decisions, so I don't find it an appropriate avenue to reach solutions.
Good article on Maddie. The article and Maddie are both boring and pointless. The subject matches the result.
>... and how much it was a riff on Howard Jarvis.
I got a shrine to Howard Jarvis. I worship the bastard.
Best was his cameo in Airplane. Now you know why he was had as hell.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fP_m7BoYDBY
The woman has no slack.
Nor has she been blessed with the Frop incense-imbued essence of Connie Dobbs' panties, so she's a "Pink!". Her network doesn't even rate a place on Bob's Shish-Qa-Bob-Allah!
Both Rachel Maddow and Pete Buttigieg are queer and Rhoades Scholars. I wouldn't call Maddow stupid but she is hardly a genius. Buttigieg is one of the silliest and dumbest people in American politics, which puts him in strong contention for being the silliest and dumbest person in the world.
What is it with queers being Rhoades Scholars? Does being a queer relieve you of the requirement to actually be smart to get a Rhoades Scholarship? Seriously, how did those two get the award?
Does being a queer relieve you of the requirement to actually be smart to get a Rhoades Scholarship?
Aside from being associated with Oxford, did smart ever actually have anything to do with it? Like the intelligence standard was that you weren't so retarded you would flunk out of Oxford. Like it was Oxford's version of The Oscars or The Grammies. Clinton was a Rhoades Scholar and while he was no drooling moron, I think we can all agree that "It depends on what your definition of the word 'is' is." makes Johnny Cochran look like a trans-dimensional warp drive engineer.
I find if funny that wokazoids like Maddow and Buttigieg would want to be associated with a scholarship associated with Cecil Rhodes.
Well, there was free stuff associated with it, so they overlooked that aspect.
It's important to keep in mind that things like Rhodes scholarships were established way back when colleges were still intellectually rigorous institutions and hadn't been democratized to let any drooling idiot in to the place.
I wouldn't consider Maddow or Buttigieg dumb, but they are certainly vapid and an indication of how the standards of high intellectualism have degraded since the New Left started taking over the universities.
Have you ever heard Buttigieg talk? I agree with you about Maddow not being dumb and just vapid. I think Buttigieg is dumb as a post. He is the picture of the stupid, creepy queen. That creeps the hell out of me.
She is smarmy boring woman who tries hard to look like a man. I wouldn’t take a free bj from her.
I don't even know who Paladino is, but now I'm disappointed it wasn't a subgenius performance art project. That sounds like fun. (I'd like a lot more than just "I'm mad too", though. That's an awful thin thread to hang a theory on).
I was just thinking about Bob Dobbs the other day. A college roommate in the 80's had had a book. I barely remembered the gist of it all and the name (I was unsuccessful at finding it listed under Bob Dodd), but I remembered the smiling face with pipe image. I forget why now, but I wanted a copy of that image for something.
And today, here it is!
There were several SubGenius Books written by Rev. Ivan Stang:
The Book of the SubGenius,
High Weirdness By Mail,
Three-Fisted Tales of "Bob",
Revelation X: The "Bob" Apocryphon – Hidden Teachings and Deuterocanonical Texts of J. R. "Bob" Dobbs,
The SubGenius Psychlopaedia of Slack: The Bobliographon
The first two were in the Eighties. I read three of them and haven't been right ever since. 🙂
One their affiliates, The Luciferian Liberation Front, did the most hilarious and thought-tickling parodies of Jack Chick Pamphlets. The LLF were actually two Green Berets who were clearly masters of psy-war. I hope they are all right in the post-9/11 world and spreading the Good Word of Slack wherever they are!
Fraternizing with the no-nukers is how I was converted to the Sub-Genius church. Bob doesn't require you to believe anything or hate anyone. Armed with this I was able to interest my benefactress in the Libertarian Party.
Not sure I understand the phrase “unearned smugness.” Is there ever any smugness that’s earned? Do people like a smug asshole if he or she is sufficiently qualified? Being smug is always objectionable.