WATCH: MSNBC Host Bristles When Reporter Uses Long-Accepted Term She Doesn't Like

MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell goes off on reporter for saying "pro-life." (Credit: MRC/Twitter)

In this episode of the left’s Rules for Thee but Not for Me…

So things took an awkward turn on Thursday’s “Andrea Mitchell Reports,” when the MSNBC host threw a snit fit after NBC News Senior Capitol Hill Correspondent Garrett Haake used a long-accepted term during a discussion about abortion and specifically, anti-abortion legislation.


The egregious term Haake had the audacity to bust out? “Pro-life.” No, really.

Setting aside that “pro-life” used in reference to abortion is accurate, while “pro-choice” means “pro-abortion” to left — to deny that it is to deny reality — Andrea Mitchell‘s little hissy fit was quintessential “rules for thee but not for me.”

Anyway, the festivities began as Haake was explaining to Mitchell why Republican Rep. Nancy Mace (S.C.), voted for two “anti-abortion bills” this week, as Fox News reported, despite telling MSNBC she wished the GOP would focus on birth control access as a measure to stop abortions instead. Haake began:

She told reporters after the fact that at the end of the day, she was, as she described herself, ‘pro-life.’ She felt it was important to vote for these measures despite their potentially politically damaging — or politically unappealing appearance if you will —

Mitchell abruptly cut Haake off, scolding:

Garrett, let me just interrupt and say that ‘pro-life’ is a term that they — an entire group wants to use. But that’s not an accurate description.

“I’m using it because it’s the term she used to describe herself, Andrea,” Haake responded. Mitchell fired back:

I understand. I understand. Anyway, that was her explanation.

What you’re about to see was totally over Mitchell’s head — what she tried to do on live TV, I mean.


Let’s do a bit of analysis, shall we?

With a complete lack of self-awareness, Andrea Mitchell — on-air — prodded a colleague to in effect censor the words of a conservative with whom she obviously disagrees. Why? The very same reason(s) the left wants to suppress, censor, or ban conservative commentary or facts that contradict Democrat narratives, on social media, college campuses, and even via tearing down statues and rewriting history.

Yet, the left has for decades successfully employed buzz words and phrases, and code words, and they have done so far more effectively than have the Republicans. From “glass ceiling” to “progressive” to “diversity” to “equality” (which has now given way to “equity”) to “gun violence, “right to choose” and more, the list is long — and ever-evolving.

The reason is simple: Liberalism is based on emotions rather than facts.

If Democrats told the truth, they’d never win an important election again.


Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Trending on RedState Videos