Maddow Fails To Question Huckabee On His Recent Anti-Gay Statements; Update: Maddow Responds
Maddow Fails To Question Huckabee On His Recent Anti-Gay Statements; Update: Maddow Responds
Since Prop. 8’s passage in California, which revoked same-sex couples’ right to marry, MSNBC host Rachel Maddow has been a powerful outspoken advocate of the rights of gay citizens. “The amendment does not just prohibit gay rights. It takes away rights previously enjoyed,” she said. She has also called the vote a “rebuke to the incumbent rights of gay couples.” Watch a mashup:
However, last night, Maddow was notably silent on the issue of gay rights when interviewing former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee. On Tuesday, Huckabee had insisted that gay rights and civil rights were totally different because gay rights activists’ “skulls” weren’t getting “cracked.” On Wednesday morning, Huckabee claimed that Prop. 8 “did not prohibit” gay marriage; it “simply affirmed that which already has and forever has existed,” he said.
During the seven-minute interview last night, however, Maddow never forced Huckabee to defend these claims. Instead, Maddow repeatedly asked him about his future presidential plans and speculated about the influence of the Christian Right in the GOP. Watch it:
Huckabee has equated homosexuality with bestiality and necrophilia, said that people have the “choice” to act gay, and actively pushed to criminalize sodomy, ban gay couples from adopting, and exclude gay partners from spousal survival benefits. Huckabee’s views on gay rights are extreme, and deserve to be questioned.
I weighed whether or not to ask him about his anti-gay views, but I really don't care about them very much. Huckabee is a doctrinaire anti-gay theocratic social conservative whose views are well-known and heartfelt. I also probably wouldn't bother asking Sarah Palin about her anti-gay views if I had the opportunity to interview her -- it's just not the most interesting or newsworthy (or ridiculous) thing about either of them.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Maddow Fails To Question Huckabee On His Recent Anti-Gay Statements»
– - Yeah, I watched that last becoming more slackjawed as the interview progressed. I thought Rachel was, pardon the expression, a woman with balls.
November 21st, 2008 at 11:11 amUmm, “last night”
November 21st, 2008 at 11:12 amRachel probably realized that when you get in a pissing match with a skunk all you get is sprayed on and she let it lie.
In the long run who really cares what Huckleberry thinks or says. He and his dinosaur-laden party are on the verge of oblivion now anyway so let him blather on about his non-chances in 2012 and beyond.
November 21st, 2008 at 11:14 amThat’s not what the interview was about.
November 21st, 2008 at 11:19 amPerhaps she knew that it would only take ONE MORE idiotic statement from that moron and she’d have to come across the desk and choke the life out of him so she decided to let it go…this time.
I like your skunk analogy, Curlew. It’s appropriate for these stinking losers.
November 21st, 2008 at 11:19 amYAWN…her show keeps getting more and more boring anyway.
¶ AIO
November 21st, 2008 at 11:22 am…ONE MORE idiotic statement from that moron and she’d have to come across the desk and choke the life out of him…
– - That’d be some long desk since Huckabee wasn’t at the same location as Maddow.
November 21st, 2008 at 11:28 amIf you’re playing mind games with an unarmed opponent, you really don’t need to bring your big weapons out….
November 21st, 2008 at 11:43 amTo The Think Progress Editor-
Give it a Rest
Your over the top on this one.
The interview was about the person next in line to lead the Rethugs out of Oblivion.
Apparently “Think Progress” has a Shrill Homosexual Editor with an Ax to Grind.
Give it a Rest and stop acting like Fox News.
November 21st, 2008 at 11:44 amAlthough the interview was about a different topic, why she didn’t bring the gay comments up is beyond me. His comments identify him as an extremist evangelical and should disqualify him as a potential leader of the party – those folks are one of the reasons for the mess its in today.
November 21st, 2008 at 11:46 amFurther – I find Dr. Maddow more gracius and less shrill than Kieth Obermann.
I love Kieth but I believe Maddow will actualy get more Republican guests on to debate with.
Her intellect and approach will allow her to skewer Con guests in a way without them even knowing it.
Cons will not go on Kieth’s show because of his penchant for calling it like it is. You cannot call a fscist a fascist to his face. You can subliminally get there with Racheal’s approach.
I like her style – polite yet right to the point.
She certainly skewer
November 21st, 2008 at 11:50 amI trust that Rachael had her reasons, but I would have loved to watch her mop the floor with that swarmy sack of bigotry.
November 21st, 2008 at 11:51 amTP – really? You put Maddow under the title “Braindead Media”? I love her show. You want “braindead media” watch Hannity and Colmes.
November 21st, 2008 at 11:52 amWaltB Says:
——————————————————————————–
Although the interview was about a different topic, why she didn’t bring the gay comments up is beyond me. His comments identify him as an extremist evangelical and should disqualify him as a potential leader of the party – those folks are one of the reasons for the mess its in today.
Walt- the Republican Party is an extremist party today.
Did you not watch the Reich wing-nuts at the campaign rallies? Kill Obama and Bomb Obama was heard at most rallies. The cameras and microphones were restricted to the parking lots it got so bad.
If you ask me, this Homophobe represents the what the party truly believes about the subject. He also represents what I call the Jesus freaks.
November 21st, 2008 at 11:57 amRachel’s show is for a wide audience – not a gay audience…
Perhaps that was the point – rather than letting the interview possibly degenerate into a shouting match, she let it be. I’m sure Rachel could seriously dismember Chuckleboob on that subject…but, as personally satisfying as that would be, it might not be suitable for her audience.
Just trying to give her the benefit of the doubt. Hell, I can’t figure out why on earth she’s nice to that nutball Pat Buchanan! I’d have to smack him into next week.
November 21st, 2008 at 12:00 pmA left leaning, breath of fresh air show with Rachel is coming under fire because TP and some poster’s think she should do what they want?..Come on TP and poster’s, get a grip….Jeebos…It is her show and damn good I might add…Rachel is drawing huge number’s every night…If you don’t like it get your own show or watch the brain dead fox show’s…Blessings
November 21st, 2008 at 12:07 pmWho cares what cHucklehead thinks?
November 21st, 2008 at 12:09 pmWhy question him on that when she already knows his answers?
November 21st, 2008 at 12:10 pmShe’s smart.
Early Christmas present… “Yay another book to read from.”
November 21st, 2008 at 12:10 pmIt’s true that some of Huckabee’s recent statements were as tantalizing as a nice slow pitch right over the plate, and the temptation had to be there for Rachel to hit it right out of the park (Prop 8 didn’t prohibit gay marriage? Really?). And I’m surprised she didn’t go for this low-hanging fruit.
But it may have been a wiser choice on her part to resist temptation and go for the interview she did. A “gay” fight with somebody like Huckabee might have made Huckabee look silly to her audience, but most of her audience thinks he looks silly anyway. Discussing the influence of the Christian Right in the GOP probably had more potential — especially since there are a lot of differing opinions within the Republican Party on that point.
November 21st, 2008 at 12:19 pmAs Maddow said in the update: why ask a question of someone who’s already made up their mind and only contribution to the dialogue would be “just because”.
And isn’t it somewhat disingenuous to castigate Maddow specifically for not asking the ‘gay’ question? In all matters gay, is Maddow now the person that is going to ask the questions just because she happens to be gay herself?
The next time Huckabee is interviewed by someone else in the media and they don’t ask the ‘gay’ question, I would fully expect TP to post in the same manner.
November 21st, 2008 at 12:29 pmIs it possible that she didn’t know about his statement? She’s been on a cruise all week, hasn’t she?
November 21st, 2008 at 12:36 pmAttacking Rachel is so… counterintuitive! Reverse jujitsu with a double twist! Come on, Ali Frick. You can do better than this.
November 21st, 2008 at 12:36 pmI don’t know. I think people like Rachel, Bill Maher, and Jon Stewart have a great opportunity to pierce the veneer of acceptability that cloaks clever wackjobs like Huckabee, particularly on these kinds of issues. Not that Rachel doesn’t do a fine job in the clip.
But having an out lesbian challenge bigotry that affects her (!) on national TV is important. There’s no clever way to kick up dust and muddy the issue when you’rIt’s what made Ellen’s tepid challenge to McCain so squirmworthy, and Dan Savage’s not-so-tepid back-and-forth with Tony Perkins so important, and it’s an important way to show that politics can be, and often are, incredibly personal.
There are opportunities to lay truth bare, and they are so rarely taken. Remember Jon Stewart on Crossfire? I understand that a comedian can’t take that approach all the time. But there are moments when it’s worth it.
November 21st, 2008 at 12:39 pmHowever, there was a lot of time for good bit of ass kissing about his book.
November 21st, 2008 at 12:43 pmRachel should reserve the slicing and dicing of Falin’ Palin until the Presidential Debates of 2016. Maddow for President!
November 21st, 2008 at 12:46 pmPalin Failin’ in 2016! (If she isn’t turkeyed by then.)
Not the smartest strategem of orthodoxy enforcement by the TP overlords.
November 21st, 2008 at 12:48 pmHowever, Rachel Maddow, I would question why you have this clown on your show at all. Though his views may be heartfelt, they are deeply hurtful and morally wrong. I would not solicit his opinion on any topic.
November 21st, 2008 at 12:55 pmHuckabee wanted to be on the show to promote his book. Why not make him squirm a little bit. David Letterman asks tougher questions of these guys.
November 21st, 2008 at 1:00 pmI have to agree with Rach on this one people. I watched the show last night and I was glad that it wasn’t brought up and to tell you the truth, I didn’t expect her to bring it up.
November 21st, 2008 at 1:02 pmarg – Rachel.
November 21st, 2008 at 1:03 pmWhat good is there having a “liberal” host who won’t at least try to castrate these fascist, homophobic, misogynistic shitwhistles when they get a chance?
November 21st, 2008 at 1:14 pmI’d like to complain about ThinkProgress not condemning Rachel for not asking about piracy off the horn of Africa. Obviously, this issue is forefront in the news, yet Rachel failed to question Huckabee about it during her interview.
In fact, I’m sure there are many issues Rachel failed to bring up. We should all agree to watch Hannity & Colmes until she starts asking all of those questions.
November 21st, 2008 at 1:17 pmPandering to the psychotic preacher so he can pimp his book is hardly ‘journalism.’
Maddow had every right–and i’d say the responsibility–to take ol’ stump-broke Huckster to task for the things he’s adi, the things for which he was on the record, and on that basis has a public opinion prior to the meeting.
Piracy is not something on which Stumpy had expressed an opinion.
He was on the show to sell his cheesy, shit-sucking book. There’s no “code of the interview” that give him a free-pass on controversy.
Maddow just (as anyone with half a brain knew she would) followed orders from the bosses…
November 21st, 2008 at 1:24 pmI was initially very exciting about Rachel Maddow’s having her own show. She’s either the brightest commentator to come along in a very long time or among the top two or three, depending on personal preferences. I love her! But, something’s wrong. Perhaps television isn’t right for her, she’s not used to the hour-long format, or something. As someone noted, the shows seem to get weaker and weaker overall. I’m fairly certain that she’s not a one-topic (election politics) kind of gal/person. But something’s wrong, including not making Gov. Huckabee squirm. Her rationale makes no sense, all the more so coming from someone as bright as she is. It’s like not asking Bush, McCain, Obama about the Iraq war because, hey, we already know what they think about it. It’s like asking Palin only about how many ways there are to prepare moose for dinner. Perhaps the key is in her words “I really don’t care. …” That’s more suitable for radio than television. On television, I believe that that attitude pretty much dooms the person to failure. I’m probably wrong. We need smart people, whatever their philosophies, on the air.
November 21st, 2008 at 1:32 pmLeftside Annie Says:
Just trying to give her the benefit of the doubt. Hell, I can’t figure out why on earth she’s nice to that nutball Pat Buchanan! I’d have to smack him into next week.
I don’t think that was Rachel’s choice. I’m betting that having Buchanan on her show on a regular basis was a condition MSNBC put on her new show. Fortunately she seems to have more control now because I haven’t seen him on her show for quite some time. I do love to watch Rachel’s facial expressions when Buchanan is having one of his hissy fits, though.
November 21st, 2008 at 1:32 pmMy problem is that she gave that boob 7 minutes to sell his crappy book. What’s next, thankgiving reciepes?
November 21st, 2008 at 1:34 pmI have been getting irritated with Rachel the last week or so with her constant second guessing what Obama is doing with his cabinet. Then last night she had that guy on (I don’t remember his name) who made a really good case for what Obama is doing. I don’t know if Rachel bought his argument though because she didn’t comment afterward.
I too am wondering what is going on with her show. It’s certainly not as snappy as it was at the beginning.
November 21st, 2008 at 1:37 pmI just found out something interesting. Rachel Maddow was supposed to be on the Air America cruise from November 16 to the 23rd. What was she doing on her show last night? Did she abandon the cruise?
November 21st, 2008 at 1:39 pmHey Bilbo, or any other Rachel hater for that matter, who DO you like on TV right now? If Rachel isn’t progressive enough for you, then who is?
I’ve been listening to Rachel for years. While I don’t agree with everything she (or anyone else) says, I do find her a far better progressive voice than her peers. Nitpicking what she DOESN’T do, strikes me as ludicrous in the face of the right leaning slant coming from 99.4% of the rest of the television media.
Don’t like Rachel? Fine. Go watch Hannity & Colmes. See if that’s any better.
November 21st, 2008 at 1:47 pmShe’s probably trying to avoid being stereotyped as “the gay host what talks about gay stuff.” I think she’s trying too hard.
I’d also like to say that Huckabee does make a good point: gay marriage can lead to legal recognition of necrophilia. As a lifetime necrophiliac myself, I look forward to Prop. 8 being overturned so that we can move towards allowing myself and my fellow necrophiliacs to have legally recognized relationships with our partners of choice.
– Dick Cheney
November 21st, 2008 at 1:48 pmMcE Says:
Hey Bilbo, or any other Rachel hater for that matter, who DO you like on TV right now? If Rachel isn’t progressive enough for you, then who is?
I’m not exactly sure where you got the impression that I am a “Rachel hater”. I actually love her and for the most part love her show. I do think that something is going on with her show, though. I think it’s more how it is being produced than anything to do with Rachel herself.
November 21st, 2008 at 1:53 pmSomebody needs a nap.
November 21st, 2008 at 1:56 pmI agree with Rachel…we all know that Huckabee believes the worst about the gay community, past statements, proudly made by him leave no gray area about that. He despises gay people, always has, always will.
Rachel is smart enough to know that even if God himself came down from Heaven carried by archangels in drag to announce that homosexuality is not a sin, Huckabee would accuse Him of being in the tank for the liberal media.
November 21st, 2008 at 2:08 pm“I have been getting irritated with Rachel the last week or so”
That’s why. ‘Hater’ was rhetorical on my part, but there’s not a lot of leeway for Rachel from a lot of the commenters here. I also think going after someone for what they DIDN’T do is bit much. I can’t think of a single interview by anyone of anyone where they asked every question I wished they had asked. I’d have a critique of every interview if that were the criteria.
And, yes, I need a nap. Badly. Coffee’s making me twitchy….
November 21st, 2008 at 2:13 pm….and like before the election when she had to be “talked down” about how the election process was going really pissed me off.
She was so negative and seemed scared; that’s when I started to turn her off.
….and, thank you, I do watch Hannity and Colmes; I love watching inbred Hannity’s head imploding, and also like watching all the false prophets like Dickie Morris get it wrong.
¶ AIO
November 21st, 2008 at 2:18 pmRachel proves again why she is continuously growing in popularity. She chooses a more dignified method of questioning in challenging her guests — we all would have liked to see Huckleberry verbally put down, but that would have been short-lived in pleasure.
November 21st, 2008 at 2:43 pmI thoroughly enjoy Olbermann and his sarcasm, his outrage and his comments – but Rachel operates differently and she deserves credit, and respect.
Buchanan is deliberately placed on Rachel’s show because they have had some very heated discourse in the past, and he provides that on her show.
November 21st, 2008 at 2:45 pmI am quite sure it is part of the contract.
Really my biggest problem with this is the way that the black community has taken so much heat over 8, when the most homophobic group in America are white, male, Christian, and conservative. And it was in fact the inland CA vote, where this group has far more clout than the seaside cities, that led to its passing.
November 21st, 2008 at 3:03 pmStill I do expect white male conservative members of the media who are pro gay rights to go right after Huckabee and the rest of these prejudiced clowns who are hiding their blantant discrimination behind their religion.
In my circle of political friends, what Bilbo Hussein Baggins wrote about people getting “irritated with Rachel [over] the last week or so” is exactly right, and I’m talking about enthusiastic Rachel fans, not “Rachel haters”, McE. She seems anxiously hung up on the fear that Obama’s already headed in various wrong directions (some variation on, “Is this the change he promised??”), whereas, as one of my friends keeps saying, the man hasn’t even assumed office yet! I think Rachel, as bright as she is, is showing her youth and impatience, and two years from now she’ll be talking about how much she’s learned from observing this process. Keith, even as overpowering as he can sometimes be, is fifteen years older and probably has more inherent patience, if not simply a more mature perspective, than the regularly over-anxious (”talk me down!”) wunderkind Rachel does.
November 21st, 2008 at 3:32 pmThank you. Thank you TP. I thought that I was alone in the universe criticizing Rachel. She was totally AWOL on Prop 8 until after the election. Nevertheless, it seems that she did drop Pitchfork Pat.
http://www.tips-q.com/content/rachel-maddows-odd-couple
November 21st, 2008 at 3:36 pmhttp://www.tips-q.com/content/we-start-pointing-fingers
Hmmm…lets see…I could talk about civil rights with one of the failed 2008 GOP candidates, one of the three that doesn’t believe in evolution, raised his hand just like a 5 year old during one of their debates when asked a question about it or I could live one day longer and go home and sort my socks… decisions decisions ….
Whatever was she thinking?
November 21st, 2008 at 3:39 pmAnd regarding the issue of questioning Huckabee on his positions on gay rights, I agree that she should step up to the plate. Not every single time she interviews an anti-gay politician, perhaps. But she has very publicly defined herself, specifically, as an out lesbian in a committed relationship, a vocal advocate of rights for people like herself; to explain having avoided the topic because it’s “not the most interesting or newsworthy (or ridiculous) thing about” him seems a bit glib, especially because tacking on a parenthetical “(or ridiculous)” looks like merely an attempt to reclaim some activist street cred after having lost a little in the process, and isn’t the classiest jab to end with after having let him off the hook. As I wrote above, she’s relatively young and I think, without a clearer lead-up-to-the-election agenda to guide her (and her producers), she’s showing her inexperience a bit. But she’ll work it out over time.
November 21st, 2008 at 3:44 pmLet’s hope being a TV personality is not starting to make her her loose her “street cred”.
November 21st, 2008 at 4:51 pmnorbizness Says:
Not the smartest strategem of orthodoxy enforcement by the TP overlords.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Orthodoxy enforcement? We are leftys there is no such thing.
November 21st, 2008 at 5:18 pmAre you drunk?
November 21st, 2008 at 5:26 pmLushInterior Says:
You are an ignorant punk. Go back to your bridge troll. The adults are talking here.
November 21st, 2008 at 5:29 pmWhy would she (an out lesbian) dignify the Huckster’s views by giving them an airing on her show? Wouldn’t doing so just serve to imply that those views deserve a place in the debate, and that the holder of those views has a legitimate position from which to argue? Let Stewart lampoon him on TDS and let Colbert satirize him on the Report till all reasonable people recognize him for the (bad) joke he really is. Let the more serious media ignore the buffoons. After all, as Ayn Rand pointed out, “those who deny reason cannot be conquered by it”. Rachel will never change the mind of a single irrational gay-baiter by trading insults with the likes of the Huckster on her show, and she certainly doesn’t need to be a “one trick pony” where the fact of her sexual orientation is the only raison d’etre for her show. It would be far better for the side of reason to merely stand back and let them hoist themselves on their own petard while they protest that Stewart and Colbert don’t take them seriously.
November 22nd, 2008 at 11:50 amI think Rachel has to be very careful about becoming the gay crusader even though she’s open about who she is. I want her to be successful for the long haul and sometimes you have to choose battles worth fighting in order to win the war and she clearly didn’t feel this one was worth it. Her show has only been on for a couple months + and I’m sure MSNBC gives her some leeway, but not so much that any potential advertising dollars could be lost, even though she’s clearly the smartest person on tv, this is about making money for them. Still, because she is so nice, she’s generally able to get her point across with a smile. Example: I’ll bet David Frum won’t attempt another ambush of her.
November 23rd, 2008 at 5:23 pmI don’t agree with folks that her show is getting boring, but I do think she’s getting tired. As much as I missed watching her those 3 vacation days, instead of going back to NY for her radio and tv gigs after her Air America Cruise responsibilities ended, she should’ve just went home and slept. She needs to keep those batteries charged for herself…and us!
Definitely agree that bringing up Prop 8 would be pointless. I think guests are aware of what topic they will be discussing pre-interview and there’s no way he’d go on Maddow to talk about Prop 8 (or any gay other rights issues). He probably just wanted to seem likeable for the sake of selling his book and Rachel just wanted to point out the fact that he’d like to bring Christianity even further into American politics (and the Constitution). To me he seemed both personable AND crazy – so mission accomplished on both ends!
November 24th, 2008 at 12:16 am