Comments on: Maddow Fails To Question Huckabee On His Recent Anti-Gay Statements; Update: Maddow Responds

By: tinylittlebunnies

tinylittlebunnies — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 05:16:46 +0000

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!

By: baystater

baystater — Sun, 23 Nov 2008 22:23:02 +0000

I 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.
I 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!

By: one more clue

one more clue — Sat, 22 Nov 2008 16:50:59 +0000

Why 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.

By: EugeneDebs

EugeneDebs — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 22:29:40 +0000

LushInterior Says:

You are an ignorant punk. Go back to your bridge troll. The adults are talking here.

By: dbadass

dbadass — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 22:26:35 +0000

Are you drunk?

By: EugeneDebs

EugeneDebs — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 22:18:07 +0000

norbizness Says:

Not the smartest strategem of orthodoxy enforcement by the TP overlords.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Orthodoxy enforcement? We are leftys there is no such thing.

By: DutchHenry

DutchHenry — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 21:51:55 +0000

Let’s hope being a TV personality is not starting to make her her loose her “street cred”.

By: crdenny

crdenny — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 20:44:55 +0000

And 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.

By: timolo2008

timolo2008 — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 20:39:21 +0000

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?

By: DavidHart

DavidHart — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 20:36:57 +0000

Thank 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
http://www.tips-q.com/content/we-start-pointing-fingers

By: crdenny

crdenny — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 20:32:18 +0000

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.

By: CitizenE

CitizenE — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 20:03:40 +0000

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.
Still 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.

By: Marie

Marie — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 19:45:43 +0000

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.
I am quite sure it is part of the contract.

By: Marie

Marie — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 19:43:20 +0000

Rachel 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.
I thoroughly enjoy Olbermann and his sarcasm, his outrage and his comments – but Rachel operates differently and she deserves credit, and respect.

By: alphainfinityomega

alphainfinityomega — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 19:18:49 +0000

….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

By: McE

McE — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 19:13:15 +0000

“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….

By: kpaul

kpaul — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 19:08:33 +0000

I 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.

By: MontereyDean

MontereyDean — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 18:56:46 +0000

McE Says: … 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? … 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.

Somebody needs a nap.

By: Bilbo Hussein Baggins

Bilbo Hussein Baggins — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 18:53:51 +0000

McE 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.

By: ElBruce

ElBruce — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 18:48:36 +0000

She’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