Can we watch Rachel Maddow anymore?

[CTLawGuy]

She has a working relationship with Pat Buchanan, known anti-semite, racist and homophobe. She has him on her show on occasion. She refers to him as "Uncle Pat." (Can you imagine the outrage if Obama called Warren "Uncle Rick"?)

So is Maddow self-hating for having such a relationship with "Uncle Pat"? Does her program promote bigotry because he is on it on occasion?

on edit: aren't there plenty of conservatives Rachel could deem her "uncle" who aren't virulent racists, homophobes and anti-semites?

[Kahuna]

1. Good question...

:popcorn: or maybe <CRICKETS>

[CTLawGuy]

2. I would join you

but I eat too much popcorn as it is.

[Thrill]

3. I already stopped listening to her radio show and TV show

I stopped right before the election. You know because McCain is going to win.

[JohnnieGordon]

53. She's doing just fine without you, dear.

[Thrill]

74. I'm doing even better, dear.

[JohnnieGordon]

76. Oh are you, so you've got something going as good as Rachel, an emerging media star?

In your dreams.

[Thrill]

91. Happinesss isn't measured by being in media

I enjoy my days much better since I stopped listening to her negative bullshit

[JohnnieGordon]

92. Her happiness is measured, in part, by her fab ratings

And the "Obama can't be criticized" types haven't managed to put even the slightest dent in them.

[Buzz Clik]

4. "She refers to him as 'Uncle Pat'." It cracks me up when she introduces him as Just Pat.

[madeline_con]

113. Both are kind of tongue in cheek, aren't they? n/t

[lostnotforgotten]

5. No One ever Suggested That Obama Should Not Talk With Warren

Inviting him to speak at the inauguration is beyond the pale.

Don't mix apples and oranges in drawing analogies.

[glowing]

7. Thank you.. I don't have to write it now. Discussion is one issue.

Giving an honored platform is another.

[KittyWampus]

13. And having someone on your fucking tv show isn't an "honored platform". LOL!

[glowing]

18. I think journalism is not the same as giving an award at a ceremony.

I think she has him on to debate, and really, he's the only pug who shows up. I think she schools him everytime. I don't think putting him on a show like hers is honoring Pat.

[POAS]

29. It isn't "journalism", it is

commentary and editorializing.

Shows like hers do provide news and jounalistic content but the primary motive is social and political commentary. The more controversial the better if it improves ratings and cash flow.

Real journalism is all but dead in this country. We saw a few peaks when David Gregory quizzed the President's mouth pieces and we see it in the likes of Helen Thomas but those are rare exceptions.

[glowing]

38. Yes, commentary is more appropriate.. but I don't think she's glorifying Pat on her show.

[mondo joe]

39. Isn't rolling one's eyes, sighing and treating someone like a nutjob an honor anymore?

What's the world coming to???

[CTLawGuy]

46. she calls him "Uncle Pat"

in an affectionate way!

[mondo joe]

49. I've seen a few people here called Uncle Tom.

Is that an honor?

[CTLawGuy]

50. hehe

not the same and you know it.

[mondo joe]

52. "Not the same and you know it" is an appropriate response

to virtually every argument you've posted here, from your OP on down. :-)

[CTLawGuy]

58. oh but it is the same

my OP makes you out to be a hypocrite and that's why you don't like it :)

[Name removed]

60. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[CTLawGuy]

67. if you want to continue

to wallow in your own hypocrisy that is fine as well.

or maybe go back to blaming blacks for prop 8 passing...

Goodness knows THAT was fun around here. :eyes:

[Name removed]

69. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[CTLawGuy]

71. that's good

but it was ALL OVER DU after the election. Very sad.

[Name removed]

73. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Raineyb]

82. Like this one?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=4405273

Answering the first not the second question.

:shrug:

Regards

[Name removed]

85. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[merh]

90. Not worth it

delete

[mondo joe]

100. Deleted? I wonder why.

Was "uncle" deemed not a term of honor?

[butterfly77]

108. Yes it is...

[kenny blankenship]

93. Obama has selected Warren to TALK TO GOD FOR HIM in front of the nation and the world

Having someone on your tv show to use as a punching bag is a little different, wouldn't you agree?
Maybe you thought Hannity was "honoring" Colmes by having him on his show.

[polichick]

104. Obviously a guest among countless other guests is hardly the same thing.

[Buzz Clik]

8. It is not beyond the pale. Holy crapoli. This is so far out of hand.

A teeny tiny minority with a HUGE voice decided to shit themselves over a small, insignificant move. No political implications, no regulatory implications. No sense of a blurring the lines between church and state.

This is out of hand and, quite frankly, completely insane.

[crappyjazz]

12. To you it means nothing

to us it does ... sorry for the inconvenience, but we're going to be angry for while

[KittyWampus]

15. Oh, it means something to MOST Of us. But some of us are able to see the forest from the trees.

And it's totally understandable that a lot of people need to vent some serious spleen.

On the other hand, some of the rest of us like to point out the need for some rational discourse on the matter.

[lostnotforgotten]

19. What's Not Rational About Remembering All Those That Died For Civil Rights?

eom

[lostnotforgotten]

17. Are You Old Enough To Remember The Civil Rights Movement?

Apparently not!

[Buzz Clik]

56. This is nothing in that picture. zip.

[KittyWampus]

11. it's the OVERLAYING PRINCIPLE. But you go ahead and obsess on that. It masks the hypocrisy

[lostnotforgotten]

22. And Which Principle Would That Be?

eom

[CTLawGuy]

14. umm

buchanan, by being frequently invited on a TV show gets MUCH more time to spread his hatred than does Rick Warren speaking a prayer for two minutes.

[lostnotforgotten]

21. Which event will be featured in history books?

Rachel's Show Is Not The Symbolic Start To A New Administration

[CTLawGuy]

23. who gave the invocation

4 years ago, 8 years ago?

without looking it up!


I don't know either.

[lostnotforgotten]

28. Not The Point - The History Books Will Record The Event!

Just because either you or I dod not remember those details does not mean history will forget.

[CTLawGuy]

35. if no one remembers it

who cares? If you couldn't name who gave those invocations without digging for them, then the invocation can't have that much of an effect-because the event doesn't remain in the public consciousness.

[lostnotforgotten]

40. Sadly - You Are A Lost Cause With A Meaningless Argument

eom

[CTLawGuy]

44. same to you

you've been strung up by your own sringent standards, which curiously seem only to apply to Obama.

[bvar22]

107. THIS ONE will be remembers for a loooong time.

[merh]

54. Oh, I'm kinda confused by this post and hope you don't mind if

I seek some clarification.

Having a racist pig like Buchanan on your nationally televised show repeatedly to do more than just offer a 2 minute prayer is less of a national stage than the one time inauguration event?

Doesn't allowing Buchanan to spew his nonsense constantly provide a much longer and readily available stage than an event that most folks will miss in toto because they will be at work?

And haven't all those upset about Warren shined a spotlight on him - I mean now he IS the focus. Rev Lowery is overshadowed and ignored. Wouldn't it have been better for the goals of the GLBT to rejoice that Lowery is going to be allowed to close? Have you minimized his voice and thus his message by ignoring it?

And by the way, could you tell me how you felt after the invocations at the Carter, Clinton and Bush inaugurations.

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[merh]

64. What is the "uncle" reference you made at the end of the post.

And your perspective about Pat is your perspective, those who are on the right see it as Pat smacking her down. Thus he gets the stage and the mic when he doesn't even qualify for a show and shouldn't be allowed to speak his hate.

Now, since you have decided to comment, please address the full post? What about Lowery, why would you want to ignore and overshadow him? He is for same sex marriage and civil rights for all. Why have you chosen to minimize his participation? Why is he no big deal to you?

[Name removed]

68. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[merh]

83. No, you haven't answered, you have attacked and name called

Someone that questions the absolutes is now an "uncle", sounds like those you hate and resent for hating you. Oh, bigotry is only right if it is for a good cause, is that it?

And so you have decided that Lowery's message isn't important and have decided to make Warren more important than he is (sorta like those who make martyrs out of terrorists) you give them the focus, the stage and the import - you have made him more important than he is while ignoring the importance of Lowery. The likes of Warren you drown out with the message of the Lowery's, but you don't see that, you refuse to see that.

And please answer my questions regarding the previous invocations. I'm not sure they meant much, please tell me how you felt after hearing them.

[Name removed]

86. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[merh]

89. You made the invocation the issue

Just as you have given Warren more importance that he deserves, his two minutes you have dragged out into weaks, you have made this the story that the media covers and, in so doing, you have diminished the position you want to be accepted by all, the message and postion of Rev. Lowery.

I'm not the OP and I know the Uncle reference is a slap by you - sad that you like being angry and negative. I challenged someone for saying Buchanan had less impact than Warren. I disagree with that poster and with you for agreeing.

I intend to focus on Rev Lowery and his message, the kiss has more power than the slap, that is how I choose to deal with this. You have the right to do as you wish, just stop calling me names and disagreeing with you for choosing to deal with it my way.

[mucifer]

6. Good point. It really pissed me off he was on her show. Then I got used to it.

[Buzz Clik]

9. As you already know, it's called balance.

It is something totally lacking on Fox News, and something Olbermann has no concept of.

[onehandle]

10. Yes. After eight years of having no truthful MSM, we finally have shows. (edit)

She and Keith carve him and others up pretty good when it's deserved.

If you want to live in a cave, cover your ears, and shout "free Mumia," knock yourself out.

On edit: If you were being ironic, then I address the above sentence to those it applies to.

[mondo joe]

16. No, you should not, because your strawman argument says not to. Thanks! NT

[CTLawGuy]

20. strawman?

is that the best you have?

Please inform me as to how inviting rick warren to give a 2 minute prayer is worse than having a known homophobe, racist, and anti-semite on your show multiple times and lovingly calling him "Uncle Pat".

[mondo joe]

24. Yes, strawman. No one as said Obama shouldn't engage with Rick Warren or his friends.

Where did you see that?

Strawman.

[CTLawGuy]

25. Rachel doesn't merely "engage" Buchanan

she gives him a platform on her show, a much more extensive platform than the inaugural prayer position. On TV you get to give your opinions, Rick is just delivering a prayer.

sometimes I wonder if Obama is being held to a different standard?

[mondo joe]

26. Strawman again.

Has she ever given Pat a place of honor wherein he stood unopposed?

Has Rachel ever brought Pat on and given him a forum without saying why he was wrong?

[CTLawGuy]

30. Warren isn't "unopposed" either

Pastor Lowery will be there for the closing prayer.

I think inviting someone on your show and giving them a microphone is honoring them, through the implication that their ideas are worth repeating. Wouldn't you be honored if Rachel wanted to know your opinions on the issues of the day? I know I would.

[mondo joe]

32. Yes, he's quite unopposed. He was given an honor - not a side in a debate.

If he was brought there to be told he was wrong, you'd have a point.

Furthermore, I'd point out that Rachel's show is Rachel's show - a private business. The inauguration is the people's business, and kicking off the people's business with someone who slanders a minority group and seeks to deprive that group of civil rights - a group that Obama reached out to "fiercely" for votes and contributions is pretty stinky.

[Cattledog]

41. The Inauguration is a ceremony it could take place in an office.

[mondo joe]

43. Could, but isn't. Obama's seal of aproval matters. NT

[XemaSab]

122. Or on an airplane

n/t

[CTLawGuy]

42. First, he's not being given ANY side

since he's probably going to ask God to bless the administration and the USA and that's it. He's not going to talk for 20 minutes on the evils of homosexuality and abortion, something Pat Buchanan could easily do on Rachel's show.

Second, the inauguration is funded at least in part by private donations, and it is meant to honor the new president and mark the commencement of his term, so it's not really "the people's" inauguration.

Third, Rachel doesn't have many LGBT viewers who contribute to her ratings??? It isn't an insult to force them to listen to a known homophobe, whom the person "on their side" calls "Uncle Pat" as if he's a beloved family member?

[mondo joe]

48. Oh possums, you are ALL over the map now. He's not being opposed, as Pat is on

Rachel's show, and if you think this isn't the people's event, that's just sad.

And "Uncle" isn't necessarily an honor. Consider "Uncle Tom".

[CTLawGuy]

55. wow

two compelling arguments:

a flat declaration that I am wrong,

and a lame attempt to equate a known slur, associated with a very famous book, to the loving comparison of another to a family member (unless in America, uncles are looked down upon?)

(Besides Pat wouldn't be an Uncle Tom anyway. He's not black first off. Second, he is not accepting his own unfair poor treatment rather than fighting back against it. So your theory that Maddow is insulting Pat makes no sense.)

[Name removed]

59. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JohnnieGordon]

62. "Not accepting his own unfair poor treatment" which is what you wish Rachel to do

Sorry she's not the Aunt Thomasina you'd be more comfortable with.

[CTLawGuy]

66. Aunt Thomasina

that is cute, I like that!

note that nowhere did I say that Rachel should accept the unfair treatment of LGBT people, and that you just made that up.

That is all!

[JohnnieGordon]

72. Right, you just think she's getting too uppity re: Warren

[90-percent]

27. Rachel and Pat

Like Frank Zappa's term to describe his approach to music:

Anything anytime anyplace for any reason at all.

I think Rachel has genuine respect for Buchanan as an enduring political figure that has Nixon speech writer gravitas.

But she likes to debate and is incredibly good at it. I think she displays the courage of her convictions when she brings on people with view points differing from hers. Could you picture Sean Hannity or Rush having Rachel or Keith guesting on their shows? Of course not, they don't have the courage to do it. They can't speak extemporaneously to someone that doesn't share their views in lock step.

-90% Jimmy

[Rockholm]

109. I have no arguement with Pat Buchanan.

You know pretty much where he stands on issues. It is my hunch that he has mellowed over the years regarding gays. He is one of those who could truly say "I have gay friends" and I believe deep down he feels that we deserve the same rights. He is boxed in and probably can't say this stuff, because his purpose will be diminished on these talking head shows.
Some of the stuff that Buchanan says I hear, not accept, but get where he is coming from. You are right. Hannity, et al are spineless creeps who are unable to rationally discuss issues, because they always have to be right.

[OHdem10]

31. Reading these posts made me think I had gotten mixed up

and was with the Right Wingers and Fundies. They are usually the
shunners. Me thought Liberals were confident enough in their own
beliefs not to be exclusionary and narrowminded.

[mondo joe]

36. Let me know which avowed racist will not be "excluded". Thanks!

[JohnnieGordon]

45. Yes, we mustn't shun the racists. When will Obama will be rolling out the red carpet for the KKK?

Hypocrite.

[chascarrillo]

33. ... and that's why I don't watch MSNBC.

Next question.

[JohnnieGordon]

51. Not enough kool-aid commercials?

[Bucky]

34. What I wanna know is... how can you *stand* watching her after she (gasp!) criticized the president!

Doesn't that make her an incessant whiner in your book?

[CTLawGuy]

37. She did get very "chicken-little"esque by the end of the

election season, but overall I like her.

[Bucky]

47. (Pssst, I was making fun of you)

You ridicule others for having the temerity to speak out against one of Obama's decisions, but then suggest it's okay to watch Maddow, who had basically the same complaint about the decision to invite Warren. So which is it, amigo? Is it okay with you for people to criticize Obama or isn't it? Or is your point that it's okay for people on TV to criticize him, but not okay for people on the internet?

Okay, obviously my sarcasm is getting too verbose. Now you've forced me to address you sincerely and without any veiled scorn. My basic point is that far too many people on this board are treating criticism of Obama like it's opposition to Obama. That's a shitty way to treat fellow Democrats.

[CTLawGuy]

63. i don't think

"Obama is a homophobe"
"Obama sold out gay people"
"I'm sorry I voted for Obama"

etc.

is "criticism".

It is holding him to a more stringent standard than one does other people.

[mtnsnake]

61. Talk about nitpicking, holy shit!

Yeah, let's not watch one of the few people on MSM who is way more FOR us than against us just because she has "a working relationship with Pat Buchanan".

Isn't that just too bad for you if Rachel doesn't hate all the people you'd like her to. Good grief.

[CTLawGuy]

70. I agree

why not support one of the few people in the presidency who is way more FOR us than against us despite the fact that he invites a RW pastor to give a two minute prayer-an event no one will remember in 3 months.

Isn't that just too bad for you if Obama doesn't hate all the people you'd like him to. Good grief.

[Joey Liberal]

65. I think Rachel is great

Get a life.

[Phx_Dem]

75. Based on the arguments here, I guess that means Rachel

is a racist, anti-sementic, homophobe.

Ditto for Bill Clinton. He cozied up to the Saudies and took tens of millions of dollars from them for his library. The Saudies are anti-semetic, homophobic, misogynists who treat women like rabid dogs and allowed children to burn alive rather than escape a burning school without their head scrafs. Bill Clinton must be a horrible person who deserved to be ostracized and disinvited from the inauguration.

[mondo joe]

77. When has Rachel let Pat's views go unchallenged?

When did she choose him for a unique honor?

Try to THINK a little.

[Phx_Dem]

78. I haven't heard Obama agreeing with Rick Warren.

I guess Bill Clinton's cozying up the the hateful and anti-everything Suadi's for personal gain is okay, and much more agreeable than inviting Warren to say a prayer.

Try to THINK a little, okay.

[mondo joe]

79. He's giving him an unchallenged platform.

Don't confuse that with bringing Pat on to disagree with him.

It makes you look simple.

[Phx_Dem]

111. That is the lamest comment yet. So now prayers are platforms.

Uh huh.

[quakerboy]

114. Is he?

Do you think that Warren will be writing his own bit? Will it be about his bigoted stances, do you think?

Or to relate it back.. If Pat came on Rachels show and said "wow, Obama has such a huge oportunity to help the country now, And He has all my best wishes making it a better place" do you think Rachel would disagree with him? Because that is Warrens role, as presented. To be a cheerleader for Obama.

[IndianaGreen]

84. Obama goes vacationing in Hawaii while Ken Starr tries to invalidate existing gay marriages

Obama goes vacationing in Hawaii while Ken Starr tries to invalidate existing gay marriages in California. I would call that a lack of sensitivity on LGBT issues to the self-described "fierce advocate" of LGBT rights. I will also add that Obama's support for civil unions smacks of "Separate But Equal" segregation that SCOTUS banned in Brown v. Board of Education.

Once again LGBT "friendly" politicians go and enjoy their full rights and privileges as citizens with their spouses and children in tow, while LGBT Americans are left with the crumbs of sexual apartheid.

As to the faux argument by the OP, Rachel Maddow has been a fierce critic of Buchanan's views all along. Buchanan is a prop on her TV show provided for our entertainment and amusement, as all TV shows do. It is entertainment people!

[Political Tiger]

103. What would you have Obama do instead?

Besides the fact he's not even the president yet, or even if he was, would could he do about it?

[stillcool]

115. I thought California Courts..

were like..a State thing. And I also read that it was Obama's fault that it passed in the first place. All those black people.

[otohara]

80. It's Not Her Choice

no doubt the higher up's at MSNBC thought it would be clever to team up these two opposites.

[IsItJustMe]

81. Excellent point. But it will be missed by the people who live in the world of black and white. I

guess the rest of us will just have to continue our existence in the world of gray, where reality exists.

[slackmaster]

87. I never could watch her

:nuke:

[JVS]

88. Yes. She is obviously pure evil and we should ally ourselves with those who hate pat for being...

willing to come on her show. :crazy:

[JoFerret]

94. Ridiculous analogy

obama can work with bigots, pray with them, even hire them if he must.
But the inauguration is very different.

I never expected great things on the gay front from Obama. I can live with his "tolerance" and wait for better times. But I also did not expect this level of insult to all of us.
He misstepped here. And backwards.
What a shame.

How about equal time for racism on the most public of public platforms?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

95. do you think we object to obama talking and debating with warren? if so, you are clearly not

bothering to read our objection to this

[ruggerson]

96. Is Rachel Maddow president of the United States?

with the vast bully pulpit and enormous moral sway that the office holds?

[Honeycombe8]

97. "We"? Do you usu. let other people tell you what to watch on TV? nt

[realitythink]

98. This is the stupidest fucking diary

Rachel Maddow is a journalist/pundit!! She is not the president elect. She has people of opposing views on her show, generally, to point out the idiocy of their views and opinions. You people that criticize her are no different than fox news viewers who get upset when O'Reilly has someone of the liberal persuasion on his show.

If she was going to have Pat Buchanan officiate her marriage to Susan then, maybe, you should be upset with her.

[Hanse]

99. A lot of hypocrites on this one.

Including Maddow herself.

All the ones crying because Warren is getting "a large platform to spread his views." As if millions of people who watch MSNBC isn't a huge platforms.

And then there are the phony rationalizations. "Rachel Maddow isn't a president so it's OK." (But I thought sitting down with Warren was as bad as sitting down with Nazis? Is that OK for non-presidents to do). "It's OK to hire bigots, but the inauguration is different." That's so blatantly stupid I don't think I need to explain why. And so on.

If you apologize for Maddow on this and freaking out about Warren, you're a fucking hypocrite on GLBT issues. You can't have it both ways.

[Lady-Damai]

101. I stopped watching Maddow after the third show. She annoys me. n/t

[JohnnieGordon]

102. Her ratings have tripled or more since then

So I guess you weren't needed anyway.

[Lady-Damai]

119. LMAO!

Bill O'Reilly has the same amount of audience. So, pretty much....every asshole has their audience. The Right has Bill-O and the Left has Maddow.

[JohnnieGordon]

124. She's a ray of sunshine, chipper, always smiling and laughing

Bizarre that you would characterize her as an asshole. But as I said, your viewership wasn't needed anyway.

[The Backlash Cometh]

105. Is she the next president of the USA? Or a pundit whose job it is to provide

both views of an issue?

[jgraz]

106. Sometimes the stupidity on this board astounds me.

I doubt anyone would have a problem with Obama inviting Rick Warren for a public debate. The problem is with inviting a bigot to stand up at the inauguration without comment -- to give him a platform, to raise his public notoriety -- all of which enables him to spew his hate on more and more media outlets.

I haven't been active on this board for a while. I've been spending most of my time on open forums, pounding on right-wingers. So trust me when I tell you, this is freeper-level stupidity we're seeing here. Do you really not understand the difference between a political discussion show and the invocation at the inauguration of this country's first black president? Really?

At least with freepers, I don't have to pretend that we're all on the same team.

[Jennicut]

110. I can't watch Rachel or Keith

cause I don't get MSNBC..stupid cable company took it away, only offered on "digital cable". Jerks. :(

[mmonk]

112. She holds what office?

[mondo joe]

116. Best thing in this thread: Posts referring to people as "Uncle" were deleted, which pretty

effectively demonstrates that "Uncle Pat" isn't an honor.

[my3boyz]

117. I stopped watching her after she got her show. Before I tuned

in just to see her on Race to the White House. Then she got her own show and started going on and on about how John McCain was gonna win! First Hillary was going to the convention. Then John McCain is gonna win. Forget pretending to be a pundit Rachel and stick to hosting your show. Soon she will be saying that Obama will be the worst president we have ever had........

[apocalypsehow]

118. "B-B-B-Bu-Bu-But THAT'S di-different!!!!" - said to much spluttering & whining, even though it's not

Haven't even looked through the thread yet, but I bet some savant has used the silly "you're mixing apples and oranges" silliness somewhere in it, even though, again, you're not.

Good OP. :thumbsup:

[mondo joe]

121. If you can't see the difference between debating a pig to prove him wrong, and giving a pig

a place of honor, you probably never will.

[AtomicKitten]

120. I'm going to watch Rachel and Keith and Jon and Stephen and Top Chef.

[madmadmad]

123. officially the stupidest post of this entire sad incident.