Maddow v Jonathan Alter: First Time I've seen Maddow Lose a Debate

[alcibiades_mystery]

Maddow is an excellent debater, but Jonathan Alter really demolished one of the main points she's been flogging for the last several days, a point that's been taken as Gospel on these boards. Now, I disagree with many of the points Alter made, but on this point he was right, and Maddow was wrong.

To wit, Maddow led off with the Sherrod story and went directly to the argument she's been making the last several days: that it represents a pattern of behavior for the Administration relative to right wing and racist smears. This is virtually axiomatic now among various critics of the Administration. And Maddow treated it as an axiom, rather than as an argument that she's constructed. But Alter disrupted this rather uncritical deployment of the supposed axiom. He said, "Well, I don't think it's a pattern."

Huh? goes Maddow, and then you get the trotting out of the evidence of pattern: Van Jones, ACORN, Sherrod, you know the narrative.

But Alter persisted, scratching the surface of that narrative and displaying its ultimate flimsiness: The difference between Van Jones and Sherrod, quoth Alter, is that Sherrod was actually innocent of everything she was accused of. Van Jones, on the other hand, did in fact sign a petition suggesting that the US government played a part in orchestrating the 9/11 attacks, and that's simply not politically acceptable. OK, calm down LIHOPers and MIHOPers - I'm not discussing the merits of these positions. But, as Alter said, do you really want the President to be in the business of defending that position? The answer is clearly no. And Maddow didn't defend it, because she knew she couldn't. Instead, she went with...

Yeah, but all those other things they said about him were false! Why didn't they defend him on those?

Alter, sensibly: Oh, so you want Gibbs up there saying "Yeah, well, points X, Y, and Z are distortions, but, yeah, the guy did sign the 'Government involved in 9/11 petition"? That's what you want the White House to be engaged in? It's radioactive, and he had to go.

Maddow changed the subject. And she had to, because Alter was right, and the "Pattern of Behavior" narrative that's been Maddow's hobby-horse was getting cut to ribbons with only the most cursory inspections of one of its pieces of evidence. And Maddow knew it.

What's the larger point? Maddow - and many others - have constructed a narrative. They've strung together a series of separate events, and provided a thread that supposedly connects them. Narratives are good. They're how we make sense of the world. Without them, we'd have no way to unify singularities, and everything would seem new and different, every time. But narratives are also partial and interested; that is, they tell a particular story that their creator wants to tell. In this case, just a little scratching on the surface of Maddow's narrative revealed it to be, at the very least, not as tight as she makes it out to be.

[tabatha]

1. Yep.

Also Van Jones resigned on his own.

I think Maddow is smart, but Jonathan Alter is smarter, possibly because he is older and wiser.

[marmar]

2. I don't see how this demolishes one of her main points.....

And about ACORN?

[alcibiades_mystery]

3. It demolishes the Van Jones segment of the narrative

because it overturns the idea that Jones was shitcanned based on right wing falsehoods. He wasn't. He was shitcanned for having done something very politically stupid. If the narrative is that the Administration constantly caves to right wing attacks rather than defending its people, one can hardly cite Van Jones as evidence, since his signing of that petition was politically indefensible for any Administration.

ACORN is certainly another matter.

[depakid]

12. Didn't see it, but I'd suggest that on the Van Jones matter- it's not relevent to his job

and could easily have been dismissed with a "we don't agree with the appointee on that opinion- which is beyond the ambit of his responsibilities" -which has been essentially what's been said on all sorts of similar matters by previous administrations in both parties.

Rachel may have missed that point- but the pattern she (and most other astute observers have noted) is still pretty clear.

[alcibiades_mystery]

14. I'm not sure previous administrations have defended political

appointees with positions as politically radioactive as LIHOPism or MIHOPism, even by signed implication. Don't agree. And Maddow, like I said, refused to defend him on that, which she could easily have done.

[depakid]

19. I've seen whack fundies who won't dance and are afraid of calico cats defended!

Successfully.

I think she probably didn't have an answer ready on the spur of the moment, though I have seen at least one good explanation in the thread.

Bottom line of course is that we'll likely never know the answer to LIHOP or the willful negligence types of questions any more than we'll ever know why JFK was assassinated.

[Chan790]

39. I already know the answer to MIHOP and suspect the same of LIHOP.

People like conspiracies to explain the truly massive things in their lives they just can't bring themselves to comprehend. As Bush went on to become even worse, it fed into that other malady "Bush Derangement". I'm not saying that he wasn't an idjit or a terrible president (edit: or evil), but there were those here that if it rained from 2PM to 4PM in N. FL would ask "Why does President Bush hate Jacksonville?"

MIHOP, like most forms of paranoia and conspiracy theory, is an easy sign of serious mental illness. LIHOP...ain't far behind that chuckwagon.

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[hulka38]

72. Bush and Cheney certainly lied us into invading Iraq.

That is and was a conspiracy theory that turned out to be absolutely true. If you argued this in 2003 you were accused of hating your country and siding with the terrorists. Also, the right wing successfully created the narrative that a person who believed that government conspiracies existed was by definition mentally ill. They made the phrase "conspiracy theory" into a pejorative for mockery and ridicule. This was an important part of their defense as they had to make more and more ridiculous claims based on phony intel. There are some conspiracy theories that I find whacky, but I won't dismiss a conspiracy theory without mulling it over and looking into it myself. After all, if your government is capable of lying the country into invading and occupying another country based on lies, then what is it not capable of?

[gratuitous]

21. Uh . . .

Scooter Libby, Alberto Gonzales, Lurita Doan, Bradley Scholtzman. That's just off the top of my head, and those are people who violated real, live, constitutional principles and federal code regulations, rather than signing a petition that asked for a more thorough investigation than has been done thus far on the September 11 attacks.

But exercising one's right to free speech is clearly "politically radioactive" while subverting the structure and process of the government is just business as usual, nothing to see here, and no need for anyone to get all upset or call for a resignation or even imply unfitness for their jobs.

[Johonny]

23. Exactly

Look how many current Republican elected officials were/are birthers

[Luminous Animal]

46. Yep. The Admin didn't have to defend Jones. It could have merely let

the matter stand and let Jones get on with his work.

[Johonny]

22. Not really at all

So what Van Jones has some liberal conspiracy beliefs. Obama administration cut bait on him as soon as the RW found something however small that RW observers found horribly objectionable. Maddows allegation does necessitate that what the RW be true or not only that most of the true "issues" have little to do with peoples actual job in governance.


You ever see some of the things the Heritage foundation believes and those types of organizations. Conservatives come out of those organizations in droves to be part of conservative administrations. What was the Bush white house response to these things when brought up by liberals? Nothing.

[Bandit]

85. Except that was not the narrative at all

It was about how the Right/GOP has systematically been using minorities to scare people for decades. Be Scared people the blacks are coming for you, for your jobs, for your women, etc..Yes one of her examples had a slight flaw, however on the part about him being a felon and spending time in a federal prison she was not wrong..Granted Obama could not expend much political capital on defending Van Jones but Rachel could..He deserved to be defended even if he had some kooky ideas..Just as ACORN and Michele and Sherod, and immigrants, and well you know those minorities that are coming for you...

[DefenseLawyer]

4. Heaven forbid anyone raise questions about the government

They have never lied to us before. Questions are the Devil. Ask no questions or you will be dealt with. You don't have to be a conspiracy nut to ask for satisfactory answers from a government with a history of lying more than it tells the truth.

[alcibiades_mystery]

7. That's neither here nor there

The fact that Maddow didn't even try to defend that petition says it all: her point on Jones didn't even make sense internal to her own worldview, ort, if it did, she knew it wasn't a good point to make in the context of the debate. Maddow wouldn't even defend Jones on that point, in other words.

[Overseas]

29. I think Van signed a petition asking for more investigation.

Just more investigation. He didn't sign on as a LIHOP or MIHOP.

One petition. That's all they found.

But asking for more investigation instead of accepting the government commission report as the be-all and end-all is enough to get you smeared as a "conspiracy theorist" so Fox ran with that.

Van Jones has lots of expertise in the green economy and enormous optimism on pushing it through. We needed that.

Republicans have done a lot worse and been defended by their party.

[hulka38]

74. Shit, the Cons actually conspired to invade Iraq by making scary stuff up

and no heads rolled for that except for Scooter at the very end. That is the irony that drives me bat shit about my party.

[xxqqqzme]

5. Except at the end she just agreed to diaagree w/ him.

It remains that the rong wing started before the election (Rev Wright, birth certificate, Michelle Obama & the honky BS) attacking Obama and they have not stopped. They are throwing every thing they can distort, fabricate, lie about at the wall and desperately hoping something sticks. Then they can complain about the stench.

[alcibiades_mystery]

8. There's no doubt that they're doing that

But that's not the question at issue.

[Enrique]

6. how much investigation was done regarding Van Jones?

why did he have to go, and did they consider the matter fully enough? As I recall, it happened very fast. And exactly why did signing that petition disqualify Jones? What if it was a mistake, as Jones said?

Why did Obama stick with Tim Geithner with his tax problems? Is signing the wrong petition so much worse than that?

[alcibiades_mystery]

10. I certainly welcome you to get into that issue

But Maddow knew better than to try to defend the signing of that petition, so she didn't. Whether she should have is another question.

[Enrique]

16. say "it's an innocent mistake"

Just like Obama said about Tim Geithner and his taxes. He kept Geithner, he could have kept Jones.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/01/obama-defends-g.html

(...)

“It is an innocent mistake. It is a mistake that’s commonly made for people who are working internationally or for international institutions. It has been corrected. He’s paid the penalties,” Obama said.

[EFerrari]

55. Ouch!

lol

[fascisthunter]

9. interesting timing

considering there is a thread here that praises her for "demolishing" O'Reilly.

[alcibiades_mystery]

13. She did demolish O'Reilly

Are you suggesting that I'm a troll, because that's the implication. I find that cowardly, quite frankly. You know the rules: hit alert if you think my thread violates them.

I'm sure you know that the word "demolishing" is a fairly common way to describe the back-and-forth in debates. For the record, I didn't see any thread related to Maddow and O'Reilly. Even if I had seen it, I probably still would have used the word "demolish," cuz I like it so much.

:-)

[fascisthunter]

18. no... that wasn't the "implication" just interesting timing

as for your use of the word "destroy", I do think it was a bit of an exageration.

Cowards are those that hide agendas, don't know whether you have one or not... people know where I stand and I am brutely honest. Your accusing me of being a coward by claiming I imply that you are a troll was interesting though, however it will not be enough to bait me into breaking a rule.

[alcibiades_mystery]

26. Why is the timing interesting?

:shrug:

[Enrique]

11. another difference: Van Jones played ball, Sherrod didn't

it could have happened otherwise: Jones could have spilled the beans on how he was asked to go, like Sherrod did.

[tularetom]

15. I'm not buying that argument

I watched the segment and what I got from it had nothing to do with the relative guilt or innocence of Sherrod Jones or anybody else.

I heard Maddow criticizing the eagerness of the administration to throw ANYBODY under the bus once they had been criticized by the right wing chorus. I did not hear her attempting to claim that Van Jones was or was not culpable. Alter brought that up himself thus changing the terms of the debate because he couldn't refute what Rachel claimed.

Yes, it is a narrative. And it is consistent. And the narrative is, if you are targeted by the lunatic fringe, you're on your own. We aren't gonna defend you. We won't even bother to find out whether or not you are guilty of whatever you've been accused of.

[alcibiades_mystery]

25. Well

He didn't "change the terms of the debate;" he questioned her premise, which is a perfectly legitimate and even necessary debating move.

And the consistency falls apart precisely because you can't choose to defend the indefensible, and Jones' signing of that petition was indefensible, even by Maddow. Now, *you* might challenge that assertion, as people up thread have, but Maddow did not. She therefore failed by either omission or commission - failing to find the right counterargument (No, they should have defended Jones on the petition!), which would have retained the consistency of the narrative, OR (more likely) understanding that nobody could defend Jones on the petition, in which case the consistency argument falls apart.

[tularetom]

31. Actually her innate courtesy and deference to Alter allowed him to hijack the debate

Once he raised the point that the Jones and Sherrod cases were not equivalent because Jones unlike Sherrod had (gasp) done a bad thing, she should have stopped him right there and reiterated her point that she was not commenting on the guilt or innocence of either of the parties but rather on the failure of the administration to support anybody that has come into the crosshairs of the nutcase right.

If you want to make the point that she therefore "lost" the argument, perhaps. To me there was no argument once Alter "altered" the discussion, simply a monologue by him to obscure the administration's failures.

[alcibiades_mystery]

33. Jones'

defendability goes to the heart of Maddow's theory. If Jones was literally undefendable, then she can't cite him as evidence for "failing to defend." This is not a complicated point.

[tularetom]

36. You're assuming Maddow conceded Jones' undefendability

I never heard that concession. And I don't buy the claim that her failure to challenge Alter on that point constituted agreement. She was merely being polite to an older colleague.

Her original point was that Obama and his minions did not stand up for any of their number who was attacked by the right wing. Regardless of whether or not there was anything to the attack, their first instinct was to toss them over the side.

Like Alter, you have worn me down. I'm not gonna argue this point further.

Besides I've got to go see what my dog is barking at.

[alcibiades_mystery]

44. I'm assuming no such thing

She failed to defend its defendability when called on it. Now, I won't speculate as to why she failed to so (at least here). Maybe it was because she was being deferential or courteous, as you say. The fact remains that a lynchpin of her case fell apart when she was challenged, and she offered no defense. Why she didn't, I'll leave to your generosity.

[Poboy]

57. Signing a petition calling for a new investigation is 'indefensable'?

It is also 'insane'?

Okay, I think we all know what you are about.

[alcibiades_mystery]

58. The point is that Maddow didn't defend it

And she knew that she could not also have asked for the Administration to defend it. Whether this specific petition - which, as you well know - goes beyond calling for further investigation is "indefensIble" or not in principle is not really the point. Is a LIHOP/MIHOP laced statement defnsible as a political matter by the White House? And the answer - EVEN for MADDOW - was clearly no. I take no position here on whether it is defensible in principle.

[hulka38]

77. Maddow isn't the only one making the claim that there is a pattern

of the administration tossing over ballast at the first sign of danger from Fox. Maddow wasn't the first to make it. She doesn't own that theory. It doesn't end with her inability (in your view) to defend a point. I believe the administration could have stuck up for Jones better than it had. In light of what subsequently happened to ACORN and Ms. Sherrod, does the dumping of Jones make the administration look better or worse? The manner in which Jones was dumped adds some weight to the pattern theory regardless of Rachel's rxn. It isn't nothing. The good news for the administration is that the latest dumping was so poorly handled and embarrassing that they have no choice but to learn from it. My guess is that the next time Fox comes to bully them, they'll steady their shaky knees and fight back because if there is another spastic dumping it will only add more weight to the events in the pattern that preceded it.

[BurtWorm]

17. Very interesting post, al.

You make an excellent point about media narratives, even those that harmonize with one's own narratives. Those, especially, are ones to handle with extreme care. It happens over and over again on DU that some of us fall into the trap inherent in them, that we have our prejudices affirmed and we go on believing what, when proved false, is very difficult to stop believing. And isn't that one of the salient points of the Sherrod narrative, if you will, that lots of people--including the NAACP and someone in the White House, apparently--got trapped in the narrative web and didn't stop to examine if all the facts fit, which, we now know, they didn't.

In the last couple of days, some DUers have been jumping on a bandwagon of blaming "The Media" for all of the world's problems. But it's clear that by "Media" they mean any of it that doesn't affirm their own beliefs. Maddow and HuffPo and a hypothetical state-run (as opposed to commercial, I suppose) media are presumed to be somehow different, immune to the disease infecting "The Media."

The real problem is not with the media, it's with how we view them. The fault lies, not in the TV stars, but in ourselves.

[monmouth]

20. Mika picked up that ball this a.m. before I ran out. Paraphrasing she...

How many good people, like Van Jones, have been thrown under the bus by this WH. I had to leave, new TV and all...

[KT2000]

24. Jonathan Alter needs to be

on tv more. He is so intelligent and always takes the discussion to a deeper level. He needs to debate the RW because they would be flattened.
I usually learn something when listening to him.

[Arkana]

51. He and Fareed Zakaria should team up and hijack Newsweek.

[nashville_brook]

27. this is clearly a case of confirmation bias.

[alcibiades_mystery]

32. Back atcha, playa

;-)

[DirkGently]

28. I had the opposite reaction. And I thought Alter apologized

for going down the wrong road. Maddow connected a narrative because the narrative exists. Alter, who is great, nevertheless came off as a little captured by his time hobnobbing with the adminstration.

1) Rightwing hit-jobbers make explosive allegations supporting THEIR narrative about the President or other liberals or Democrats being dangerous radicals poised to steal cultural and economic supremacy from entitled white people, often by way of a manipulated video clip or carefully edited sound bite.

2) Fox runs with it. Obama's a dangerous radical, surrounded by dangerous radicals. Out to take away the cookies of hardworking conservative white people who never owned slaves.

3) The rest of the news media either fails or partially fails to separate truth from fiction and

4) The White House goes along with the story. So went ACORN and Sherrod.

Alter perhaps had a point that Van Jones, in addition to the various lies Fox et al, put forward had actually taken some (edit: arguably) fairly radical action, but Rachel's point was that the "He's a convicted felon" lie was what seem to stick.

Either way, though, Rachel's thesis holds up well. There were shreds of embarrassing material in the ACORN video that were real, and there were elements of Van Jones' political past that were (edit: arguably) controversial. But there was no push back on the massive lying that was perpetrated. As a result, ACORN was destroyed and Van Jones and then Sherrod, were swiftly run out of office, in part because the administration reacts to these predictable, bad-faith accusations of radicalism and black-on-white racism as though they were kryptonite.

Look, Obama DOES need to tread carefully around these fake race-baiting hand-grenades. What these people would like most is to see Mr. Obama on television, speaking angrily about some racially charged issue in a way that can be spun as "Angry Black President vows to settle the score with White America." That's THEIR narrative, and he does need to avoid it carefully. He's probably still smarting from jumping the gun a bit on the Louis Gates, Jr. episode.

But. He and the administration cannot jump this high every time these people pull this crap. Breitbart, O'Keefe, Fox, et al. are wreaking real political destruction with a deliberate pattern of lobbing these hysterical, dishonest, racially charged political bombs.

They need to come up with an intelligent response. Banning Fox News hit the wrong note. Yelling back likewise would backfire. But at the VERY least, they need to be more circumspect in believing these things. They need to chuckle knowingly like the rest of us have learned to do when these stunts are pulled, and let it be known that Breitbart, Fox, etc. do not get the benefit of the doubt, because they are proven liars.

That's all I saw Rachel saying, and I don't see Alter nor anyone effectively contradicting it.

[Matariki]

30. The point "she's been flogging" is the connection between those news stories

pushed specifically by Fox, et al. and the 'Southern Strategy'.

It seems like a spot on analysis - not some "narrative she's been 'flogging'"

[joeybee12]

34. Oh boy am i gonna un-rec this...yeah there is a pattern and yeah, van Jones and

the others were essentially innocent...Alter is wrong...Maddow is right.

[AmericaIsGreat]

35. They ended pretty much agreeing

Alert said Maddow was right about the various tactics of the right doing real damage as far as public perception, but asserted that the White House should be working with Democrats at lower levels to go and fight these battles and set the record straight, and Maddow nodded as soon as he pointed that out because I think she realized that makes way more sense than Obama and other top-level people doing it.

The bottom line is they are both right. The bullshit antics of the right are doing damage to public perception but it is not the president or his immediate advisers who should be trying to refute the claims. There are plenty of Democrats with time and resources to do that job; the party needs to work together.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

37. Yup.

[chowder66]

38. I remember Van Jones said he didn't read the petition...

carefully.


Found this....

It's worth pointing out that Ben Smith at Politico has spoken to two signatories of that petition, Rabbi Michael Lerner and historian Howard Zinn, who say they were misled about what they were signing. And the conservative website Little Green Footballs points out that Rachel Ehrenfeld, author of “Funding Evil; How Terrorism is Financed and How to Stop It" has posted on her website, the American Center for Democracy: "PLEASE NOTE: Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld is not a signatory of the 911Truth.org. She has asked several times to have her named removed from the list, but the organization failed to comply."

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/09/controversial-obama-administration-official-denies-being-part-of-911-truther-movement-apologizes-for.html

[newspeak]

66. I would have signed a petition for an in depth investigation into 9/11

I believe that's what he was signing. I remember the bogus committee made up to investigate the incident---suspicious, only certain people on the committee could see certain documents from the White House--suspicious, Unka Dickie had to be at the hearing with Little Boots and neither would talk under oath.

He may have signed with out fully reading this petition. However, I don't believe one bit he's some kind of nut, just because he questions what happened that day-a day that gave Little Boots his "trifecta."

[EFerrari]

40. Alter is wrong. Yes, narratives are interested as you say

but Maddow's happens to also be accurate.

Van Jones signed a petition. So what? Obama didn't sign it and Jones did it as a private citizen not in an official capacity or as a policy maker. What happened to him was disproportionate and the Democrats simply rolled over for it. And as usual, what he actually did was simply a hook to hang the same old white racists fears on -- in his case, that he was a communist that wanted to give white folks's money to black people. Go look at the conservapedia listing -- it can't be more plain.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Van_Jones

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

41. Well, it was an incredibly stupid petition.

The kind one would expect someone unfit for public service to sign.

[IcyPeas]

42. This makes me wish ....

how great would it be if there was a show with people like them (dems, libruls, progressives) discussing and debating all kinds of issues. It would be the best show on the "tv machine" as Rachel sometimes calls it. And we all would learn so much from it. (of course it'll never happen, but we can still fantasize).

I thought their debate was great. Nice to see people debating civilly.

:grouphug:

[ProudDad]

43. Jonathon Alter was FULL OF SHIT concerning Van Jones!

Van Jones (along with millions of us) signed a document demanding a full, unbiased investigation instead of the "permanent war's managers white wash? That was his crime?

There should be a full, unbiased investigation into the recent 9/11 false flag operation and who did or didn't do what.

There's more than enough evidence for the deliberate demolition of the THREE towers, 1, 2 and 7, to implicate people and forces OTHER than a few "muslim terrorists"...

So, yes, Jonathon Alter sounded EXACTLY LIKE the piece of excrement that posted the doctored video of Shirley Sherrod and as a result dropped a few more rungs in my estimation.

But, even back in the days of his appearances on Al Franken's radio show, I've always thought Alter was more of a stenographer to (Dem) power than anything resembling Progressive. He can always be counted on as a loyal defender of the establishment line.

--------------------------------------------

And NO, Johnny Alter, advocated for the TRUTH about 9/11 IS NOT sufficient reason to force Van Jones out.

And that's NOT why he was forced out by the cowards of the Obama Admin.

"his advocacy on behalf of death-row inmate Mumia Abu-Jamal, who was convicted of shooting a Philadelphia police officer in 1981, threatened to develop into a fresh point of controversy.

Fox News Channel host Glenn Beck launched the drive against Jones and all but declared war on him after a group Jones founded in 2005, ColorofChange.org, led an advertising boycott against Beck's show to protest his claim that Obama is a racist."

Just like with Shirley Sherrod, the Obamite cowards refused to defend a Progressive against the lies and innuendo of the far-right fascists!

[alcibiades_mystery]

45. Heh heh heh...Do we have a "shakes head" smiley?

Ladies and gentlemen, your "White House Council on Environmental Quality's Special Advisor for Green Jobs."

The ten o'clock show is always different from the 8 o'clock show.

[ProudDad]

60. ??? (n/t)

[alcibiades_mystery]

64. I have no doubt that you're passionate about your beliefs

But you should understand that it sounds crazy to most people, and your rants sound unhinged. And that's precisely why you can't have a guy in the WH who signed on to that shit.

If you want to understand why your position is politically radioactive, you need only examine your own rhetorical choices.

[ProudDad]

65. It only sounds "crazy" to people who have been

well brainwashed and unable to question their own basic assumptions...

I don't indulge in rants, I speak Truth to Power...

Denial is a wonderful place when the world's going to hell in a handbasket, isn't it? :eyes:

[BzaDem]

70. It sounds crazy because it IS crazy.

I'm not sure why there are so many people who walk quietly around this issue, as if the truthers have some sort of legitimate argument and should he respected in any way for holding it. Just because some people say something does NOT make it legitimate.

The resignation of Van Jones obviously made sense, and the resignation of ANYONE that holds such views on this issue also obviously makes sense. There will not be a President in 1000 years who thinks any differently about the issue. This is obviously distinct from Sherrod, who did nothing wrong, and this distinction obviously undermines Rachel's thesis about the pattern (which is why she changed the subject). This is not difficult.

[newspeak]

69. yeah, then there's all of those crazies in New York

Or did you forget the poll taken in New York, after 9/11 where a majority polled wanted a thorough, open investigation. Nor, do I think the Jersey girls are crazy.

[Nevernose]

47. On a related not (but not one related in any way to the OP)

I got interested in Mumia's case about ten years ago. I read every scrap from both sides, and in his case most people seem to miss the point that seems primary to me. I think reasonable people can reasonably disagree about his guilt or innocence. What offends me about his situation is the fact that he didn't ever really get a fair trial.

[EFerrari]

53. Exactly. n/t

[EFerrari]

54. Wow! I didn't know "Color of Change" was Van Jones.

My respect for the guy just doubled. Color of Change is always on the right side of things. :thumbsup:

[Erose999]

48. What are MIHOPism and LIHOPism? I know they are probably acronyms but I can't put it together.

[Canuckistanian]

49. Two theories on 9/11

LIHOP - Let it happen on purpose

MIHOP - Made it happen on purpose

[ProudDad]

61. What's reasonably sure

is that the buildings came down on purpose via Controlled Demolition...

Whether it was premeditated or not is the only open question...


http://www.ae911truth.org/

[BzaDem]

71. Why is this stuff allowed to be posted in GD?

There is a separate forum for this conspiracy theorist garbage.

[billh58]

50. Part of the

Truthers' reasoning: "Let it happen on purpose," or, "made it happen on purpose."

[zippy890]

52. thank you, good analysis

we have to be careful with the 'axiomatic' reactions. its so easy to fall into that, (its what the right wingers do best)
better to reason things out

:thumbsup:

[mzmolly]

59. Alter did say Obama needs better surrogates to battle back against the

lies and I agree. So, in a sense they both said "we" need to fight back in a more effective manner. Alter pointed out that the fight needs to come from the DNC etc. vs. the White House specifically, which makes sense.

Kudos to Rachel for allowing Alter to take another position on her show.

[HipChick]

63. Agree...no-one has his back

[ProudDad]

62. Maddow "lost"

if one recognizes that Alter to get away with peddling bullshit as if it were true...

Which, I thought that Rachel did...

So, she sort of caved after being somewhat blindsided by Alter's lies about the Obama capitulation around Van Jones...and she was unprepared to refute them.

[JerseygirlCT]

67. I saw that too, and I agree

Though I have to say, I was still mightily impressed by the way Rachel handled that. How many others in tv news not only are willing to seriously entertain other views, but put them front and center on their show, and then give the audience the decision to make.

She's just the best there is.

That said, Alter did a really good job. He's another person I find very thoughtful and always interesting.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

68. There was another crack in that pattern: They never fired that Education Czar (?)

that (according to Beck, Fox News, et. al) supposedly never reported (and even condoned) "statutory rape" that was going on between male students he knew at the time. He never got fired or forced to resign despite all of the play that that story was getting from the RW media at the time Of course, doesn't excuse some of what has previously transpired in regards to ACORN and, more recently, Sherrod but it does exhibit at least another break in her narrative.

[alcibiades_mystery]

79. The narrative is conclusion selective

Indeed, I think the Sherrod case is the most obvious break in the narrative, since it had very little to do with some grand administration strategy and more to do with Vilsack's fretting over very local discrimination suits at USDA.

The narrative is bullshit, though entertaining for some and politically expedient for others.

[Cleita]

73. She lost nothing. She disagreed with him.

She had Congressman Wiener on tonight to continue the discussion who put a different perspective on it.

[BzaDem]

75. We know she disagreed. The point was that she stopped defending her point

once Alter made it impossible to defend.

[Ramulux]

76. I dont understand what you are saying

First off, Van Jones never signed anything, he was asked if he supported a 9/11 investigation and he said yes and the people put his name on a 9/11 truther site. He never said or signed anything saying that he believed the attacks were some sort of conspiracy. He was then forced to resign because of pressure from right-wing media. That seems to be part of the pattern Rachel was talking about.

The point is that Van Jones' situation correlates perfectly with the point Rachel was making, so please explain how she lost this debate. Rachel isn't creating a narrative, she is simply acknowledging a narrative that has existed in our media for quite some time.

[cynatnite]

78. She handled it great, IMO...

He was right and she knew it by the end, I think.

[NNN0LHI]

80. Thank you very much for starting this thread. Here is a link to the video

Jonathan Alter is a deep thinker. Your post was exactly right. I can't figure out why this thread didn't get a hundred recommendations? Too much truth is my guess? Lot of people can't stand the truth. Thanks again for posting it.

Don


Link to video: http://www.hulu.com/watch/166037/the-obama-administration-how-to-avoid-a-smear-campaign

[flamingdem]

81. Alter won, and it helped me understand the difference between the two

and to accept less quickly the narratives proposed by the administrations critics, yes even Rachel can be too full of herself. She's not all that.

[NNN0LHI]

83. Rachel would have never have had Alter on her show if she were too full of herself

Only a class act would have had someone come on her show who not only disagreed with her but also had the intelligence to explain in a cognizant way that she was wrong on this issue.

I admire her a lot. She is one of the best.

Don

[lunatica]

82. It was an excellent debate and I came away more informed for it

I think that if we reduce everything to win or lose we always lose. Subtleties and nuance are good things.

[JNelson6563]

84. Very interesting.

You say she changed the subject after Alter made that point, I gather she did so without conceding the point?

Good post.

Julie