Rachel Maddow: AZ Bill Author FAIR's President Makes Ass of Himself; Thinks He's On Fox

[Hissyspit]

Run time: 09:36 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0Qcf63c_8c   Posted on YouTube: April 30, 2010 By YouTube Member: StartLoving3 Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: April 30, 2010 By DU Member: Hissyspit Views on DU: 8367

 
This is PART 2. PART 1 is HERE: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Byal9cE1syw

MSNBC The Rachel Maddow Show - 29 April 2010: Rachel's research has linked FAIR, an anti-immigration group that has claimed credit for helping to write Arizona's "Paper's, Please" law, and the groups presidents, Dan Stein, refuses to let Rachel conduct a civil interview.

[Hulk]

1. "I don't like f*cking facts!!"

Jesus....."guilt by association"? Reverend Wright ring a bell? How about the bomber from back in the 60's...Bill Aires? Any of THAT SHIT ring a bell with these reichwingers?

Yeah....have him back...and roast his ass all up and down one more time. I love it when they look naked and silly. What a weasel.

[poverlay]

32. "And you're confusing me with all these big words that won't fit on a bumpersticker!" n/t

[Ernest Partridge]

65. Two Wrongs Don't Make a Right

Sorry to rain on your parade, but "two wrongs make a right" is a very poor argument.

Guilt by association is wrong when used against Obama (Rev. Wright and Bill Ayers) and it is wrong when used by Rachel Maddow. The right's use of this tactic does not excuse its use by the other side.

Rachel is terrific, and I rarely have a word of criticism against her. And she handled her side of this argument quite well, especially when she steered him away from attacking her sources and toward dealing with her facts.

But I have to concede that he had a point when he complained that there was some guilt by association involved in Rachel's argument. Still, FAIR is justly condemned by the company it keeps. Moreover, those "associations" (unlike Wright and Ayers) were with the founders and high-ranking officers of FAIR.

[LuckyTheDog]

83. But these are not just 'associations'

Rachel was asking him about people he hired and a magazine he helped manage. I think that was fair.

[bjobotts]

88. Just because hese people used to lynch blacks 20yrs ago doesn't mean they expres the board they serv

serve now. There are lots of people on the board of FAIR that never were involved in those lynchings. What horse shit. FAIR is a racist group and this whole AZ effort is to purge the voting roles of Latinos who normally vote democratic.

Of course people want immigration reform...and say they support reform...but not like this which equates to Nazi Germany when Jews were required to wear those armbands only Mexicans must wear their birth certificate on their sleeves.


"IT TAKES A REPUBLICAN"

The name of the new unwritten book about how to destroy a democracy and change it into a corporatocracy and a plutocracy by finding a group to blame all our shortcomings on...like the Jews.

The new republicans are racist bigots who refuse reality and truth and strive only for power while shirking the responsibility of becoming "informed" citizens, swallowing every lie and piece of propaganda their wealthy manipulators throw at them. And make no mistake...they don't give a shit about collateral damage.

They don't even know the meaning of "democratic socialism" or even just plain socialism since there has never been one..Somethings should be controlled by a society for the good of that society if it is to survive.

Rachael Maddow is not intimidated by domineering aggressive authoritarian personal dictators who are unwilling to discuss their true motivations but more than willing to lie, insult and criticize or demonize anyone who disagrees with them. We need 100 more of her on TV just to balance the mockery of these goobers posing as policy advisers.

[niceypoo]

2. Just the facts, maam

Hehehe!

[Douglas Carpenter]

3. kick and recommend

[Lil Missy]

4. What a jackass.

[PinkFloyd]

5. I kept looking for him to storm off the set.

[ejpoeta]

49. i'm surprised he didn't. he was at a loss. probably because he is used to people just

taking what he says as fact and not questioning him.

[abq e streeter]

6. So Wayne Lutton is still at it...( about 7:30 in video)...I went to high school with him

And when we elected our first black homecoming queen, ( 1965 maybe?) some signs were posted around the school saying "Impeach Torene, the black African Queen" . It made enough of an impression on me to remember that whole incident word for word all these years later ...Wayne Lutton was basically the only suspect but I don't think anything was ever proven. I suppose as a good progressive, I should be taking the innocent until proven guilty high road here, and I suppose it's conceivable that it wasn't him.....His life's work on behalf of the rabid right wing would certainly lend credence to those suspicions though...So Wayne, you probably don't remember me ,and seems to me we barely knew each other , if at all ( although I do know that my brother had the misfortune of knowing you, and thinks about the same of you as I do) but wherever you are tonight: FUCK...YOU...for then, for now, and for everything in between.

[secondwind]

15. amazing post....and you are probably right....it was him, back in '65.

[abq e streeter]

89. Taked to my brother tonight; he remembers him well

said he was such a "jerk" that even if he'd been a liberal he'd have still been a jerk.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

7. The way she drew him in

and just bombarded him with FAIR's racist connections was a thing of beauty. She is awesome.

[gtar100]

9. Hey, just because all those people said racists things in the past

doesn't mean they believe them today. And just because FAIR has all these people that said racist things in the past working for them doesn't imply anything in regards to FAIR. Simply coincidental.

Or something like that.

Pay no attention to all those racists behind the curtain. FAIR is an outstanding organization working to bring justice to America. And stop peeking behind those curtains!!

[AlbertCat]

46. And stop peeking behind those curtains!!

Really.

If there were 1 or 2.... hell even 4 or 5 racist-esque folks that had been high up in their organization, then, OK. I mean if you scrutinize every official from just about any organization, you're gonna find something unpleasant somewhere.... and probably a connection to Kevin Bacon.... But this is a parade of culprits. And not just some insensitive doofus racist gaffes, but whole hearted bat shit crazy uber-racist malarkey. I mean "Homo contracetivus"???? "Homo progenitiva"????!!!!! ASIATICS????

I wish the intro was in the video. You can see the whole segment at:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#36862136

(on edit: whoops.... there is a link to the 1st part up top. Watch it....it's goooood)


Anyway, Rachel brought these gotcha questions up because these are the things that makes her question whether FAIR is indeed the moderate organization they say they are. This was this guys chance the defend his organization and "talk Rachel down". But he just made ad hominem attacks (Not an ad homo contracetivus attack) at the Southern Law Poverty Center and dismissed Rachel and her show as unimportant.

Oh the arrogance!.... the icing that truly makes me think they are bigots.

Y'know, no one is against states protecting their interests and their borders. Especially if they have an acute problem. But if AZ lawmakers had done their jobs and come up with a bill that didn't completely suck... a knee jerk, macho, "think with your gut" Dubya bill claimed to be written by a group that is obviously racist, this controversy would never exist. But Repugs still apparently think they are in charge and have duped themselves into thinking that the Teabaggers (who haven't condemned this bill) are some kind of majority.

[kag]

33. Indeed. Awesome.

:) :) :) :) :)
:D :D :D :D :D
:bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:
:headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:
:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:

[lumpy]

58. Rachel has the facts that Stein just cannot refute. The facts:

FAIR is a racist organization.

[Snotcicles]

8. Would you like a minute to go change your underwear Mr. Stein? so we can finish this Q&A nt

[indimuse]

10. Let the TRUTH be heard!

knr!

[blizzil31337]

11. I love MADDOW!

[slay]

12. This was awesome!

Epic even. :wow:

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

13. Rachel just posted her post-show fact check of Stein

http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/04/29/4222854-post-show-factcheck-dan-stein-of-fair

[Overseas]

35. He is a true Right Winger-- lying through his teeth.

Thanks for the link to the research demonstrating that.

[spooky3]

56. Technically, he may not be lying on that one point...

I suspect this is his thinking:

"We didn't GIVE A DIME to that org., and that's literally true. We did, however, use our resources to help them, by paying people to knock on doors, collect signatures, make appearances, etc."

[Bette Noir]

87. Tonight, Rachel showed from public records that they have,

in fact, given $150,000 to PAN. It was probably in the form of checks, though, not dimes.

[orbitalman]

14. I Watched it Live at the time...

and he being an asshole was my very definate impression at that time. And him spouting his 'facts' and vitriol was just overwhelming to the interview. I don't know how Rachel remained so calm.

[formercia]

27. She's good. I love Rachel.

She remains cool because she does her research and has the facts down. Rachel can keep cool because she's not lying. She's like a good prosecutor with an ironclad case.

[Enrique]

16. I'm not defensive, you are!

[mistertrickster]

22. Hehehe, good one, Enrique. I was thinking of this Martin Short character too! nt

[YOY]

26. Nathan Thurm, a character he has brought back when applicable...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLBQxk72NY

and a very apt comparison.

[CLANG]

17. Mr. Stein, Why do these types seem attracted to your orgnization and not the ACLU?

[YOY]

18. "Democrat party"

That shows what she was dealing with...

[NewJeffCT]

54. very bipartisan of him

don't you say

[ro1942]

19. Are you sure Rachel won this?

[mistertrickster]

23. Yes. She kept coming back to the facts. Stein was all bluster. nt

[icee]

29. Yes. She asked specific questions. Stein gave no real answers

at all, simply ruminating ad nauseum about Rachel's attempt to smear everyone, with the occasional explanation of certain statements by FAIR's current stable of racists occured 25 years ago. She won by default if nothing else.

[peacetalksforall]

41. I think your questtion is strange. If the kind of show down we appreciate is someone

who is dealing in facts and doesn't back down and doesn't spew talking points - she won. If trying to get a man who has been coached in trying to turn it back on the questioner and talking over is losing, she won by not letting him do it and providing some zinger comments appropro to his obnoxious maneuvering. He was on the hot seat about his and their background and affiliations and he lost.

[Divine Discontent]

42. oh, very sure. I am extremely impartial and he had some good jabs, but her knockout punches were

brutal.


The connection showing that all these FAIR folks are all linked up to racist bigoted all-white groups that disparage non-whites was absolutely brilliant. He tried his best to knock her off, but she kept coming back to the point of undressing FAIR for what it is.



Fellow
Aryans
Inciting
Racism

[neobeetle]

70. That acronym is so FAIR-ly accurate.

Fellow
Aryans
Inciting
Racism

[Divine Discontent]

71. thank you. came up with it on the last word of my post. they're slimey bastards, I'm thankful she

exposed them!

[SargeUNN]

53. What? You doubt it?

the guy did nothing but try to trash her as she ask him questions and he did not try to give any solid defense, just more blabber about he and his organization were being targetted. Hardly a winning interview for him. I certainly wouldn't give him time on my show because he has nothing to say of a factual nature and only wants to attack.

[Hissyspit]

62. Yes.

Next question.

[underpants]

79. Yes

[TheEuclideanOne]

20. Guilt by Association

HA HA HA

Yeah, the KKK has that same guilt by association. Just because everybody running their local KKK chapter appears to be racist, you can't imply that the KKK is a racist organization. That is absurd!!! How dare you make such a connnection.

[heliarc]

59. CCC and KKK

What I love was the resonance that she drew out in the interview between these two organizations. He called it the CCC and immediately I thought KKK... almost like she forced him to decode their racism for us. He had his guts all strewn all over the floor at that point.

[wial]

81. CCC is sort of the Sinn Féin of the KKK

The KKK's political wing, similar to how Sinn Féin is the political wing of the IRA. Interesting actually, because much as I support the wearing of the green, and am half Scottish myself, the KKK was a Scottish organization originally -- maybe its virulence goes back to the old anti-Semitic framing of the other by the Indo-European peoples that comes out in the work of James Joyce.

Just awful stuff. There's no mystery why only one of the many hominid lineages survives. We have racism built into our genes.

As for the debate, I thought Rachel got him with a sword thrust through the throat, especially with the photo from the CCC website.

He seems like a bright guy. If he's not too misogynist -- and he is misogynist, he used the word "shrill" which like "hysterical" is only used by misogynists -- he'll admit he was bested and that the entire charter of his whole way of life is fundamentally flawed and to be abandoned as soon as possible.

If.

[mistertrickster]

21. I saw this. Dan Stein looked like Captain Queeg in "The Caine Mutiny" . . .

All he needed were the steel balls rolling in his hand. "You're all against me, I tell you. You and your liberal facts. It's McCarthy-ism . . . guilt by association. Why do you keep asking me about what people on our board wrote--their beliefs are not important. It's a conspiracy, I tell you . . . "

[icee]

24. Rachel Maddow is right now on the cusp of being as good as

Edward R Murrow, in my opinion the best newsperson that ever lived.

[smoogatz]

25. He squirts a pretty good cloud of ink.

But if you surround yourself with white supremacists, and then involve yourself in the public policy debate on a racially sensitive issue like immigration, then yes, you got some 'splainin' to do. I couldn't listen to the whole thing, actually.

[big lu]

28. K&R

[earcandle]

30. Go Rachel!

[gorfle]

31. Total annihilation.

Total annihilation.

Rachel totally destroyed this guy.

Every time she pointed out that someone associated with FAIR is, in fact, a documentably racist person, all this guy could counter with was, "Well, that was a long time ago!"

Great! So he's been a racist for a long time!

Rachel did a great job shining the spotlight on the cockroaches.

[kag]

34. I don't understand the...

..."Thinks He's On Fox" comment. Could be because I don't watch Fox.

The only time I ever see it is when people here (on DU) play clips from it. Is it just because they always have people talking over other people so you can't understand what either of them are saying?

[Hansel]

38. That's probably part of it.

But mostly it was because he gave a line of how wonderfully bi-partisan and credible his organization is and expected her not to challenge him with the facts. He boasted of being a unifying organization and that those who say they are racist are smearing them and trying to create a racial divide and he expected not to be challenged on that. He expected his claim that the Southern Poverty Law center is a smear organization and that it lacks credibility should be enough to clear him of any suspicion as to what FAIR really represents.

He thought he was on a show that doesn't deal with facts and accepts propaganda at face value and instead he ran into the buzz saw of a real journalist who did her research and had facts to back up her interview. His attempt to make Rachel look like she was a shill for the Southern Poverty Law center ended up making him look like a clown. Everyone who watches that show knows better. Clearly he doesn't watch it.

His defense that the 'whites are superior' papers written by one of FAIR's board members were private papers and not published as Rachel had said was pathetic. It's the fact that he wrote the papers and what they said, not whether or not they were published that was at issue. That defense would have flown on Fox but not with Rachel.

That was what real journalism looks like and we need more of it.

[Hissyspit]

63. Yes. Shouting. Talking over her. Not letting her keep the interview organized and civil.

There were only two of them there. There was no reason or excuse for him to act the way they do on Fox.

But hansei is right about the talking points, too.

[Adam4tvs]

36. Some of that was guit by association...

...just saying. Same stuff they did with Obama tying him to Ayers, etc. She should've just stuck to the comments from people currently working for FAIR.

[Hansel]

40. Fail.

Ayers was not acting as a terrorist on the board. He is an educator and was advocating for educational causes not terrorism. Obama also served on the board advocating for the needs of the poor. Obama has not written any papers or edited any papers advocating for terrorism. He is not a terrorist.

This guy has a pattern of associating with white supremacists and just helped craft a law that enables racial profiling and is claiming that the law is not racist when the evidence is compelling that the groups he is and has worked with have a white supremacy bent.

Ayers is not relevant to Obama in any way because he had a inconsequential relationship with him. I myself have been on several non-profit boards and barely knew most of the people on them. But we all had one goal, to serve the disenfranchised. The opinions of the board members on serving the needs of the poor are relevant and anyone on the board, past or present, who claimed racist views are fair game for tainting that board because they are claiming to represent the interest of minorities.

If the Ayers and Obama were on together was a board advocating terrorism, then your point would be apt. But it did not. The board that this guy is on claims not to be a racist organization yet helped craft a law perpetuating it. In order to prove that is the case Maddow established a pattern. No one has EVER established a pattern of Obama being involved in terrorism or any other member on the board he serve. Trying to paint Obama as a terrorist because of a very weak association with Ayers was stupid.

It is the pattern and the motivation of the board that is important, not just the association.

[AlbertCat]

47. Same stuff they did with Obama tying him to Ayers,

I am not aware that Obama was associated with 7 or 8 Ayres.... and still has some of them in his cabinet.

[Hissyspit]

64. He wouldn't let her do a factual interview because he was an ass.

[dbmk]

84. Except they lied about his ties to Ayers

..or in the very, very least grossly misrepresented it.

That makes a world of difference. Maddow represented facts and sought comments. That gives the viewer a chance to take an informed stance. What they did to in regards to Obama and Ayers was the exact opposite.

[athena]

91. No, it wasn't.

What Rachel was saying is not similar to tying Obama to Ayers at all. I suggest that you watch the whole interview again, including the first video. It is a dense interview and requires several viewings.

• If an organization was founded by someone who has founded other racist organizations and publicly makes racist statements, and if this person is still on the board of directors of the organization, that is not merely "guilt by association". It may not necessarily indicate "guilt", but it is definitely something that the organization should be able to explain.
  
  
• If an organization gives $1 million to a foundation that proudly claims that its roots lie in the eugenics movement, that is not merely "guilt by association".
  
  
• If an organization gives hundreds of thousands of dollars to a group that includes a self-proclaimed ethnic separatist, that is not merely "guilt by association".
  

Don't take Stein's word that Rachel is accusing FAIR of "guilt by association". Listen to what Rachel is really saying and make up your own mind.

[ArizonaLiberal]

37. She kicked butt!

[zeemike]

39. Wow did she nail his ass to the wall.

But he has no worries...the tea baggers are not listening to this...they have their fingers in their ears saying "la la la la la la I can't hear you"

[RoccoR5955]

43. PWN3D!!! K& R n/t

[NewJeffCT]

44. I only saw the wrap-up... can anybody

summarize the interview for me, as I can't watch video at work.

The ending was the guy indignantly saying he hoped to talk about the law itself or something and Rachel responding how she would welcome him back on the show.

[TEXASYANKEE]

45. Wow.

This is the only interview I've EVER seen on Rachel's show where she interrupted her guest. But even with that, she kept her cool and her facts in front of her. This idiot obviously has never watched her show. She is no empty-headed Faux bimbo. He was clearly out of his league.

[Ernest Partridge]

66. Interruptions

Rachel "interrupted" his fillibustering.

When he went on and on, spewing out accusations one after another, she was entitled to break in. Which she did, with some difficulty.

[LaPera]

73. Absolutely correct!!

[ejpoeta]

48. she did a great job. she just keeps a nice even tone and he's going off.

i admit i would probably be yelling at him myself... but that's why she's the journalist and i am not. LOL! i love the part where she says that impuning her fact gathering isn't going to change the facts. lol.

[Rocky2007]

50. Rachel ROCKS! Plain and sinple

Thank you Keith for getting her wired into MSNBC

[blackbart99]

51. The last 2-3 lines in that dialouge were priceless....

"I'd be glad to have you back on to waste some more time with me" Rachael you are one tough interviewer. Stop being so mean and confusing him with all those facts.:evilgrin: :toast: :dem:
Facts are so yesterday, innuendo and conjecture are so much more hip.:smoke:

[SargeUNN]

52. I called FAIR this morning

identified myself as a radio show host and told them after watching this guy last night, I was prompted to do more research on FAIR (actually I had already been doing it), and because his conduct was so rude and improper I would take time to see that FAIR gets exposed for the Nazi organization it is. I also mentioned I was in Arizona and like this guy, I wouldn't listen to any reply since he couldn't conduct himself in a civil manner, I feel it would be waste of time.

[dkf]

55. I wanted to hear about the law so I did feel it was a waste of time.

I'm interested in the Constitutional issues and I haven't heard much on that. People are talking about the different scenarios of enforcement and I don't know if this is truly what the bill says.

What are the precedents. What is permitted now under the law. What is the history. What other avenues of enforcement are there?

Rachel is a smart person. I could have learned a lot more. I feel disappointed.

[AlbertCat]

57. I wanted to hear about the law so I did feel it was a waste of time.

But the segment was... and was promoted... as being about FAIR, not the AZ law.

[dkf]

76. Well I'm not really interested in that. It felt like when they were going off on Reverend Wright.

I mean are we going to call the Democrats a tool of the KKK because Robert Byrd used to be a member.

Boring.

Rachel uses this tact alot. She used it on Meet The Press and I thought she was the least enlightening member of the round table.

Don't get me wrong. I watch MSNBC all day long so I see all her shows. But going on about this sentence that this affiliated person said 10 years ago doesn't do much for me.

[Sky Masterson]

60. That was very hard to watch

He mos def came from the school of Fox/Limbaugh.
When you have nothing,say nothing, only say it loud and repeat it.

[Capitalocracy]

61. He used the Glenn Beck dodge

just asking questions...

[AsahinaKimi]

69. I sort of thought of him as coming off like Bill O'Reilly

But maybe it was subjective, but I have a feeling He didn't like being questioned by a woman. Anyone else get that?

[AlbertCat]

77. Anyone else get that?

A liberal gay woman at that. What a waste of time!

(not from where I'm sitting)

[Capitalocracy]

80. It's a "big tent"

as he said in the interview. Racists are more than welcome, I'm sure homophobes and sexists are as well.

[Green_Lantern]

67. FAIR is a great group...

Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting I mean.

[PSzymeczek]

72. They are a great group.

I hope no one tries to conflate them with the racist creeps like John Tanton and this guy.

[Rhiannon12866]

68. K&R. He sure was uncivil!

He didn't know who he was dealing with, someone who was armed with the facts! x(

[LaPera]

74. The fucker is the usual republican racist hiding behind bigoted lies-IT DIDN'T WORK WITH RACHEL!

[Swede]

75. You lie down with dogs,you wake up with fleas.

Not that I would ever insult dogs by comparing them to this guy.

[Prophet 451]

78. I think the word is "pwned"

Although I'm afraid I didn't give him a fair hearing. I had him pegged as a racist as soon as he started ranting about the SPLC.

[Guilded Lilly]

82. Rachel tries more than most to bring things to light...

but she is dealing with people who don't give a shit for truth, facts OR other citizens in this country. I give her credit for hanging very tough with these UGLY people.

I hope this DOES make a difference, but sadly, those who have gone this far and are this densely and stubbornly as mean as hell and bone nasty to the core DON'T care. And no one can make them accountable for their wretchedness.

:(

[bridgit]

85. I really dislike that guy - k&r

:kick:

[Bette Noir]

86. She pwned him but good.

Rachel's the best.

[Karenina]

90. WATCH HER FRIDAY FOLLOW-UP!!! She was just warming up...

I got GOOSEBUMPS! CHECKMATE!!! GO RACHEL, YOU GO GIRL!!

:bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce:

[JDPriestly]

92. Stein is condescending to Rachel because she is a woman.

As an older woman, I recognize the paternalistic attitude this guy shows. Unfortunately for him, he totally miscalculates Rachel Maddow's intelligence and strength of character. There is power in standing up for what is right, and Rachel demonstrates that power every day. Good job, Rachel.