Sadly, Rachel just used a RW tactic on Gibbs' answer at his press conference

[jenmito]

She is talking about how Obama is now in favor of military tribunals and she said, "When you make a blatant 180 on an issue as fundamental as this, this is what your press briefings devolve into." Then she played Ed Henry asking Gibbs how Obama is NOT changing his position when he outright rejected military tribunals in a speech in 2007 and now he claims he's embracing the Bush law "with tweaks," and Rachel played Gibbs answer where he said, "You mean I'm buying a car except I'm changing the engine and painting it a different color..." She cut off the rest of his answer and then ONLY focused on the "different color" part saying, "Oh, it's a different color. Military tribunals are a different color now. Is that all? Why is everybody so upset?"

Even KEITH praised Obama for the changes he made from BUSH'S tribunals.

[polichick]

1. I caught that too but then thought, "Why buy the car if you're going to change the engine?"

[jenmito]

3. The shell of the car has been used for decades.

[polichick]

7. Maybe it's time to junk it. :)

[elleng]

10. Because he's decided

that the car is necessary to get us out of Guantanamo.

There have to be trials, removing the bad parts of the 'tribunals' will remedy their serious defects (had this been done originally, tribunals would prolly NOT have been an issue.) Must have trials,'cause can't release prisoners into U.S. w/o (hearing all the blather from reps? Not in Our backyard.)

[polichick]

14. I do think the "Not In Our Backyard" campaign played a part.

[LooseWilly]

101. The guest that Rachel had on immediately afterward,

a lawyer for a Gitmo detainee, said that the changes wouldn't be significant for more of the detainees.

"remedy their serious defects" seems a little overly hopeful.

I have a question though, when you say "There have to be trials", how does that lead so easily for you into accepting the tribunal system, with some tweaks... rather than, say... a Trial. Like in a courtroom, with a judge, and a jury...?

[elleng]

105. I heard that.

My impression was that Prez O included more than just tweaks; I may be wrong.

'Tribunal system?' I don't know. To me, its just a word/name. Seems to me a serious matter of convenience, really more than JUST convenience. How many people are we talking about? Mere logistics suggests to me the need to hold trials at gitmo, but as I'm so removed, I'm open on that. BUT I'm quite concerned about the big fuss the repugs will make/have begun to make if its suggested we bring these prisoners HERE (within the continental U.S.) for trials.

[LooseWilly]

111. I'm trying to work from memory again... often a dicey prospect...

but I seem to recall numbers... 20 detainees of 129 (124?) were slated to be tried. I'm not sure what's supposed to happen with the other 100 and change. I've heard/read rumors that some are slated to just be transferred to US prisons, and never given trials... just held until they cross their hearts and swear to be nice, or something... and many are slated to be "released", once some other country is willing to admit them.

I'm not certain of the extent of the tweaks/sweeping changes either. The Gitmo detainee defense lawyer on Rachel said that the changes were not very significant at all... but the list I saw on another thread sounded swell... though that defense lawyer suggested that several items on the list were more "tweaks" than actual substantive changes.

You do bring up a good point I hadn't thought of, when you mention the stink the Repugs will make if the detainees are brought here to the US... I personally think that the Tribunal system should be scrapped... the poor bastards stuck in Gitmo should be put into the regular court system... and when most of them are freed it the blame should be laid squarely at the feet of the Bush Administration... and then the newly freed "people" (imagine calling detainees in Gitmo people... just for a moment) should then be deported. Hell, if no one else will take them, I think we should have the courage to take them ourselves.
Of course, my opinion would fly like a lead zeppelin in this country. The public is still, in my opinion, way too terrified of terrorists. I guess they've done their jobs well. Or someone has.
I gather though that Obama's saving his political capital for a rainy day. At this rate, he'll be ready for a typhoon.

Hell, maybe he should, as a gesture to try yet again to get Repug's to stop biting his outstretched hand... maybe he should just get it over with and burn all the detainees at the stake? At this rate he might even be doing a lot of them a favor.

[Kahuna]

118. You are on the right track. I think the problem with the detainees is that

there are no specific charges against them other than, "enemy combatant." So, a regular court trial isn't the right venue to decide what to do with them. This is a mess created by bushco. It will not be easy to deal with the mess he created. Obama is doing the best that he can to assure that the right thing is done for the detainees and the U.S.A.

[elleng]

140. I think so too,

especially since there's practically no evidence against any/most of them that would be sufficient in our 'regular' courts of law to make a case, either for or against.

[Kahuna]

151. But..but..That's besides the point!!

:sarcasm: ;)

[LooseWilly]

177. If there are no specific charges, then why not let them go?

Is the public still willing to just swallow the 'bad bad boogeymen' definition? Is the public really that afraid of... 20 people? 100 people? ... We do have the strongest military in the world, I think they can handle 100 guys, even assuming that all 100 "go back to terroristing"...

Here's a novel idea. Bushco blew the arrests/detentions, so let them go if there's no remaining evidence. It's a check on the police in civil society, it would be a check on the likes of W & co. ... and their legacy.

Of course, I know it's a "far left" idea... I'd be interested in hearing a line of reasoning arguing against it though... aside from "they're evil", and "they're just too dangerous".

[Name removed]

88. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

147. Deleted message

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

[firedupdem]

2. I stopped watching Rachel when she went on and on about

Obama "suspending" his campaign to go see his grandmother, and how it might negatively affect his campaign. Just recently, after a great press conference, she described it as a "wonky sermon". I'm not surprised. I don't think she cares too much for the Prez.

[jenmito]

5. That's right!

Now I remember that!

[Cha]

9. I don't like this 1/2 reporting to

get the desired effect they want ..not the whole story which would set them free.

[jenmito]

12. She also acted as if it were a Friday news dump. n/t

[Kahuna]

120. She did that Friday news dump bullshit last Friday over a totally

contrived issue. That's when I turned her off. That girl is wearing her tin foil hat too tight.

[firedupdem]

13. Yup.... n/t

[dionysus]

50. on TV as well as on DU, i find the problem with many democrats is that they are actually miserable

when they are in power.

some prefer to be on the outside looking in and just rail in righteous anger i suppose.

[Thrill]

20. According to Rachel, Obama wasn't going to win

See how that turned out

[FrenchieCat]

42. Hillary was going to take it all the way to the Convention,

and no one was going to talk Rachel down on that.

[jenmito]

44. I was going to say the same thing!

She would NOT give up on that!

[Tarheel_Dem]

47. Rachel has a bias, and I think you know why. I was never crazy about her,

but I gave her a chance early on, but she continued to disappoint, so I watch Hardball in that timeslot.

[RoadRage]

76. I like Rachel.. but until Obama switches DODT, and figures

out a way to mandate same-sex marriage in all 50 states - she's not going to really give him much room.. I think she looks at him through one lens only right now.

I'm not saying that issue isn't important (IT IS).. but I think that is where 90% of her focus is.. and she isn't going to be happy with him until that changes.

Just my $.02.

[Tarheel_Dem]

78. Ding! Ding! Ding! I didn't want to bring it up, but she never forgave him..

for Rick Warren (not that she liked him much to begin with), but she has a snarky affect that I just can't abide.

[ruggerson]

136. that's right, she's a dyke - BURN HER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Kahuna]

143. Not fair Ruggerson. You should really delete your post. nt

[bluedawg12]

154. He put into words all of the implications, that she's "wink* *wink* biased.

Biased seemed to be code for gay, now that her stand on Warren has been brought into the open by some, that seems to pretty much confirm it. If your gay you can't have an honest opinion-- your tainted by being gay. :sarcasm:

[LostinVA]

168. Since when is posting something true on here "not fair"???

[ruggerson]

194. This entire thread could be retitled: Screw the uppity lesbian

Having seen your thoughts for a couple of years, I know deep down you see it, too.

[Tarheel_Dem]

206. I put that one on Iggy so long ago, I forgot he/she still existed. Since I neither know,

nor care what he/she said, thanks for the defense.

[bluedawg12]

155. There's no dykes in politics - the minute a dyke disagrees with tribunals

she's suspect for being "biased." *wink* *nudge*

She was against Warren --OMFG!--- she's biased!!! :rofl:

[roughsatori]

179. Thank you. The wink, winks were too obvious not to mention. NT

[960]

199. ruggerson for the win!

[firedupdem]

79. I know when her show first started she didn't mind sitting up with

that piece of shit she calls "uncle pat" I'm assuming he doesn't support overturning those laws at all. She didn't seem to care for the President prior to the election. These issues may be adding to her dislike, but she definitely had some problems with O prior to the election.

[Kahuna]

124. She's an old Naderite who would have been happier with Kucinich..

Not an attack on Kucinich, he just wasn't a realistic option for the party or the country.

[Kahuna]

122. I can understand her mistrust on that issue. But, in my observing Obama..

he seems to have a set of priorities, and is working out how to acheive those priorities. Part of his getting to acheiving those priorities is to gain the trust of Americans, so that he can change their hearts too. I honestly do believe that Obama is not oblivious to the concerns of the GLBT agenda. He knows that timing is everything. And he will get America there. But we need to have a little faith that a man of color who understands discrimination will not throw GLBT under the bus.

[Creideiki]

81. I agree. Rachel has a bias. Put her in a room with 100 people

(including Obama), and she'll be the smartest one there. Can you say, "Rhodes Scholar"? I thought you could. Well, okay, if it's hard, the first word sounds like "roads".

Rachel has supported Obama throughout the primaries. So you can't complain about her stance in primaries. She was calling for Clinton to drop out since Iowa. She thought New Hampshire was a fluke. Thought that maybe Super Tuesday was rational, but that extending the primary fight would weaken the inevitable nominee.

Rachel took a lot of flak from within the LGBT community for staying mute on things like the Warren revelation. Instead, she supported Obama because he was the president-elect.

So, yeah. Rachel has a bias. She's a diehard Democrat.

[Tarheel_Dem]

84. Believe what you want. But if she drives away Democrats with the

Obama=Bush crap that I hear she's famous for these days, she'll probably wind up as Keith's fill-in on Countdown again. I don't know anyone in my personal life who's watching her show anymore. She's got a devoted fan base in the blogosphere, but I don't know how your show or your website continues to thrive when you're constantly attacking the man we all worked so hard to get elected?

Good luck to Rachel & MSNBC, but I can watch Fox, or read Drudge if I want to hear the president bashed from dusk til dawn.

[Creideiki]

87. If she pushes people away, chances are they're not Democrats

Or, chances are the Democrats don't deserve to have people voting for them just because they tack a (ghostly) "D" behind their names.

[bluedawg12]

90. A Rhodes Scholar who speaks her mind- sounds like a Dem.

[Tarheel_Dem]

92. Who gives a flying fuck about her collegiate pedigree? Not sure what that

has to do with the topic at hand. She's an overhyped, and probably overpaid (for now) talking head. Perhaps she should just go ahead and sign on as Ron Paul's campaign manager, and put us all out of our misery. Then maybe we could get a more moderate voice on the air, in her place...Lawrence O'Donnell comes to mind.

[bluedawg12]

97. You! You mentioned bias. Surely the fuck you mentioned her "bias" as being smart

and intelligent, that's a fucking Rhodes Scholar.

What the fuck were you talking about then?

She's successful and well paid, why the fuck does that matter to you?

She not a talking head, she's a goddmamned well educated Rhoodes shcolar, so she has something to contribute, perhaps she doesn't agree with you on every one of statements. And who gives a bleeding flying fuck if they do or don't? Are you a well paid Rhodes scholar? Do you have your own TV show?

Or is this your imaginary Court? :rofl: Only your ideas reign supreme? :evilgrin: Oh a moderate in her place?

Why not you? You seem to be bursting chock ful of ideas.

The Tarheel_Dem Nightly Show And Discussiuon, on MSBC on everynight -- starting never! :rofl:

[Tarheel_Dem]

98. Perhaps you should consult your fucking dictionary for meaning of the word?

The difference is that I know I'm unqualified, and Rachel is about to find that out as well. Her ratings have tanked, and she's only appealing to an ever decreasing "niche market" at this point. When the show started, Keith used to mention her head to head ratings with Hannity, a lot. Keith doesn't do that anymore.

You see, if smart people on the left want to hear rightwing talking points, they go straight to the source...which is why Fox News ratings have exploded, and MSNBC is on a serious downturn. Maybe Air America will take her back, and you can be her underemployed sidekick?

:rofl:

[spiritual_gunfighter]

99. So you are comparing Rachel to Fox?

Wow that is idiotic.

[Tarheel_Dem]

100. Pot meet kettle? Rachel is a paid talking head just like the extremists over at Fox.

I said it once, and now I've said it again. And as for the childish "idiotic" remark, in my best Bart Simpson voice: "I know you are, but what am I?"
:rofl:

Rachel doesn't float my boat, but if she's your cup-o-tea; have at it. Afterall, I never told anyone not to watch. :puke:

[spiritual_gunfighter]

148. Oh okay I get it

Rachel Maddow is Bill O'Reilly, thanks for playing.

[bluedawg12]

153. You should leave it at this: "I know I'm unqualified" your main truth. n/t

[Tarheel_Dem]

91. They were Democrats. Your logic is so twisted. "Democrats" who can't

stand Rachel aren't real Democrats? Only the purists get to decide who's worthy of the title? I would say to the establishment of the Democratic party that they need look no further than the current state of the GOP to know that they must put distance between themselves and the "true progressives". They are a vocal, and organized minority within the party, but they will do to the Democratic party what the extreme ideologues have done for the GOP.

I know party labels don't matter to the purists, but you will never take over the Democratic party, and this country will never elect a Ralph Nader or a Ron Paul. Bet on it. I understand Rachel was all giddy while pushing Rand Paul's Senate candidacy on her show this week. Now who's the real "Democrat" again?

:rofl:

[Kahuna]

127. Since when is Rachel a champion of the Democratic party? Don't

make me laugh. I bet anything she's an independent. She famously supported Nader. Sure, she's plenty loyal...and smart... :rofl:

[Creideiki]

187. I'm sorry.

Take a logic class. It could help.

A government class might also help.

[RoadRage]

182. I disagree with that...

It's the exact same philosphy that the Republicans are Rush are using.. if they aren't so far to the hard right - then get the heck out of our tent.. we want to be a "Pure" Regional party instead of a "big tent" party.

I think Big Tent parties get more done in the long run.. it may take a little longer, but isolating yourself to only the die-hard left wing GLBT, Environmentalists & PETA lovers will definitely look good on paper, but will also only account for about 8% of the population.

[Creideiki]

188. I'm afraid we'll get to test your theory

Because the Democrats are pushing progressive types and the GLBT minority out of the party as fast as they possibly can.

[LooseWilly]

114. "Obama=Bush crap that I hear she's famous for these days..." What?

Where do you hear that? I watch her regularly... and I have no idea what you are talking about.
Could you at least provide me with one example, a paraphrase, something... so that I can try to get my head around what you mean?

"I can watch Fox, or read Drudge if I want to hear the president bashed from dusk til dawn." Hmm, are you actually just talking about "Obama bashing"? Is the "Obama=Bush" thing you're talking about some sort of reference to Rachel calling Obama out when he "re-thinks" some of the more liberal promises he made on the campaign trail?

I'd really like to know. I'm really confused... I really feel like there's some sort of set of pre-understood impressions of Rachel Maddow and Barack Obama embedded into what you're saying... pre-understood impressions that I don't share. I'm curious to know if you'd be willing to share... with a "far leftist" such as myself... what it is about Rachel that so pisses you off?

Is it her criticisms? Or her liberalism? Or something that she did/said during the primary that you're still holding a grudge over?
Thanks, if you're willing to share. Extra thanks if you have a link or two.

[Kahuna]

144. Every night leading with..'Obama upholds bush blah blah blah...' Click!

I turn that channel after I hear that.

[LooseWilly]

178. Ahh, so it's Rachel's willingness to cover news that might be critical of Obama that you can't stand

Ok, thanks. I really couldn't make sense of the maelstrom of derision and dismissal.

[Tarheel_Dem]

204. I can only take another DU'ers word for it, 'cause I can't stand to look at her....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8411628&mesg_id=8411864

[Kahuna]

125. She's not a diehard Democrat. She's an old Naderite. nt

[jgraz]

189. Naderite == The new Red Scare

Be afraid, be very afraid. :scared:

[shellgame26]

110. Probably no one remembers when

Chavez gave that speech at the UN a few years ago where he compared Bush to the devil. Rachel had her show at AA at the time where she exclaimed indignantly (and I'm paraphrasing) "Don't come to MY country and talk about MY president like that!!!" That was the last time I listened to Rachel.

[Tarheel_Dem]

195. I have to admit I'm not a fan, so I don't remember that. But I certainly

wouldn't put it past her.

[ruggerson]

137. "Rachel has a bias" --- gee, now what is that code for?

hmmmm....

[QC]

149. My good man, are you trying to suggest that she is an invert?

[GreenTea]

217. You must be a "moderate" Rachel, like myself is a liberal? Uh, what are her "biases"

Hardball with fucking often republican praising Tweety (Matthews)...Oh yes, moderates see some good from both parties...but for the fucking life of me, tell me one positions the republicans have that is worthy of your concerns...just one?

[LooseWilly]

102. You do realize?...

... or maybe you don't. For Rachel, wonky is a complement. She's a wonkophile. A "wonky sermon", for her, would be like a "Jesus sermon" for a proper Christian.

Go ahead and return to disliking her if it works for you. I just wanted to clear up what seemed to me like a misconception.

[FrenchieCat]

4. I turned her off when she didn't report what the changes were......

that's not journalism, I said to myself.

[jenmito]

6. Right. And she didn't play GIBBS explaining what the changes were, either.

At least Keith reported what the changes were. She attacks Obama from the left as much as Repubs. attack him from the right.

[Cha]

18. They think they got themselves

an Obama sandwich but he's too real to get boxed in by their 1/2 truths and lies.

[jenmito]

25. I know...

it's just too bad that the liberal on MSNBC is against Obama.

[Cha]

29. I know..if she has something

concrete to complain about then fine..but don't go telling 1/2 stories..it's hard enough with the facts.

She really does need some feedback on her manipulating to suit her version.

[jenmito]

36. I just emailed her with the help of you providing her email address...

I sent her my OP with adjustments to make it to HER. I added a couple comments about how she has become such a disappointment.

[Cha]

40. Good! I hope she reads it and

realizes what she's doing. None of us are perfect and we can always learn from each other.:hi:

[jenmito]

43. I hope so, too...

and I hope you added your 2 cents. :hi:

[vaberella]

8. I'm in the same boat. I tuned her out when Turley became her best bud. n/t

[firedupdem]

11. I turn off everything he comes on. Everytime I see him, I think of

all is help in getting Clinton impeached. He gets on my nerves!

[vaberella]

19. Totally. n/t

[scheming daemons]

62. Rachel's ratings have been tumbling... and Turley is a big reason

...

[jefferson_dem]

15. Rachel can be too cute for her own good sometimes.

n/t

[glowing]

16. Guess its all right.. Wouldn't you just love to have your teen caught in gitmo

without end in sight.. waiting since 2002 in US custody.. 8 yrs of hell continued.

[FrenchieCat]

17. Obama said something similar in 2006......

in terms of not knowing when this war would end,
and that is why Military Tribunals needed to have
certain rights afforded to the detainees.

He voted for such a change, but the amendment was defeated.
He then voted against the Bush Military Tribunal Version.

[vaberella]

22. Now he has the power to change it his way. Good on O. n/t

[glowing]

23. The problem really comes down to the fact that in a regular court of law

we'd have to let everyone of the detainees go.. why? Torture. In normal court, all evidence would be thrown out and all detainees free... AND after all this time, 7+ years, we've most likely turned these detainees into persons more willing to seek retribution for the offences... Still doesn't make it right though. Sometimes you have to have a heart.

[EFerrari]

54. We have laws so no prisoner should have to hope for heart.

They're written down and everything.

[LooseWilly]

104. Gitmo prisoners are too *scary* to give rights...

The modified tribunals protect them from having to testify against themselves and tosses out confessions obtained from torture... but that seems to be it (some limitations on hearsay evidence too?)... Hell, why don't we just burn them at a stake and get it over with? as long as we've decided it's ok to get medieval on their asses and all...

[EFerrari]

190. We'd have to go a ways before we get to medieval.

I don't know yet. It may be that these tribunals will fast track their cases and they may be able to get as fair a trial there as in our courts. But, it's right for the human rights orgs to be raising questions, right for Rachel to be reporting on the decision, and right for us to watch them carefully.

At the moment, I'm more worried about the detainees that the CIA is still hiding. The ICRC says there's about three dozen of them. They are at severe risk because unlike the prisoners at Gitmo, no one can watch what is being done to them. I hope they don't turn up dead somewhere.

[Cha]

21. Rachel's contact addy..

Rachel Maddow [email protected]

[jenmito]

26. Thanks, Cha...

I'll get right on it! :hi:

[jgraz]

184. Cool. I can drop her a note thanking her for all her good work.

[Kahuna]

24. I'm sick of Rachel and Big Eddie. If I want whining, I'll hang out on

DU! :D

[Cha]

31. Yep, no lack of

whinging around here.

[Tarheel_Dem]

52. You said it Kahuna. I'm down to Keith, except the Jonathan Turley segments.

I sometimes watch Big Eddie, whom I used to think was a moderate Dem on the radio, but since joining MSNBC he seems to be trying to out-LIB Rachel, and something about his new move seems artificial & manufactured.

[firedupdem]

55. Two weeks ago he said he didn't want to get into the torture issue,

and prosecutions. He said he thought that would hold up health care. Well, somebody must have changed his tune because he jumped ship on that completely.

[Tarheel_Dem]

58. I remember that. I understand he's trying to expand his audience, because

Rachel's & Keith's audiences weren't necessarily his demographics. But, I think Ed should have remained true to the issues his audience had come to expect from him. Like I said, his whole affect has now become artificial & manufactured.

[jenmito]

61. And who did he have as a guest?

Jonathan Turley. :eyes:

[firedupdem]

63. As soon as he announced it, I changed the channel. Fuck it...

I'm not listening to that mess. Sick of it all.

[jenmito]

65. I didn't...

just because I THOUGHT he'd stand up to him since BEFORE he came on, Ed said he thought Obama's decision was the right one. But he pretty much let Turley say what he wanted and Ed just listened.

[firedupdem]

69. Ick! Now I'm really mad at Ed! He's talking out of both sides of

his ass now!

[zulchzulu]

27. Rachel plays well with the Purista crowd, but sh'e pretty transparent...

She wants the Democrats to get into a circular firing squad so badly... it's becoming tiresome.

[jenmito]

41. I hate that she's like this...

she had potential.

[Tarheel_Dem]

53. Conflict makes for higher ratings and job security. I think this is why she...

is pushing so hard for investigations. Hell, if Rachel had her way, we'd investigate the skidmarks in Cheney's underwear, if it got her ratings.

[Kahuna]

115. Right. She and Ed must realize that our prez is very pragmatic...

And he's playing chess while they're playing tidily-winks and sitting in the sandbox sucking their thumbs. Obama was dealt a bad hand by bush. There is no way he undo all of bushco's misdeeds in a few short months. And some of the things that bush did with foreign policy and the "war on terror" could leave us in a very precarious position unless dealt with in a very judicious manner. But the purists want what they want, how they want it and NOW!!!!!! Damn the consequences, and damn how many people could get killed in the process. And damn the damage to our Democratic majority. The purist will easily scoff at our Democratic majority as they forget the past eight years and what got us to where we are. While they're being pure, Obama's responsibility is to do what's right, that will leave behind the least amount of damage for us all.

[zulchzulu]

139. Precisely n/t

[ibegurpard]

28. This is NOT nothing

I want some answers as to why military tribunals are even necessary to begin with.

[jenmito]

32. There are quite a few threads here explaining why...

and how they are different than under Bush.

[ibegurpard]

35. i'm not interested in how they are different

i want to know why we are using them in the first place

[jenmito]

37. THAT'S explained, too. n/t

[ibegurpard]

45. No, it's not.

No one can give an answer as to why we're using them.
Because we've had these people locked up for 7 years and tortured them and therefore a civilian court would throw it all out?
well, that's the price we pay for holding them like we have.

[FrenchieCat]

34. Bush would know......

However, you cannot hold folks for 7 years, mistreat them, torture them,
then deny them their rights,
and then put them in the regular court system.
Might as well just release them all then.

[LooseWilly]

106. So release them.

Or else we're just accepting the shit sandwich Bush left, and eating it with big bites...

[JamesA1102]

30. That's why her ratings are falling.

People don't watch her show to see manufactured attacks on the President, they can watch FAUX news for that.

[jenmito]

38. Yup...

most of us are smarter than the Faux viewers. We know when we're being duped by phony reporting.

[Tarheel_Dem]

56. I was wondering about her ratings. My boss said the same thing, and he...

and his partner were huge fans of Rachel, but they gave up on her too. I don't watch MSNBC to see what I could get on Fox News, and I really wish Keith wouldn't give them so much publicity, but it's his show.

I think Rachel and Big Eddie took the gamble to criticize the President to attract rightwing guests, and that may just blow up in their respective faces. Hell, the rightwing owns the whole of the media, and MSNBC used to be sort of an oasis for those of us who don't care for that brand of "journalism".

[islandmkl]

68. you apparently haven't followed Ed Schultz too long, nor too much..

have you heard, actually listened to, the nature of any of his 'attacks' on Obama and his administration?...

as i have said before, i acknowledge that all this is 'entertainment'...but if you can't see or hear the 'attack on the middle class' that is the center of Ed's shows, then you aren't paying attention....

he seems to be the only voice from our side who can address the problems that most Americans are actually dealing with...jobs, income, credit, housing, EXISTING...and asking the Administration to get its shit together....

his radio show today was a perfect example...no Nancy, no Dick, no pictures, no torture...all middle-class suffering and 'where is the help?'...

once again, many of us look for 'philosophical' battles, and ignore the plight of the majority of Americans...

..."ask a hungry man what his ideals are?"...some times we are so f***ing arrogant about what we think is important, truly MOST important, that it is no wonder the rest of the 'dumbasses' don't let us keep in power too long...

[Tarheel_Dem]

75. You're right, I haven't followed him closely lately. Actually, Big Ed only

became an option for me when Randi left NovaM. Now that she's back, I no longer listen to Ed's radio show, and catch him on teevee, only occasionally.

[Kahuna]

116. I said months ago that the progressive whiners would find themselves

without an audience. Obama supporters do not want to hear other so called supporters picking him apart at every turn. Damn! He just got there. Could they give him some time? I know they have shows to do but damn! So, Rachel's audience will consist of the professional malcontents and little more. But, I don't really think she cares.

[jgraz]

173. Without us "progressive whiners" you'd be complaining about President McCain right about now

Remind us again: what did you do during the campaign? Any phone banking? Any precinct walking? Any voter registration?

Yeah, I thought so.

[jgraz]

180. .

[QC]

208. What? Are you trying to imply that red-baiting people on the Internet is not a contribution?

Well, I never! {harrumph!}

[jgraz]

172. Wrong. Her ratings are following the trend of ALL cable news shows post-election

Believe it or not, there are many people out there who are mature enough to handle views they may not agree with.

There just aren't that many of them on this thread, sadly.

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

This week is our second quarter 2009 fund drive.
Donate and you'll be automatically entered into our daily contest.
New prizes daily!



No purchase or donation necessary. Void where prohibited. Click here for more information.

[Metta]

39. Her JAG guest said Obama's barely changing the window dressing on this one.

He quoted chapter and verse.

[Hieronymus]

46. Most on this thread prefer to focus on Rachel's reporting, rather than an

about face by Obama.

[EFerrari]

49. The human rights orgs agree with Rachel. That should be clue #1.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

86. I'm nearly to the bottom of the thread, and your is almost the first voice I agree with

I didn't watch her program today, and I normally just find clips when I hear that something of note was shown on Maddow's show. But when President Obama does an about-face and Rachel doesn't appear to move from her ideals, I'm going to to side with her in asking why these military commissions are back on again.

The cult of personality stuff is getting a little disturbing with a segment of the DU population. I believe there are some who would follow Obama over a cliff. While supporting the party and the president are nice things, I'd prefer to keep firmly fixed on ideals rather than on individual people. People can and do change their minds but ideals just sit there, rock-solid, immovable, and by definition, ideal.

Anyway, I appreciate your defense of Rachel Maddow, and I'm very surprised at the level of Maddow hatred/disgust/aggravation displayed at varying levels in this thread.

[EFerrari]

89. It does get a little parochial around here sometimes. n/t

[Tarheel_Dem]

94. "I'd prefer to keep firmly fixed on ideals, rather than on individual people".

Rush Limbaugh said pretty much the same thing in reference to Specter and Powell. You seem okay with being "fixed" on Rachel, or do ideals only come into play for you when it's President Obama?

Ideologues, whether from the right or the left, scare the hell out of me. They also don't make good negotiators, because their "my way or the highway" approach in delicate situations doesn't lend itself to peaceful resolution. Their stated belief systems are almost fanatical, and the Democratic party would do well to marginalize, rather than embrace, this element.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

103. So ideals aren't your thing?

I guess I can understand that. Although I don't know you, your words make it clear that you're much more politically aligned with Rush Limbaugh than I am. You're the one supporting his tribunal worldview, along with that of Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, and the lil' fuckstain himself, GWB. It's not easy for rabid wingers to try to hold up an ideal, since they fuck it up every last time. So instead, these degenerate, torturing, lying, thieving, child molesting, diaper-wearing, baby-murdering right wing inbred thugs hide behind arguments precisely like that which you've put forward. And isn't that an interesting thing, sports fan? I'm CONCERNED when I see members of my party sucking up to Republicans for all they're worth. The DLC model hasn't been a real smashing success, unless by success you mean moving the party much further to the right than most of its constituents. But hey, I'm a bright-sider and I'm thinking that repeatedly giving rimjobs over and over to the GOP might at least give a person some time to be reflective, meditative...unless of course the Republican in question starts to squirm a lot, that might kill the concentration; I don't know--I don't engage in this sort of thing with Republicans myself. But that's kind of a side point, and couldn't possibly have much of anything to do with either of us, so my apologies for the distraction.

Onward and upward. My post wasn't very long, it just consisted of a few sentences. Here are the first two:
"I didn't watch her program today, and I normally just find clips when I hear that something of note was shown on Maddow's show. But when President Obama does an about-face and Rachel doesn't appear to move from her ideals, I'm going to to side with her in asking why these military commissions are back on again."

I'll go ahead and point something out to you since you were unable to apprehend it before, and this is a key point, so let's put down the pork rinds and focus. The important part is "...when President Obama does an about-face and Rachel doesn't appear to move from her ideals, I'm going to to side with her...". Don't worry about the ellipses, you can look just above to see my full post if you'd like, as it's in this very thread. Anyway, there it is clearly: I said that Rachel doesn't seem to have changed, but Obama has changed, and not for the better, in my opinion, and therefore, I'm sticking with Rachel, since she's still fixed on largely the same ideals that I hold important in my life. I don't agree with her on everything, of course, but I've observed that she's not the one changing her mind or abandoning promises (explicit or implied). That would be the President. I fondly remember an old Sesame Street number called One of These Things Is Not Like the Other. They'd show things that were similar or related, like a baseball, bat, and glove. They'd also show something like a head of lettuce. Then the adults would ask the children, which one of these things is not like the others. They'd look at the similarities and differences, and they'd reason them out and find out which thing was in fact not like the others (it was the head of lettuce, by the way). In our situation, I think we'll do fine. We only have 3 things to compare, so I think we can get this one. The first item for comparison is my own sense of ideals. They may be right, they may be wrong, but they're mine. They are what is important to me. The next item on the list is Rachel Maddow's sense of ideals. These are what she believes strongly in, and they seem to form the backbone of her show. Now I want to be the first to tell you that I don't have any way of reading Rachel's mind (you thought I knew some Jedi tricks, didn't you? It's ok...I would have fallen for it too, in your situation). That's why I said that she "doesn't appear to move from her ideals". She may fall short sometimes, she may have private failures like we all do. But with her public face, the face we get to see, she's been a very rock-solid progressive. She hasn't budged. Now we move right along to the third element (element being "thing" in this case, with no derogatory connotation as employed in your "...do well to marginalize...this element"). The third element is President Obama's complete about-face on the issue of military commissions. He said one thing, now he's saying something entirely different. This doesn't turn him into George W Bush all of a sudden, but in a healthy democracy (which we do not enjoy), the people have every right (and one could argue duty) to question the president. Some of us question the president even though we like and support him. Like means good. Support means good. Question means question; it does not mean "I hate the President and I'm just like Rush Limbaugh". There I go getting carried away again, but here's the really exciting part. Let's take what we've learned tonight and see if we can guess which One of These Things is Not Like the Other. We have my ideals, flawed, perfect, whatever, I think we could probably agree that those ideals are firmly fixed (sure, with room for growth and tweaking--as opposed to a 180). Then there are Rachel's ideals. They are apparently pretty firmly fixed too. And then there's Obama's stated view that military commissions were wrong, as compared with his recent decision to have them anyway. This could be the difference, right here in front of our noses. I didn't change my mind. Rachel Maddow didn't change her mind. The President of the United States did change his mind. I think...I think the answer to our game quiz is President Barack Obama.

Now what does this kids' game have to do with anything? I'm so glad that I inferred that you asked. Here's the beauty part, where it all comes together. In your post, you said "You seem okay with being "fixed" on Rachel, or do ideals only come into play for you when it's President Obama?". Have you figured out the significance yet, Tarheel? I'm going to let you off the hook and just state it plainly: the answer to your question is an emphatic and very simple No. I'm sorry you missed that the first time around, but I know we all come from different places, have different backgrounds, and learn things at different rates. That's why I didn't mind explaining it in some detail to you, because we're a Big Tent (well, at least until you marginalize the progressives--how's that working out for you?). But I cannot always be around to help out with your misapprehensions, so if I may suggest a moving-forward strategy of reading for understanding, I think it would serve you well. I've found that reading is an integral part of my life and I'd be a much poorer person without it. So I guess I like to evangelize about the benefits of reading. What can I say, I'm a zealot.

May I be so forward as to ask you a question in return? I like to think of it as an exchange of ideas with my new pen pal all the way across the country. Do you yourself have any ideals, or have you converted completely to the more efficient all-pragmatism-all-the-time method for living one's life? I'm guessing that no matter how masterful you are at pragmatism (and I have no doubt in my mind that you are indeed a master of pragmatism and equivocation) and finding common ground with war criminals, you still have the odd ideal tucked away here and there. For example, and this is really none of my business, but I'm guessing that excepting the prison time involved, you'd choose not to murder your next door neighbor even if you could get by with it. If this is a true statement, you run the real risk of possessing some ideals. No Jedi tricks here either, I can't read your mind. So you'd have to let me know the answer to my question, do you have any ideals. If your answer is yes, and should you choose to furnish me with this information, I did have one more little tiny question: when does your pragmatism win out over your ideals? Sometimes? Never? We could expand a lot here, but some input from you will be required. I'm giddy with anticipation, so I think I'll pass the time awaiting your reply by weaving some friendship bracelets for us.

Thank you for being open enough and secure enough in yourself to let us know that progressives scare the hell out of you. I think that's a big first step, but it really is just a first step, and there's still a long way to go. It's ok that you're afraid of anyone who isn't exactly like you, that you're fearful and mistrustful of anyone to the left or to the right of you. It isn't ok to stay in that place forever, but admitting you have the fear of anyone different than yourself is a pretty monumental move. It shows courage, and I'm here to tell you I'm on your side and I hope you're in a better place in your life soon.

Last item, I know it's late there. I don't keep up with Rush Limbaugh the way you appear to. What DID he say about Specter, Powell, and ideals? I really can't stand to listen to the guy, so I appreciate you being so faithful in keeping up with his utterances for me. I really should find a way to start tuning into his show every day, get to know the other side a little, learn how to work with them and compromise. Maybe if we stop saying bad things about Rush and his compatriots, they'll start being nice to us. That would be the practical thing to do.

Thanks so much for taking the time to listen to me prattle on and on. Have a moderate day!

[Binka]

107. Oh Good Gawd!!!! Way To Kick Ass.

Love ya :loveya: Sanctimonious blowhards are so easy to dissect, but you brought the BIG scalpel. Applause!


Pork rinds indeed.

[Forkboy]

109. LOL...the pork rinds line got me, too.

:hi:

:loveya:

[Dinger]

135. Dang, I Guess So!

Love ya too DiscustipatedinCa:loveya:

[QC]

159. (I think he's one of them there bleating far left ideological purists.)

:sarcasm:

[LooseWilly]

119. Very. Nicely. Done.

I applaud you... and now I applaud you again...

[Starry Messenger]

141. I'm going to print this out and frame it.

:applause:

[QC]

152. Somewhere in North Carolina there is an ass covered with red handprints. n/t

[Tarheel_Dem]

197. "Thanks so much for taking the time to listen to me prattle on and on. Have a moderate day!"

You are joking right? Did you actually think anyone was gonna read all that crap? I read the first line, and the last line. As for anything you said in between, I have a feeling it's just more Naderite nonsense.

[ruggerson]

205. Just the last line was better than every single thought you expressed in this entire thread

[QC]

207. That's a pity--you missed the best spanking seen on this site in years. n/t

[sniffa]

211. Win

:thumbsup:

[Sunnyshine]

192. Like this OP is seeking peaceful resolutions?

Do you believe the middle is free from ideology? Yet, you can use false equivocations to marginalize everyone left of yourself. Nice.

[Tarheel_Dem]

198. Well, you've been successfully marginalized. Do you really think

anyone outside the internet gives a shit what Naderites and Ron Paul followers have to say? Get a clue.

[Sunnyshine]

203. Funny thing is, I have never supported or advocated for either one of those people.

Follow your own advice and get a bunch of clues about how to treat fellow Democratic voters.

Seems you failed to categorize me with your baseless assumptions.

However, you did a great job at marginalizing yourself.

Good night!

[Political Tiger]

71. Rachel's reporting is good, when she does it in an intelligent manner

But what's turning so many people off is the nasty, snotty and spiteful comments she can't seem to stop herself from interjecting into her "reporting." That's what Fox Noise is for. I expect better from her.

[Lorien]

200. Kill the messenger. It worked great against Dan Rather

always a better tactic for some than actually addressing the issue.

[NYC_SKP]

48. I caught her not so cute, "Bush, I mean Obama..." quip. Fuck her.

MSM is MSM is MSM...

It's one thing when they spew this crap.

What's upsetting is how many here buy into it.

[firedupdem]

51. She said that? Fuck her is right! n/t

[NYC_SKP]

66. Yep. It's not even funny... nt

[firedupdem]

70. Unbelievable. I knew she didn't care for the President. She has

made that pretty obvious, but to make that comparison is truly below the belt. Disgusting :puke:

[Political Tiger]

57. That's when I switched the channel!

If she thinks trying to undermine the president is going to keep people tuning in she better think twice.

[Tarheel_Dem]

59. Agreed. She needs to know that O's ratings will always be higher than hers.

[Kahuna]

117. I didn't hear it because I can't watch her for too long before I have

to change the channel, but if she said that, she most certainly turned off and lost even more viewers. Soon she'll be down to her Air America numbers where she's just preaching to the choir.

[scheming daemons]

60. Rachel is unwatchable anymore, since she relies on that asshat Turley so much now

...

[Tarheel_Dem]

64. Turley tests my gag reflexes. I have to TIVO anything I watch on MSNBC, so I..

can FF past his smug whiney assed face. And horror of horrors, I tune in to Randi yesterday, and guess who her guest was? You guessed it. There have got to be other constitutional scholars out there.

Has everyone forgotten when Turley used to be the darling of the right? He figured quite prominently in the hunting of Bill Clinton.

[jenmito]

67. What station is Randi on now?

I can't find her! Neither can my parents (in FL).

[Tarheel_Dem]

74. Check out the "Affiliates" drop down, and of course you can stream the show.

Randi Rhodes - On Air Now

Randi Rhodes is on the air weekdays from 3 - 6 p.m. ET. Rhodes enlightens and entertains listeners with her trademark candid, incisive opinions, as well as her biting sense of humor, as she discusses everything from news and current events, to politics and hot topics.

Randi Rhodes broadcasts live from Washington, D.C., and can be heard on affiliates across the nation. Find out where you can hear Randi Rhodes live in your area or streaming online.

“Right now, America needs a voice that reflects its hopes and concerns. It will be my privilege and pleasure to provide vital information to the public about everything that is possible in the 21st century, and also have a few laughs along the way.”

— Randi Rhodes

http://www.therandirhodesshow.com/

She's back, and in rare form.

[jenmito]

157. Thanks, Tarheel_Dem!

I missed her! :hi:

[Tarheel_Dem]

196. You're welcome. (nt)

:hi:

[shellgame26]

108. Green 960

Has her podcasts..for now. I'm so thrilled she's back. She is far more talented than Rachel or Schultz. Even if she's not a Rhode's scholar! I guess now I'll be attacked for being anti-intellectual. But here's a clue: there are plenty of intellectuals who didn't even attend college. I know it's shocking.

[jenmito]

158. Thanks to you, too, shellgame!

:hi:

[Clio the Leo]

72. Anyone seen the WHOLE answer she cut off?

Here is the entire briefing....
http://cspan.org/Watch/Media/2009/05/15/HP/A/18665/White+House+Briefing+with+Press+Secretary+Robert+Gibbs.aspx

... anyone found JUST the segment that she butchered?

[Clio the Leo]

73. .... although I think she just redeemed herself in my eyes ....

.... by devoting part of her show to Hello Kitty. :)

[jenmito]

169. Here's the exchange:

MR. GIBBS: "I’m buying a car except I’m changing the engine and painting it a different color and calling it a different" --



Q Well, he’s not rejecting this law. There’s not a new law coming. He’s not rejecting this. He’s saying, "We’re going to live with this law with tweaks."



MR. GIBBS: No. The law, as you talk about it, the Military Commissions Act of 2006, passed in late September of 2006 and signed by this President, was ruled in 2007, Section 7, to be unconstitutional, okay. That law doesn’t work, okay. The President will seek a continuance in the nine cases that are currently part of the military commissions, setting those cases aside for 120 days in order to institute these changes. These cases won’t go forward under these rules. Therefore, the system that was set up by Congress and signed by then-President Bush won’t be the course under which these cases will ultimately be heard. Your characterization is just simply wrong.


It goes on. It's about a third of the way down: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Briefing-by-White-House-Press-Secretary-Robert-Gibbs-5-15-09/

[Hanse]

77. Journalist integrity takes a back seat on her show.

Calling out Obama on Warren while rubbing elbows with Pat Buchanan?

Not even mentioning the Jim Cramer deal when NBC corporate clamped down?

Yeah, it's a shame. She really could have been something.

[ruggerson]

80. This thread reads like a parody

nominated for a DUZY!

[Forkboy]

95. LOL

What a world, eh?

[QC]

186. No, It reads like something from $cientology headquarters. n/t

[snowdays]

82. Dear Rachel--DU has kicked you under the bus.

[Hanse]

83. Looks like she shot herself in her foot.

Dumb mistake. Especially after sticking her foot in her mouth.

[Lex]

134. The NERVE of her to criticize the President.

nt

[QC]

150. Yes, but she has a, you know, bias {wink wink}. n/t

[jgraz]

161. Yep, she shares reality's well-known bias

To bad so many posters on this thread can't say that.

[LostinVA]

167. You know what THEY are like -- wink, nudge

[QC]

170. Hmmph. Back in my day they didn't let people like that on the teevee.

Of course, we were good pragmatic centrists back then, not bleating lefty ideologues like kids these days.

[jenmito]

174. It's not that she criticizes Obama. It's that she leaves out facts that don't support her argument.

just like Faux.

[jgraz]

112. Don't worry. There are plenty of good progressives under there to keep her company

[Zodiak]

121. Not all of DU

Just the ones who ride around in the Hopemobile with an eye to throw disbelievers under it. Unfortunately such a mission is important enough in their minds to devote 100+ posts a day to it, so it takes up a lot of bandwidth.

[bvar22]

142. Ain't that the truth.

:patriot:

[jenmito]

175. That's bull. I started this thread because she misrepresented what Gibbs said.

We can watch that kind of reporting on Faux.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

213. Yup, the Wing-Nutting of DU continues ---

And it ain't purty. :scared:

Jon, Keith, Turley, Cynthis, Cindy - make room!

Pretty soon DU is gonna need a bigger bus! :D

[jenmito]

214. She mis-characterized Gibbs' response to the reporter...

why should we hold her to a different standard from anyone else who would mis-characterize someone's answer?

[Hell Hath No Fury]

215. I heard her and was perfectly OK....

with what she said.

[jenmito]

216. I quoted her and what she said wasn't accurate...

whether you're ok with it or not.

[ccharles000]

85. I like Rachel

[Budgies Revenge]

93. I like Rachel too

I'm surprised that seems to put us in the minority here. :shrug:

[NorthCarolina]

160. I have to admit that it amazes me as well. Rachel represents Progressive dialog

and I thank MSNBC for creating an excellent evening lineup that features truth over RW talking points. It is quite apparent though that many here simply can't handle the truth. The attacks on Turley really get me scratching my head and wondering WTF...am I on the wrong site?

[jgraz]

163. It's Party Purity Über Alles

Happily, it's a minority on this site. But a loud one at the moment.

They're good to have around when we want to know how the Dems lost all those elections back in the day.

[NorthCarolina]

171. You would think that as Dems they would be beside themselves in joy

over a major cable news network finally offering and effective counterpoint to Fox, a voice that has been absent from media dialog for way too long. Folks on here talking about how they are happy Rachel's show is *failing* and that her *ratings are dropping* (of course these claims are never backed up in fact, just spoken with authority as if they are fact), or that *The site of Turley makes me want to puke*, makes me wonder what has become of the Democratic Party. If we lose these Progressive voices then the GOP has won and all that will be left is the giant Corporate Propaganda machine. Is that what these so called "Dems" want? I have to be honest, I don't get it. Are we dealing with Dem posers here on DU?

[jgraz]

176. Nope. As soon as we progressives got Obama elected, our input was no longer required

Shit, even the Pugs understand dancing with who brung ya.

[QC]

181. Don't worry: progressives will once again be valued in, say, 2012.

Or at least our money and votes will be.

[jgraz]

183. And perhaps in 2010. Unless we try to elect *actual* progressives.

[QC]

185. Elect actual progressives? Perish the thought!

That wouldn't be very pragmatic at all, now would it?

[quiller4]

96. The tactic is shabby. It really is beneath Rachel .

I have really mixed feelings about her. She is sharp. She can conduct wonderful interviews. She scores great guests. But she takes too many cheap shots.

[jgraz]

113. Funny, cuz from here it looks like the only RW tactics are coming from the OP

Rachel did, in fact, cover Obama's changes to the tribunals during her interview that immediately followed the setup you quoted. Did you just forget that part, or were you already furiously typing your post while she was talking?


ETA: it looks like the only RW tactics are coming from the OP and most of the people responding to your post. Shit, didn't this used to be a *progressive* board? :wtf:

[Zodiak]

123. Still is

You should know after being here a while that the number of posts dedicated to a cause does not necessarily translate to the number of people devoted to said cause. When you see the same few people type 20+ posts in a thread each, it can very much look like a take-over by the pod people.

I can't wait to see what progressive media personality they burn at the stake next.

[jgraz]

126. *Every* progressive media personality is getting burned at the stake

By definition, a progressive is going to be critical of this centrist president. How is it that people are now shocked, SHOCKED that Rachel Maddow does not support every Obama policy?

[Zodiak]

128. Well, Mike Malloy still seems clear of the bus.

But I get your point.

[jgraz]

130. That's because centrists are too busy hiding under the bed when Malloy comes on

:evilgrin:

[Kahuna]

138. I am not shocked as I listened to her on the radio for years. I know

that she is more in tune with Nader and Kucinich. I never fooled myself otherwise. Some people just assume that she is a Democrat. I don't believe that she has ever claimed to be one. I do know that Ms. Rhodes Scholar (the smartest girl in the room, they keep telling me) voted for Nader.

[jgraz]

164. OH noes! She carries the mark of the beast!!

BTW, so do I and many of your fellow DUers. Want to kick us all out?

[Kahuna]

165. No, I do not want to kick you out. I'm content to remind you that

you helped to elect george bush and should take no position of superiority (Ms. MADOW) because of that. I feel that is punishment enough. YOU HELPED ELECT GEORGE BUSH!!! So there. :P

[jgraz]

166. The only thing you remind me of is the simplistic thinking that sometimes shows up here

See, I vote-swapped with someone in Florida to move a Nader vote out of a swing state. But, somehow, that helped elect George Bush.

It helped so much more than the DNC who ignored Jebby's purging of 90,000 black voters
It helped so much more than a lackluster nominee who couldn't even carry his home state
It helped so much more than a center-right party who validated every ideal of the GOP
It helped so much more than an allegedly Democratic president who blew the union vote with NAFTA, the minority vote with his racially-motivated welfare "reform", the economic left with his deregulation and the populist left with his tongue-kissing of corporate America.

But I helped more than all that.

Except, there's still this one little problem with your accusations: AL GORE ACTUALLY WON IN 2000. Has that not gotten through to you yet? Even after 8+ years, you still haven't learned this basic fact? Say it with me: AL GORE WON, GEORGE BUSH LOST.

Now tell me again how I helped "elect" George Bush... please?

[Kahuna]

202. Whatever, blah blah blah...But your little experiment backfired. Period.

So, save the superior outrage. It falls flat in light of your previous conduct.

[CBR]

129. I like Rachel. My media policy professor, and dissertation chair,

despises her. Says she lowers the discourse.

[Zodiak]

131. That opinion would only be valued with comparison

Who does said said professor say elevates the discourse?

If that professor says "Bill Moyers", then yes, that professor is correct, although has fairly high standards (most profs do).

If that professor says "David Gregory", then that professor is ideologically biased and not responding to content at all.

[CBR]

132. Definately Bill Moyers... I would say. Although I think

being a media professor lends itself to hating all media. His work is on localism or I should say, the lack thereof.

[Zodiak]

133. I feel sorry for that person

Being educated in a subject is a curse when all you see after getting that vaunted education is the destruction of all you hold dear.

As a biologist, I can relate.

[ecstatic]

145. She doesn't like Obama, but I'd hoped she'd at least report the

facts without tweaking them too much. Oh well. I don't watch KO or Rachel much anymore. They served their main purpose during the primaries and general election season.

[Old Hank]

156. Rachel likes Obama

An examination of her whole history proves that she has been a loyal Obama supporter.

[Lorien]

201. Maybe she cares more about the issues than individual politicians

If a democrat behaves like a Republican are we expected to cheer them on?

[Phx_Dem]

146. She used another RW tactic as well, she had on a

military lawyer representing one of the detainees to criticize Obama's decision, even though it provides much more rights for his client, but didn't bother to have anyone on to argue in favor of the changes Obama made.

Presenting only one side of an argument has always been the GOP way. Rachel must be so proud of herself.

[jgraz]

162. Sigh... were you complaining about these "RW Tactics" when she was using them on Bush?

It's really disappointing to see this kind of ugly partisanship on DU. I thought we were better than that.

[Phx_Dem]

191. No because I don't watch Rachel anymore. I just happen to catch 10 mins of her show.

And you're right, the ugly partisanship is dividing the Democratic party. And IMO, it's coming from progressives and the extreme left who has been complaining about Obama since before he was even inaugurated in January. It's been a constant stream of complaints and bitching, and it's getting really really old.

[Orsino]

193. Rachel works for the MSM now, and is presumably well paid.

Her integrity could disappear into the bubble, too.

[freddie mertz]

209. Wow. Is someone keeping a list of "heretics" on this site?

Rachel Maddow and Ed Schultz are probably the most consistently solid progressive voices on national TV.

And they do it all in such a pleasant, un-hectoring way.

Say something critical of the president's policies (in this case, a clear matter of reversal), and it's off to the stake for you?

I never expected to see THIS much "left-bashing" (not to mention barely disguised homophobia) on a site called "Democratic Underground."

[jenmito]

210. First of all,

it's not that anyone is critical of the president's policies. It's that they misreport the policies. My OP was about how she characterized Gibbs as saying the only difference between how Obama wants the military tribunals run and how BUSH ran them was "a new color of paint for the car." :eyes: And please don't address the accusation of homophobia to ME. The fact is that when Rachel attacks Obama from the left dishonestly (by leaving out or mischaracterizing his position) she deserves as much criticism as those who dishonestly attack him from the right.

[freddie mertz]

212. I was addressing the entire thread.

Which has some really sad digressions.

I do think we may disagree on our analysis of Maddow's framing.