Look, last night's interview with Dan Stein of the Federation for American Immigration Reform was epic. It was jaw-dropping. And it was, apparently, the scene of some serious obfuscation by Mr. Stein. We'll be factchecking his amazing blizzard of responses all day, and we'll have a full report on that.
Meanwhile, folks at home have done some factchecking of their own. Marla.Erwin scores the airtime:
@Tony in Arizona-1786381 Seriously? "Didn't let the guest speak"?
Here's what liberals do: we check facts. So, let's have a look -- just how much did Maddow not let him speak?
The interview starts at 5m45s and lasts until 19m30s. During those 13 minutes and 45 seconds, he was talking for 9 minutes 14 seconds (often over her attempts to ask a question).
I understand that racists, ultra-conservatives, and/or FAIR loyalists may not have enjoyed the interview. But saying that Rachel Maddow didn't let him speak is clearly, provably untrue, and the assertion that she was "belligerent" makes me wonder how on earth you would describe Stein's behavior.
Leave a Comment:
Thanks for doing the math, Tony. I was beginning to think I was the only one who could count. Mr. Stein came out firing on all four cylinders and wouldn't stop. He needs to be careful letting his face get all red like that. He might get stopped and asked for papers.
Mr. Stein assumed talking over Rachel would make his beliefs, views, opinions more cogent. He came prepared with a Huge chip on his shoulder. Very suspicious.
He put me off almost right away with that nonsense about the SPLC being a discredited organization. Sure, they're discredited if by 'discredited' he means that they aren't in his corner. And he kept right on the SPLC meme all through the segment. Obsessed much, Mr Stein?
Blind-spot oblivious racists (racists who are convinced they are not racist, even as they say freakishly racist things with a straight face) tend to find it an offense unto the heavens that the SPLC even EXISTS. So of course there can be no other topic of conversation.
Oh hell, they find it an offense unto the heavens that President Obama is president.
That's ultimately what drives the furor of the tea partiers, even when they are talking about health care or "drill baby drill" or financial reform. They ultimately can't get past the core idea that a white person is not in charge, is not setting the agenda. That, by definition makes any agenda set by a non-white person beyond the pale, outside the realm of the possible, like something taking place (from their point of view) on an alien spaceship in some kind of parallel universe.
It's hard to wrap one's head around this kind of deep, foundational racism, because it lives in that place of cultural invisibility, where cultural mores are so ingrained into the deep structural interfaces of a society that they are seen as simply "Truth," a universal principle as obvious from within the context of that culture as gravity making things fall down.
It's how racists stand up with a straight face and deny they are racist, while being offended to the core of their very being by the fact that someone they see as marginal and marginalized by their deepest dictionary definitions is holding the reins of power in the most powerful nation on earth.
A woman in that position would awaken the same feelings in these deep cultural racists, only with a somewhat different cultural dictionary definition of marginal and marginalized. She would be seen as inherently weak and unqualified by virtue of being a woman, and her every action would be seen through that lens.
It's harder to realize how some people have a lens like that for President Obama as well, a lens that maybe can't SAY it considers him a permanent "boy" of lower intelligence, no matter how many advanced degrees he has. Bias against women is still aired more publicly than bias against African Americans.
But this sorry excuse for a white man, Mr. Stein, would probably beat his chest and claim he is not racist, because in his own mind, he has no issue with paying African Americans or Hispanic people equally for the same menial job as white people in that menial job.
Their real issue for them is that such people must never hold the reins of any real power. That threat, for them, is so profound it makes their gonads hurt, makes their throats raw, leaves their eyebrows permanently arched, makes them think they've been transported to a parallel universe.
All because their cultural dictionary definition of power has a picture of a white man in charge, as an agent of a white man bearded god in some kind of Victorian Great Chain of Being.
If you were to go to the FAIR website you would find a black gentleman on the board of directors. If you go to youtube and view some of this gentleman's comments they are centered on blacks being displaced by illegals. From my perspective FAIR has one objective: Fight the washington and media elites from undercutting American workers through employment of illegals. Rachel is not being loyal to American families.
I meant thanks Marla. Oopsie.
It's obvious Mr. Stein wasn't very well prepped to answer the questions he was actually asked. He makes a desperate effort to divert the conversation to FAIR's works and the bill and fails so badly it's ridiculous. It seems as if he was expecting the kind of softball questions he might have gotten on another 'news' outlet. Instead he got all the uncomfortable questions about his organization he should have been expecting.
If he or his people had any idea what to expect from an interview with Rachel Maddow it doesn't show. Didn't he read the blog and watch some past interviews in advance? So he looked completely unprepared and started flailing and making accusations about the SPLC. I think this was a major misstep for him to come on the show. Nonetheless it was entertaining in a sad way, like watching a drunken clown. I wonder if he really will return for another round.
Sad but true. You simply don't see hard-hitting interviews (or journalism generally) outside small pockets of integrity such as this show. It's a sad testament to the state of the US media when a comedian (Jon Stewart) is a more serious fact-checking journalist and interviewer than hosts on CNN, NBC etc. are allowed (or want? I don't know) to be.
Jon Stewart is, hands-down, the best television journalist in America. The way he spanked Ken Blackwell for his hypocrisy was simply textbook.
I just came to the blog and it is a bit disappointing. The responses seem juvenile for the most part. Cheerleading is no substitute for a serious discussion of an important issue. Rachel was trying not to discuss the merits of illegal immigration but instead a game of gotcha which was not particularly successful.
No you didn't just defile this blog with a Palin catch phrase.
you can do better Kim Kendall
Since when is asking straightforward questions about an organization, its members and its contributions "gotcha"? What you witnessed is called an "interview".
project
I have no clue about your post as I don't follow palin on any subject.
vegas
Rachel was trying to discredit Steins organization. She was so fervent of that objective she tried to not allow him to answer. That seems to be a reoccurring tactic. The merits of the illegal issue is should an American really place the interests of illegals over that of American citizens? Not if you have any loyalty. Latinos are a collection of nationalities not a race, but the racism label has more emotional content. Rachel is being dishonest in even using the term race. She has an agenda and apparently has no compuction about tactics legitimate or other wise.
Dude! Did Rachel just interview Jerry Lundegaard from Fargo?
"Ma'am, I answered your question. I answered the darned... I'm cooperatin' here!"
Man... I loved that movie.
HAHAHAHAHA!! Excellent point!
Does that make Rachel Marge Gunderson? Not saying that's a bad thing, Marge was the coolest ever. All we need was an "ah..jeeze" from Stein and he totally was Lundegaard.
I need to throw that movie in the DVD player sometime..it's been too long.
I found it remarkable that Mr. Stein was so adamant to disassociate the people involved with his silly group from the group itself. Don't "federations" (what a stupid term to use in the name of that redneck organization) pride themselves on the "talent" they attract? Aren't they always bragging about the bios of the members of their boards? Clearly not ol' Mr. Stein. He'd like to wallow around in the shadows of his white trash organization and pretend that he's ligit. What a freakin' coward.
I was thinking pretty much that exact thing. An organization is the people who make it up. If the founder is a flaming bigot, the board is made up of flaming bigots, and they hire flaming bigots, then it's probably unreasonable to expect people to believe that the result is not a flamingly bigoted organization.
Amazing interview last night. I thought that Rachel presented the facts and asked intelligent, hard-hitting questions. I agree that Mr. Stein was not prepared for facing those facts. It's called holding organizations accountable -- and it is what journalists have been too weak to do over the last decade or so. Kudos to Rachel.
I went to the FAIR website, and saw that in Mr. Stein's bio, he is quoted as being, "...Cited in the media as "America's best known immigration reformer." He did not come across that way last night. He came across as a hostile, defensive pawn for those right-wingers who use the phrase "immigration reform" as their code words for "racism". I am sure he will castigate Rachel's interview of him as liberal-bias and totally one-sided. No one can honestly say, after watching the interview, that Mr. Stein wasn't given the opportunity to state his organization's stance, nor the opportunity to discuss the potential bill in Congress and the where his organization stands.
Bravo TRMS!!
I was just coming here to echo these thoughts. You said it far better than I could sjm. Well done Rachel and the TRMS crew. Keep fighting the fight!
I second your second Felicia! Kudos to Rachel -
sjm:
What I saw was Sen. Rachel McCarthy, doing a passable Sean Hannity imitation. In place of an actual discussion of the merits of the bill, we saw a transparent attempt to smear an opponent. Some of you might be young enough to call that journalism, but some of us are old enough to remember what journalism was.
Young man, you sound like you were born in the first wave of the baby boom. Or perhaps you are so old that you have forgotten history.
The following quote, from http://wapedia.mobi/en/Liberal_media_bias, might refresh your memory.
I do include the part of the quote that states that news reporting was "expected" to be neutral. I could have trimmed the quote to strenghten my point, but I didn't. We would have to go back and look at the papers in question to see how often the expectation met the reality.
By the way, you might consider participating in an experiment over at slate.com, to gauge the political orientation of your reading material on the web.
http://www.slate.com/id/2252247/
Kejia, pay no attention to Bouldergeist, he is just a paid, racist GOOBER troll.
And here I was thinking he was a booger troll!
However, the slate link at the bottom of my post is worth checking out. I was surprised to find that, despite my strong liberal bias, the sites where I read news on the web are 51% conservative. But my grandmother always taught me to listen to people with differing political views. Then she'd charmingly say, "I respect your right to be wrong." :)
My news diet is actually quite broad; I have been thrown off of Daily Kos and Townhall.com on numerous occasions. I read Boudoir (Salon) and the Weakly Double-Standard, and found myself venturing to New Zealand for news during the imperial invasion of Iraq. As a general rule, I adhere to the maxim that if you want to know the truth about a man, you should ask his ex-mistress. Eric at RedState has banned me, and I expect that I'll eventually get the axe here.
I am admittedly part of the Cronkite Generation, weaned on Murrow and Deep Throat. And yes, I'm well aware of the state of journalism during the Founding, and that the newspapers of the day were more like today's blogs. There was a day -- before Roger Ailes! -- when the major networks regarded reporting of the news as a public trust. It was the golden age of journalism.
I've personally been involved in development of news stories, and found that the toughest fact-checkers on the planet work for Inside Edition. Investigative journalism is a lost art; Greg Palast appears to be about all that is left of that genre. The corporate media won't do stories any more.
Former Houston Post reporter and lawyer Pete Brewton relates an astonishing encounter with Denver Post owner Dean Singleton, which goes a long way toward explaining why the Rustlers’ gathering appears problematic:
The guy who signs your paycheck just threw you a brush-back pitch. Talk about subtle. Brewton observed: “It is a miracle that any investigative reporting on the S&L scandal got published in the Houston Post.”
As for laTex, he considers anyone who disagrees with him as a racist, as he can't argue anything of substance on the merits. laTex claims to be of Irish and First Nations roots, but anyone can pretty much claim to be anything on the Internet. My guess is that he is a Ward Churchill Indian, unless you count Mayan or Inca.
Personally, I prefer discussing matters with people with whom I disagree, but you can't have meritorious discussion with someone whose only mode of argument is to call his opponent a goober racist gabacho. Sing along with me, laTex: "Viva! Viva! Reconquista!! Si, se puede!!!"
How is our racist GOOBER troll today?
Figured out where you are going to spend the $0.50... you made on that last post ;)
Boulder, if the common thread in all your bannings is you, I'm not sure that's something to brag about.
The common thread is that I avoid discussing issues on sites where everyone agrees with me. By way of example, on DKos, there is a band of Reconquista supporters who set themselves upon anyone who asserts an opposite view. And Heaven forfend that you should ever be so bold as to take the Palestinians' side. But I think you can judge for yourself whether I am a "racist GOOBER" who is carrying a brief for Eric Erickson:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/1/11/682826/-Gaza:-What-I-Cant-Get-Past
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/11/30/666614/-KosLaw:-Torture,-Treaties,-and-the-Pardon-Power
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/11/8/657369/-Prop.-8:-A-Natural-By-Product-of-Success
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3/8/472039/-BREAKING:-Another-Good-Old-Fashioned-Republican-Sex-Scandal!
Bouldergeist:
As a child of the Fifties, I do recall real journalists. And I dare say some of their words echo the situations of today, as shown below:
I agree that the journalists of 2010 may not hold a candle to those of bygone eras. The internet and 24-hour news channels have made every issue too polarizing and convoluted.
Nevertheless, I feel that the issues of fear-mongering and racism are as rampant in the Tea Party movement of today as they were in McCarthy's era. Murrow's quote involving McCarthy's Red Scare tactics could easily describe today's Tea Party Movement and Republican reaction to health care, financial reform, immigration, and all things Obama.
Fear... fear is what motivates people. Fox News, Matt Drudge, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck all know that. MSNBC and the Huffington Post know that, too. They are all in the business to capture market share, improve readership and garner ratings. For us political junkies, we tune in, log in and subscribe so we can stay one beat ahead of the next guy. Journalists are our pushers, and we get our fix in whatever flavor or brand is our preference. And we fight like hell to say our drug (our issue, our stance, our party) is right! We have to, we are addicts!
So label Rachel as "McCarthy" if its what gets you off. But do your homework, and see what McCarthy did. Then see what Murrow did. Who was the fear-monger and who was the journalist? and who plays what role today?
Having talked (well, in most cases, argued) with local Teabaggers, I find that they are for the most part well-educated, and reasonably well-informed (though those who watch FAUX are almost by definition ill-informed). They actually understand constitutional concepts that would go right over the head of most liberals, though their understanding of the Tenth Amendment consistently fails to take the Civil War Amendments into account. They understand the implications of sovereignty, as the Framers understood it. If anything, the most popular part of the Arizona bill is that it empowers citizens to force public officials to do their jobs (a power that existed at common law in England, btw).
In this case, I don't see Rachel as a journalist but rather, more as an advocate.
I was very disappointed in Rachel's pointless and hostile interrogation of the FAIR guy. I tuned in to learn something by listening to an interview with someone who has an educated opinion different than Rachel (and mine) on the very complex and emotionally charged immigration issue. Instead, I was subjected to an attack by Rachel which reminded me of the Ayer's association nonsense during the Obama campaign. In my view, the FAIR guy was a guest who reacted reasonably to finding himself being treated very inhospitably by his host who was not remotely interested in his views and attempted to smear him with a litany of past associations and things said in different contexts, all tangentially related to the subject of immigration but with very little relevance on the current state of the issue. I hope Rachel will adopt a smarter, more thoughtful and useful way of discussing issues with her guests in the future and leave the smear jobs and bullying to the Hannitys and O'Reillys.
a reply to Kenji.
I think political bias is a non issue when you use research with a coherent goal.
That interview was pretty awesome last night. I agree with everyone else, he was so not prepared for those hard-hitters, and it was just downhill for him the whole time. The look on his face was just priceless, i felt like i was watching MMA, lol. Maybe he thought it was going to be a walk in the park? "But I thought we were gonna talk about the bill?" One of my favorite lines, lol! Anyway, great job Rachel, the worms always end up squirming in the hot seat!
Wouldn't talking about the bill actually have been more useful than what we got?
I would have loved to have someone of substance talk about the bill, and the perceived need for it. My favorite would be former Rep. (and current Republican gubernatorial candidate) Scott McInnes (R-CO).
McInnes is an interesting character, who is probably as well-informed on this issue as anyone. He used to be a cop in Glenwood Springs, and was in the House for passage of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsiblity Act of 1996; he is currently a lawyer with Hogan and Hartson (http://www.hhlaw.com/home/). I spoke to him personally about this issue, and quite frankly, he has probably forgotten more about it than Rachel ever knew.
Colorado senatorial candidate Ken Buck was directly involved in the Monfort bust, and managed to get an ICE office into Greeley. He was able to cogently explain the flaws in e-Verify (if you had three key pieces of info, you could fool the system, because the state DoL information isn't linked; having simultaneous employment in three states would be a kind of red flag).
McInnes in particular is capable of ripping Rachel a new one on this topic, and neither can be tarred and feathered with cheap accusations of racism. That Rachel has already mentioned McInnes means that she can't say that he isn't relevant.
Was McInnes the one who - on Wednesday's show - was talking about just plain profiling (of a sort that may be appropriate), and it was clear that he meant non-racial profiling, but who Rachel presented that time (and again last night) as endorsing racial profiling?
For all of the lemmings out there, the AZ legislature wrote the bill, not FAIR. FAIR may have contributed to the bill itself but the legislature wrote it and signed it. ARE THEY ALL RACISTS AS WELL? Investigate each and every one of them.
!!!! Maddow debate the bill with Mr. Stein !!!!
Read the actual bill and tell me where it is discriminatory and unconstitutional ?
http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070p.htm
Not a good way to start, Keith_O_SUX, and you kept doing it. Calling everyone in a discussion names is grenade-trolling. Cut it out. You've been here since 2008, that's plenty of time to review the very first rule:
You're suspended for a day for violating #1 of the Code of Honor.
If you are going to sic em, then sic em all. Call me Tex has consistently referred to me as a "racist goober troll" ... but as we all know, this particular transgression is called about as consistently as the strike zone in a Braves game: whereas the KOSux-types can't get a call on the black, the Greg Maddux types (Call me Tex) get pitches three feet outside the zone.
Not that this is any different from what happens at RedState or Daily Kos ... unfortunately, this practice seems almost ubiquitous.
Dear Dr. Maddow,
For the first time, I was disappointed in your show today. You interviewed Dan Stein, president of FAIR, on your show, pressing him about his organization's reputation for moderation. As always, I am glad when you have guests from differing points of view on your show. Your respectful but sharp interview style is always informative. You did not depart from that style in addressing Mr. Stein. You brought up important points about individuals that FAIR is associated with - that they are not as moderate as the image FAIR projects of itself. I am glad that this information was aired, but I am nonetheless disappointed. Here's why:
First of all, you took this issue way too far. Was that the best information you could get? Some of it was from 25 years ago? Much of it looked like a case, as Mr. Stein said, of "guilt by association." If indeed one is guilty by association, could you not have made a stronger case? I didn't see anything that convinced me that FAIR could not still be overall a moderate organization with a few kooks here and there or someone who said something kooky 25 years ago.
Since you have a PhD in political science, you of all people should know that political institutions like FAIR are not unified and monolithic or representative of a single point of view. Mr. Stein alluded to this when he said that his organization represents a "big umbrella" and has a diversity of opinions. You could have pressed him on this... how can a "moderate" organization include so many apparent immoderates? It would be interesting to hear how he would reply to that. It is an important political question given FAIR's moderate reputation and position as backer/writer of the new Arizona law that you are calling the "papers please" law.
Perhaps more importantly, you did not discuss with Mr. Stein, the supposed "moderate" on immigration, an important issue - the "papers please" law. Mr. Stein was presenting himself as a bipartisan, moderate spokesperson on immigration and yet he said that the Arizona law was NOT racist. I'd like to hear how he justifies that. Perhaps he'd convince me. More likely, you would simply be giving him the rope to hang himself.
You made a weak case, and in the process, came off looking overly partisan and obnoxious.
I am saying this in all sincerity, as a huge fan of your show. However, for this one time, I think you blew it. I hope next time I will not be so disappointed.
My take, as well. There's a reason Sarah Palin will never appear on Maddow or Olbermann. When you have the better argument, you don't have to over-play your hand; it seems to me that even Dr. Maddow knows that she does not have the better argument.
Hear hear. I'm a liberal, generally agree with Rachel's point of view, and GENERALLY agree that she presents it fairly. But spending the entire interview on out-of-context statements by people involved, some quite peripherally, with FAIR was probably unfair and certainly uninformative. (For example the bit about...well, so and so was on a panel with... That really did verge on McCarthyism.) I at least hope Rachel intended to spend more time on the bill and less on this sort of stuff and that the interview just got out of her control....
And if someone above chooses to call me a racist, paid, troll, they're welcome to do so. I know they're wrong and that's what matters. If we're going to get our news from sources with an ideological slant - and I see nothing wrong with that - we need to learn to listen critically. This is the second time in two days I've come on this blog to say something critical about the presentation in the previous night's show. At least we're permitted to do that.
I have to wonder if the one minute on "we've posted stuff about FAIR on line" at the very end of the show was in defensive anticipation of this sort of reaction to the interview.
My take, as well. There's a reason Sarah Palin will never appear on Maddow or Olbermann. When you have the better argument, you don't have to over-play your hand; it seems to me that even Dr. Maddow knows that she does not have the better argument.>>>
I'm sorry, but why would they want her on the show? What would they ask her about? What more is there to reveal about her? She's empty.
I would think that if he just said "yeah, those guys are on our board, and here's why"~ then stood up for the statements he made about them being a broad umbrella~then quietly held his position like a gentleman....They might have had an interresting segment. But he didn't. He acted like a neanderthal. If you have the gumption to be a broad umbrella then act like it. Stop blaming and running away. I wish he would've had the guts Rachel had to stay in the discourse on one point, but he just kept running. I didn't love that segment, because we came away with no clear information from Mr. Stein except that he's a bit of a coward.
I find myself conflicted, but having to agree with SherBear. I don't think Stein handled himself very well in this interview, but Rachel went too far with grossly out-dated proof.
Who hasn't said or written some asinine thing 25 years ago, or even 25 days ago? Stein should've had a better answer than to try to point a finger back at the media, but I'm sure anyone could dig through the archives and find something that Rachel has said that, out-of-context, could be damning. Does this mean that NBC should fire Rachel now because of something she said and regretted then?
The only thing that she did prove that FAIR is being too lax in cleaning out its own house. If FAIR wants to truly present itself as fair and balanced, maybe they need to liberate their Board of Directors of a few members who do not reflect well on its current mission statement.
I hate to say it, I really do, but in this one interview, Rachel let a whiff of O'Reilly into it. Don't let Keith find out!
I'm afraid I must agree with SherBear as well. The whole thing came across as a sort of collection of fallacious arguments, guilt by association, ad hominem attacks, etc. It wasn't one of Rachel's finest moments. Unfortunate, because usually she's great.
I just don't agree with your argument.
I think it's great there has been a flurry of people commenting on here that
First they acknowledge watching the show and are a fan and
Second believe her case was all guilt by association.
If the the top immigration activist are also ethnic separatist activist then it kinda goes beyond association and delves into servere conflicts of interest.
When it seems likely people that run FAIR have a copy of "The Turner Diaries" under their pillows I think it's very fair to paint them badly.
It was disingenuous (at best) for Stein to contend that because so-and-so was only a racist before (or after) he came to work with us, or only a bigot on the weekends but not during the work week.... or editors of that darn publication that I was affiliated with as an advisor espoused racist principles, but not me, no no no...
I do not believe questioning the political affiliation or employment involvement of FAIR personnel with other groups that have documented bigoted and racist viewpoints is McCarthyism. It's not as if Rachel was questioning why FAIR personnel bought their coffee at a donut shop known to be frequented by racist bigots - that would be "guilt by association".
The 'Dr. Maddow' position on having Stein on the show was because he was one of the AUTHORS of the Arizona bill. She assumed we all knew about the bill and its contents. What we didn't know was the intentions of the authors. Drs. have a way of underestimating the knowledge of their audience, but Rachel, in my opinion, fished his mind and exposed his bias. What more can we want? Stein is an underground racist. Look close!!!!
Stein is white and male. He is afraid of being outnumbered, so he, along with his pack of thieves, have devised a scheme to reduce the numbers. They think they are sly and not obvious, but they also know people with Rachel's IQ know exactly what they are doing. They, like the rest of their egotistical crowd, are fighting to portray themselves as 'good Americans' and only interested in restoring balance in Arizona. Rachel knows better. I know better.
Poor ole ugly Abe Lincoln robbed the South of their slaves, so their next best option was to enslave another race by providing pennies for labor, and then keep them in line by hiding their right to cross that beloved line drawn by a 'loving democratic nation' on the ground of a planet. A planet that no more belongs to people than it belongs to the trees. Mother Nature has a way of keeping her own balance and she isn't partial to white men.
Those dudes reign with fear. Just ask the Indians. Oh, I forgot to mention, they also reign with lies and promises. Just ask the Indians.
Arrogant white males think the majority of American citizens are stupid. Some of us aren't. Rachel is one of those. Obviously, some of her audience lacks a few bricks. She knows this. That's why she uses 'show and tell'. But, alas, sometimes that isn't enough.
next hostile interview, rachel, dont interrupt the diatribe. jot down his points then when he finishes, follow-up point by point. >then one cannot be accused of out-of-context or mis-stating his positions & he'll fry himself for you.
I would not bet on it with that particular guest. He has some very legitimate concerns. Perhaps that is why Rachel was in attack mode. She was fearful the house of cards called immigration reform would fall.
Pat Buchanan on morning joe for the first time vocalized the questions that need asked. Do people really think americans should go unemployed in preference for illegals? I don't believe so.
I just love how you disregard what Rachel said and tried to promote Pat Buchanan.
We all know where you're coming from now Kim Kendall.
Rachel,
The interview was great. Mr Stain was upset from the get-go. He was determined to talk over you and don't allow you to do what you supposed to do; INTERVIEW him (ergo) ask questions, get answers; all his answers were disguised and for what is worth, it didn't work well for him. He appeared to me as a bully. Good job, as always I enjoy your show.
Thank you SherBear for your sensitive comment, you saved me lots of typing this morning. I'm also a fan of all that Rachel stands for, but I had a strong feeling that she missed the mark last night, I found it disturbing. I generally laugh at the argument that msnbc and fox are right and left equivalents, but last night my perception was that, like the propagandists on the other side, Rachel clung to her prepared points and wasn't listening to her guest. I hope she and her producers take another look at that tape.
I love u Rachel. You made that GOON from FAIR eat his words last night. He came on your show all belligerent and about to rant and rage how liberals were taking over, but you put him in his place and showed him that this was your show and not FOX News. (FAUX NOISE). Very good job controlling that interview and also welcoming him back to spill more "Tea Party hot garbage.
BTW: I really loved your analogy on monday or tuesday night when u used the piece of plexiglass to show how the republicans think that no one can see through or is seeing their B***s**t.
You sound like a tea bagger devoid of the reality of the situation. Rachel had her sneak attack thwarted pretty effectively.
No she didn't Kim Kendall
Rachel:
Great job on the interview with Mr. Stein. After your presentation the previous night, and your extensive lead-in, there is no way Mr. Stein can complain he did not know what the subject of your interview would be. He was unable to defend his organization after being given ample opportunity to do so, and clearly had an agenda to attack the S.P.L.C. as a diversion. Again, great job, and thanks.
"So what if our chairman and officers and everyone has a history of donating to racist causes, writing racist papers and subsidizing racist 'research.' What does that have to do with us as an organization? Why are you trying to impugn FAIR's reputation by pointing out we are a bunch of racists?"
That interview was laughable. The best bluster he could summon was to smear SPLC and insult the interviewer. And say that writings in a library weren't public.
I can see however the other side claiming that all it was, was an attack interview. Rachel's game seemed a bit weak and based solely on bringing up racist tendencies of board members. The guy just sat there and said untrue, untrue and sneered at her.
I think she is commendably civil but needs to develop strategies for when things go badly.
Watched the interview. It is always so annoying when people just "talk loud" and "talk over" people. All it makes me think is....whatever they are railing against must be so.
Agreed. The information presented to support the argument that FAIR is a wolf in sheep's clothing was pretty darn weak. The age and often distant connections to racist characters seemed awfully dated, and tenuous at best (with the exception of the racism of FAIR's founder, though we could've used more context around some of the quotes provided). There is definitely smoke here, but Ms. Maddow needed to reveal a fire and failed to do so. Failure to hit the organization's position on the current "papers, please" was a huge lost opportunity to expose the true nature of FAIR, good or bad.
Could've been a home run...barely made first base.
(I know, 3rd time I've posted this.)
To those who are crying “McCarthyism!”
Imagine that a Geological Society was founded by a bunch of White Supremacists. That would be offensive to some (hopefully most), but it would not impugn their insights and motivations as Geologists. It would be unfair to tie the Society’s association with racists to any geology-centric policy position they may hold. IMHO, that would be a witch-hunt.
Now let’s imagine a different Geological Society that was founded by members of an organization called IDIOT (Intelligent Design Is Our Theory.) Also, many of this society’s principal members are affiliated with IDIOT. This society has supported IDIOT financially. Also, this society has just helped write legislation that would force schools to teach that the Earth is 10,000 years old. Would it be unfair to point out the very obvious (and very deep) connection that this organization has to IDIOT when this connection speaks directly to the previously mentioned legislation? Would that be a witch-hunt?
FAIR epitomizes one of my examples above. Dare to guess which one?
Really enjoyed watching him squirm and sputter, trying to get back to his official "talking points", and crying when he didn't get a chance to babble on with a bunch of meaningless rhetoric about what his organization "says" it's about. We've all learned that what the core, contributing members of such organizations say on the public record in the interest of improved popular opinion and what they're actually pushing for behind the scenes are two entirely different issues. How stupid must he think the average voter is (and perhaps he's right, after seeing how gullible they've been with the so-called gay marriage amendments) to have us believe that his organization is not loaded with racist bigots? My only criticism is that I think she should have been given him an opportunity to hang himself with his own words near the end; doubtless he would have provided her with enough ammunition to really deal a knockout blow. That, and I think not enough attention has been drawn to what I believe is the most tellingly insidious portion of the law, in terms of where they're planning to go from here- the ability of individuals to sue law enforcement officials for not following through on "reasonable suspicion", and mandatory jail time for not producing papers- police officers will have no choice but to demand documents from anyone that looks latino or talks with an accent every time there's a dispute between neighbors, a traffic altercation, even a call by someone about a "suspicious" lady pushing a baby stroller down the sidewalk in front of their home, for fear that they'll be sued if they don't, whether there really is "reasonable suspicion" or not. We're going to have incidents like a jogger getting hit by a driver who wasn't watching the road- and the jogger goes to jail for several months because he didn't have immigration papers on him. And calls to the police by suburban housewives that were put off by a store clerk speaking in a foreign tongue, or maybe she got cheated out of a burrito at the drive-thru and wants to get even.
One thing which hasn't been mentioned so far are the means by which Mr. Stein defended himself. He kept calling the criticism he was getting "shrill". That's dog-whistle-code for "a woman is telling me things I don't want to hear". (Compare: "arrogant" as code for "uppity".) I found that offensive. As for charges of 'McCarthyism': Bah. Just don't feed the trolls, they thrive on attention.
This.
Utterly fantastic job you did with FAIR. We thought Stein was going to blow a gasket! Can't wait for you to bring that racist back on your show. Keep showing what he and FAIR are really all about. You are truly one of only a few journalists who come back when a guest is trying to stonewall or pass on their lies as the truth. You are truly the best. We love you and PLEASE keep on keepin on!
What's new with C Street???
Personally, I'm glad she brought up the white supremacist connections. She's absolutely correct, I live in Arizona, and I remember when Proposition 200 was proposed and how big of a controversy it was. Those white supremacist connections were brought up then, too, and the local papers made it a point that groups outside of the state were the ones who drafted the legislation; you know, not people who actually LIVE here, of course.
I wish Rachel had discussed the actual bill with him. Not that I don't think it's important to call him out on his history of racism, but I wish she had asked him more pertinent questions about the bill itself. I wonder how he would have had to say about how an illegal immigrant can be spotted or what constitutes probable cause for asking for someone to show their papers. There is no way to defend this bill and I would have loved to see him try to answer the questions that other right wing proponents of the bill cannot answer either.
oops didn't mean to dig you up.
But anyway, no, I don't thing she had to discus the bill with him considering she had a clear and concise goal of exposing FAIR which in turn does answer to an extent why this bill is perceived as racist by so many intelligent Americans.
Maddow didn't do what everyone else was doing and in turn she helped her viewers understand the bill more.
I'm white & from AZ. Stein wasn't very well prepped to answer the questions he was actually asked, and when he was asked he never fully answer them & tried to bully his way thru. Gee, sounds like the the last sevearl months of the Tea Klux Klan, Right Wingers, etc trying to cover his A**.
I sure hope Rachel does a follow up on tonights show as Stein sounds like the law here...Racist. I'm glad we have people like our sheriff in Tucson speaking out against it.
This law is a disgrace to AZ but then what can you expect from a state that was opposed to M.L.K. holiday. Hopefully a boycott of our state, or what ever it takes to get this racial profiling law (because that's what it is) tossed out!!!. Keep up the good work Rachel & MORE follow up on Stein.
Tell me 1 thing I learned about the law from the interview. I learned nothing new about the law. It wasa waste of my time to listent to it. If this interview was considered good work then your standards are very low, similar to the Tea Party people.
rtay, the law is well known. It's been reported and posted for anyone who is interested to hear and read. Like Rachel, we must do our homework. The purpose of having Stein on the program was to expose the purpose of the author in the writing of the law. He was definitely exposed and stripped. It was excellent work. The high standard of the Rachel Maddow show was evident even in the bluster. Comparing it to the standards of the Tea Party is your effort to criticize both. The Tea Party is not a tv news network. It's a gathering of like minded chauvinistic white supremists who think the answer to 'their' country is to get rid of anyone not like them. Most of them are fundamental Christians? who think God has chosen them as the superior race. The only attempt at superiority status on Rachel's show was in the actions of Stein. He tried desperately to belittle Rachel. If you think he did that, then you need to start watching something else.
In the act of writing or reporting is always the point of the author. That was the purpose of Stein's visit.
Don, Well the law is not well known to me since there is so much noise and not much honest discussion. I do know the talking points. I;ve taken more time and still haven't found any legitimate reasons not to support what the law is trying to do, stop illegal immigration that the federal goverment has been absoutely inept in doing. Not sure they really want to stop it. Do you think Rachel's producers told Mr. Stein, hey come on the show so we can prove you're a racist? Or did they tell them to come on so they could give their side of the story relevant to the Arizona law? You have our opinion on the interview and I have mine, why should I "watch something else" just because I disagree with her technique on this one interview. Sorry I don't lock step on every singel issue. I'm not a ditto head for anyone, except maybe my wife. Rachel is one of the fairest one on the air which is why it disappoints me when she slips from her higher standard. She just seemed to be catering to the angry left at the cost of some credibility.
I think the interview would have gone a lot better if he had calmed the hell down and just answered her questions instead of turning them into tirades against the SPLC and her research methods. Her questions were indeed valid, you surround yourself with like-minded people and if there's been a string of people with xenophobic or racist viewpoints associated with you or your organization then it only makes sense to make light of them. He was belligerent and obnoxious, I could barely make it through.
Had it gone better I'd have also liked to hear her ask him -why- there are so many immigrants crossing the border, -why- is it an issue to begin with? Shouldnt we be addressing it at the problem at the core? This bill, and immigration reform on a national level, are just band aids on the problem.
NAFTA, anyone?
Do you think every guest should allow the host to spin dialogue where ever they want? Rachel did not want to let it go to the merits of the issue, she would loose.
Sorry Kim that just didn't happen.
Oh Kim Kendall I just love your initial strategy of proclaiming you're a fan of the show before discrediting everything about the show.
Do a Google book search for "The Art of Reason"