Hayes and O’Donnell break the rules!

FRIDAY, MAY 11, 2012

On MS, a very rare challenge: Liberal viewers get played for fools all night on The One True Channel.

The spinning rarely stops. The discussion can get very dumb.

Last night, an unusual thing occurred. One over-statement was so absurd that it got challenged! Here’s how this event went down:

In the first segment of The Last Word, Alex Wagner was dreaming sweet dreams, helping us liberals sleep a sound sleep. Cookies and warm milk were soon being served concerning a matter of climate:
WAGNER (5/10/12): Again, the polling—the climate in America is one of acceptance of gay marriage. But the problem for the Republicans, as it always—as it is on a host of different issues, is that at the state level, people don’t want to let this go. If North Carolina hadn’t proposed Amendment One, there would be a lot less I think magnetism to the issue of gay marriage.

This is something that at the state level Republicans cannot—it’s a dog with a bone. It is like that on women’s issues, it’s with that on immigration, and again on gay rights.
We believe that whole statement was issued in English—but one part of the jumble was clear. Wagner was painting a pretty picture about the political climate surrounding same-sex marriage. “The climate in America is one of acceptance of gay marriage,” she happily said.

Say what? Two days earlier, the great swing state of North Carolina had adopted a sweeping constitutional amendment which banned gay marriage and gay civil unions! In a state Obama hopes to retain, gay marriage was voted down by 61 percent of the vote.

Will Obama be hurt by his stand on gay marriage? We have no idea; if we had to guess, we’d probably guess no. But good grief! Wagner’s claim was so odd that it actually drew a challenge! First, it was challenged by Chris Hayes, then by Lawrence himself:
HAYES (continuing directly): And let me also say, I mean, I don’t think we should get too far ahead of the polling here. I mean, there is the threshold being crossed. We’re getting polling, it’s been out in the field in the last few days, and we’re going to see where it goes. And if there might be a backlash effect.

The other thing is, you know, I saw Ohio polling today that was pretty bad. That was 35 percent in favor, 50 percent opposed, something around there.

So in key states, this still might bring with it political risk. I don’t think we should understate that in this election cycle there are foreseeable political downsizing consequences.

O’DONNELL: Well, let’s listen to what President Obama said this morning on Good Morning America about the point Chris was just making, how this cuts for him politically.

OBAMA (videotape): I think it would be hard to argue that somehow this is something that I would be doing for political advantage because frankly, you know, the politics, it’s not clear how they cut.

O’DONNELL: Alex, I agree, it is not clear how they cut.
Even Obama disagreed! And this is part of the hero narrative, which the channel is widely selling!

Glumly, Wagner backpedaled from her claim, then seemed to clam up for the rest of the segment.

Very few statements are so absurd that they get challenged on MSNBC. The propagandistic nature of the channel’s programming seems to grow on a nightly basis. We were especially struck by the steaming hot plates of pseudo-liberal BS served by Rachel Maddow last night.

Maddow behaves more like a ward heeler with every passing day. With remarkable skill, she played it dumb last night about the nature of the complaints concerning Elizabeth Warren’s past claims to be Native American. She also played it very dumb about certain aspects of the Romney bullying matter.

In this passage, Maddow was reciting a script which was already standard on her channel. That said, there’s little chance that Maddow is really this dumb:
MADDOW (5/10/12): Mr. Romney himself later said he did not contest that the incidents had happened, but that he didn’t remember anything about them. He didn’t remember anything about them, but he somehow definitely remembers that he did not think the kid in question, who was attacked, was gay. Nor did he think that about another closeted kid he is reported to have bullied, by shouting "Atta girl" whenever the student would say something in class.

[...]

If you don’t remember anything about it, how do you remember that you definitely didn’t attack him because he was gay? How do you remember that you definitely didn’t think he was gay if you don't remember anything about it? You remember that exculpatory thing but you remember nothing else?
There’s little chance that Maddow's that dumb. But she seems to think you are!

Does Romney remember this incident? We have no idea. But here’s what he said: He said he doesn’t remember the incident, but he didn’t think the student in question was gay back in those days. There’s little chance that Maddow thinks there’s a puzzling contradiction there. But this theme was general on MSNBC, so she rattled it too.

Maddow doesn’t have an 80 IQ. Increasingly, she acts like she thinks her viewers do. This channel gets dumber with each passing day—dumber, and more like Fox.

Concerning Elizabeth Warren: For our money, it’s too bad that people are talking about Warren’s claim/past claim to be Native American. But it isn’t hard to explain the complaints which have been made.

Heroically, Maddow discussed the topic for a full ten minutes without explaining these complaints. (To watch the segment, click here.) In part, complaints like these retain their currency because standard liberals pretend to address them in such utterly bogus ways.

This channel gets dumber with each passing day. Maddow played dumb all last night.

29 comments:

  1. It's not clear to me whether Romney did what he did to that kid because he (Romney) thought the kid was gay. Nerds, for example, get beat up all the time for reasons other than sexual orientation. (e.g. their physical appearance, clothes, high intellectuality, etc.). Romney was an a-hole but i would not say anti-gayness was behind Romney's actions.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. >>>John Lauber, a soft-spoken new student one year behind Romney, was perpetually teased for his nonconformity and presumed homosexuality. Now he was walking around the all-boys school with bleached-blond hair that draped over one eye, and Romney wasn’t having it.<<<<

      Perpetually teased for his presumed homosexuality. It's pretty clear to me.

      Delete
    2. Yeah, but here in a nutshell is Romney's response:

      "I don't remember anything at all about this incident that my five best high school buddies remember so well. But if we pinned the guy down and sheared off his hair with scissors while he cried and begged, it wasn't because he was gay. Heck we didn't even know that there were any homosexuals in 1965. So that would make it OK. Right? After all, we though we were picking on a straight nerd, not that I remember doing anything like that. But if I did, I guess I'm kinda, sorta sorry. Maybe."

      Delete
    3. "Heck we didn't even know that there were any homosexuals in 1965."

      OK, everyone who believes that Romney never heard of homosexuals at the age of 18 in 1965 please stand on your heads and spit out wooden nickels. Are you freakin' kidding me?

      Delete
    4. 2:31, of course I was mocking his response and exaggerating. But that really wasn't much of an exaggeration.

      Delete
    5. So feel free to accept it as true and pass it on.

      Delete
  2. On this same segment Chris and Alex discussed the firestorm of criticism Obama would be receiving had he done the same thing. They suggested that he would be accused of 'leading a gang.' Then a short time later John Capehart said that Romney was the 'leader of a gang.' Yes, they are now all Fox News, pity that.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I guess my IQ is 80 too... if you're going to dress down someone for some obvious breakdown in messaging, you're going to have to explain the precise nature of the problem. In this case, you put some text in bold, said it's dumb but never explain why. Why?

    Romney has very specific memories about an incident he's forgotten. Why does pointing this out make you stupid?

    Here's what you say he said: "He said he doesn’t remember the incident, but he didn’t think the student in question was gay back in those days."

    Here's what she said he said: " Mr. Romney himself later said he did not contest that the incidents had happened, but that he didn’t remember anything about them. He didn’t remember anything about them, but he somehow definitely remembers that he did not think the kid in question, who was attacked, was gay." and "If you don’t remember anything about it, how do you remember that you definitely didn’t attack him because he was gay?"

    Explain to me like I'm as stupid as you just said I was -- EXACTLY what the problem is with these statements, because I'm not following.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Simple. They were spoken by the despised Rachel Maddow. That makes them dumb.

      The only possible way those words could be dumber is if Maureen Dowd had written them.

      Delete
    2. I can't believe you need this explained.

      It is entirely possible (not saying I necessarily believe it) that Romney is able to remember the kid in general but does not remember the specific instance referred to.

      Hell, I remember kids from high school who were perceived as gay but I can't even remember their names let alone the details of specific interactions I had with them (and I am only 31).

      Delete
    3. If you cut his hair with scissors while he was screaming and crying while four of your buddies held him down, you think you might be able to remember that specific interaction?

      Because the Romney's buddies certainly did.

      Delete
  4. I have never understood the argument from polling. We simply don't have enough information to understand what polls mean. Maybe because polls themselves aren't polled enough.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Don't they call that a drive by? Call someone dumb for what they said and never explain why? I read the howler -- Somerby never lets ANYONE off the hook for not saying why. I just spent a few minutes searching the blog for "he never says why" - "she never says why" - "never explains why" and a few other variations. How come it's ok for Somerby to do this but no one else?

    I keep re-reading what maddow says about what romney said and what somerby says romney says. What's the difference? She says "was gay" - Somerby says "was gay back in those days" -- are we splitting hairs about her understanding of the gay as a lifelong mindset vs Somerby's suggestion that the gay only starts after ones first gay act?

    It's just not making sense -- EXPLAIN WHY WHAT SHE SAID IS A STUPID!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A cut and paste of my response to Anonymous above:

      I can't believe you need this explained.

      It is entirely possible (not saying I necessarily believe it) that Romney is able to remember the kid in general but does not remember the specific instance referred to.

      Hell, I remember kids from high school who were perceived as gay but I can't even remember their names let alone the details of specific interactions I had with them (and I am only 31).

      Delete
    2. Um -- yes, I do need it explained. What specific words did Maddow say that makes her IQ80 smart? A passive memory of a person's demeanor is by nature far more transitory than an active memory of assaulting them. If you're a healthy functioning person with anything close to what approximates a conscience, you'd have a really, really hard time forgetting what you did. If you remember the passive attributes of a person, then you most certainly remember the active portion of assaulting them.

      I agree it's entirely possible he remembers only the passive memory - and not the active. But for this to be true, he'd have had to have assaulted so many people that he honestly can't remember them all or some kind of medical condition - Somerby says Romney says he didn't know the guy was gay. Maddow says Romney says he didn't know the guy was gay. My take is that's an awfully specific memory about a person he claims not to remember assaulting.

      So you remember alleged gay kids in high school. Had you have, say, beat the crap out of one of them -- you're saying it's possible you'd recall their general gay-ness but not remember beating them up?

      I'll happily read your reply explaining to me WHAT EXACTLY THE PROBLEM IS WITH WHAT SHE SAID....

      Delete
  6. Nobody has quoted Romney as calling the kid gay while he cut his hair, or criticizing the kid's homosexuality. The only quote has been about Romney not liking the way the kid's hair looks.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And we all know that it's much more acceptable for a bunch of kids to pin another kid while one of them cuts his hair with scissors, as long as they didn't know the kid was gay.

      Delete
    2. “I certainly don’t believe that I thought the fellow was homosexual. That was the furthest thing from our minds back in the 1960s, so that was not the case.”

      Yeah, because nobody ever heard of homosexuality back in the 60's. I can't even begin to guess what Romney could possibly mean by that transparent lie.

      Delete
  7. “I certainly don’t believe that I thought the fellow was homosexual. That was the furthest thing from our minds back in the 1960s, so that was not the case.”

    I don't even know what he could possibly mean by that. What, no one knew about homosexuality in the 60's? He was to pre-occupied with the civil rights movement? What?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Examine this paragraph from the post above...

    "Does Romney remember this incident? We have no idea. But here’s what he said: He said he doesn’t remember the incident, but he didn’t think the student in question was gay back in those days. There’s little chance that Maddow thinks there’s a puzzling contradiction there. But this theme was general on MSNBC, so she rattled it too."

    Who's voice is Somerby attributing the "He said he doesn't remember..." line to? It's looking very obvious to me that this is Somerby explaining to us what was really said. Does this sentence not carry the precise exact offending sentiment as the one he's faulting Maddow for? Specifically Somerby tells us that Romney really says he can't remember the incident, but that he didn't think the student was gay. Maddow tells us that Romney says he can't remember the incident but didn't think the student was gay. Are those two statements not extremely similar? EXPLAIN TO MY WHY when she says it it's bad, but when he says it, it's ok? It doesn't make sense to me. You can't insult someone like this and not explain why -- expecially when the passages are so extremely similar.

    Did explaining why "escape down the memory hole" as Somerby began mentally prepping for yet another "for 20 straight months columns"?

    If the commenters are right that there are no Romney quotes to suggest anything at all about THE GAY + ATTACK, why are both Somerby and Maddow making the same point?

    Maybe he's got a point, but I need to understand WHY Somerby called me stupid...

    ReplyDelete
  9. Actually, a mean High School kid in 1965 would not have called or thought of someone being "gay"; they would have used an meaner term to sniff out a homosexual. Maddow's question seems perfectly logical to me, but what do I know, I actually READ Maddow's recent, highly worthwhile and perhaps important book that The Daily Howler won't go near.
    But no matter. What's interesting here is that Somerby, after propping up so many false equivalencies may be missing the real equivalency in this: The Dems are learning to fight dirty. This strikes me as being much more effective than, say, Al Gore's clumsy work on the hate crimes issues.
    It is a lot easier to get Americans worked up over a high school bully than, say, the horror they brought to Iraq. And it fits right into the dubious "bully issue" that media has been playing up for years now.
    And Mitt is taylor made to take the fall on this: the story is truly creepy and quite solid. Mitt comes off half the time as the kid who runs the mean frat in "Animal House" anyway, he didn't need this. Even W, though a chicken hawk and party boy, was by most accounts a nice guy.
    This story (along with the whole "Bully" deal the left wing media has been cooking up) provokes an emotional response, not a logical one. It's possible they've had this story for a long time, and this is a good time to spring it. It's about as fair as Swift Boat, except that it's true. I'd be surprised if the MSM didn't ride this out all season long.
    It's cheap, unfair, and maybe even ugly. It's pure Karl Rove. Why don't I feel sorry for The Republicans?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Almost all of the reaction I heard was along the lines that it was a ridiculous story and the MSM were idiots for thinking it was anything else. But I hang with regular people who vote, not liberals obsessed with finding a new way to feel victimized every day.

      Delete
    2. Greg, Nicely done, no way I could have said it better.

      Delete
    3. Greg, I do agree that the Democrats finally realized what kind of street fight they were in following the 2010 mid-terms.

      But of course, Somerby still thinks that they, and only they, should fight by the Marquis de Queensbury rules.

      Delete
  10. Remarkable! We have here a new addition to the Somerby lexicon -- tired apparently of "fiery liberal" and 'liberal' in quotes, Bob today introduces a new pejorative today, "standard liberal", in the apparently endless quest to insult the persons who fail to meet Bob's high, if wholly undefined, standards of liberalism (Bill Clinton's Welfare Reform and financial deregulation? Al Gore's Lock Box? For that matter, what does "fiery liberal" and'"liberal"' mean? You you'll never out reading this blog. It's so much more convenient to keep it vague and contemptuous!).

    Interesting, to watch somebody completely go off the rails. Or, rather, maybe it *was* interesting, for those of us with too little to do. But even internet torpidity has its limits.

    Best leave this place to the folks who deserve it.

    ReplyDelete
  11. It wouldn't at all be abnormal for someone to take issue with a guy's hair back then. Hair was a big deal--this was back when the early Beatles were considered unreasonably long-haired.
    As for North Carolina, I don't know that says anything about majority support. It's an election in which Repubs had a presidential primary, Dems didn't, which could affect turn out (and it's been said that's one reason it's on the ballot in May, not fall). And even straights who support gay marriage may not necessarily come out and fight for it, whereas a lot on the other side take this as a direct attack on everything they hold dear.
    "Climate" of acceptance might be too strong a word, but I don't think the guy was that far off-base.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Take issue" is one thing. Ganging up on a kid, holding him down screaming and crying, and hacking away at his hair with scissors is quite something else.

      Delete
    2. I wasn't meaning to excuse Romney--I meant that the hair alone would be "reason" enough to do it for someone who was bullying-oriented.

      Delete
  12. this is simply as well cool regarding phrases! :)
    good job!

    ReplyDelete