Login

Register

Member List

RSS Feed

Amanda | Contact

Auguste | Contact

Jesse | Contact

Pam | Contact

Next entry: Fakin’ It Previous entry: When will McCain/Palin finally choose to end the politics of hate?

The change I want to see is funnier liberals and less wingnut whining

Feministe has managed to change servers with nary a bump, so yea! for them.  And they put this clip of of Rachel Maddow handing David Frum his ass after he plays the “yes, the pseudo-fascism of the Republicans is bad, but now they let snarky lesbians on the air, and that’s just as bad” card on her show.

What a wanker.  His entire stance of criticizing the McCain campaign is a pose to get people to listen to him…..excuse the McCain campaign for their behavior and imply that liberals are just as bad, letting McCain off the hook twice over.  The funniest part about his whine is that Maddow is the soul of sweetness, and he comes off as the negative, pissy one, while she’s very polite in her disagreement, however strong.  Granted, it’s come from a lady, so there’s going to be some people out there grabbing their asses and freaking out, but reasonably speaking, the distance between them only highlights how wrong he is. 

I don’t blame wingnuts for trying to find equivalence between liberals cracking jokes and laying on the snark and conservatives openly fantasizing about violence and sometimes compelling it.  From a certain perspective, it’s just both camps playing to their strengths, and so they figure if you take away intimidation from them, then we should similarly handicap ourselves by giving up a common skill set.  Of course, a reasonable person realizes that the difference is that using rhetorical devices like humor is fair game in the rhetorical art of persuasion, and using intimidation and violence is an anti-democratic attempt to overturn a system that only functions if people can participate in it freely without fear of violence or some other strong-arm tactics like assaulting someone’s livelihood.

I’m also down with Lauren’s interpretation that Frum unleashed this bullshit on Maddow for sexist reasons, because seriously, Rachel Maddow is a mild-mannered person whose humor is pearly and sweet.  But, as Christopher Hitchens taught us, there is many a man who thinks the sound of female laughter should be reserved exclusively for the purpose of male ego boosting, and Maddow’s own cheerful happiness with her own sharp sense of humor is probably intimidating to the Whiny Dude Faction.  It doesn’t help that she’s sharp as a stick.  In all honesty, if her humor was mean in the slightest, she’d be Public Enemy #1, because women with a vicious sense of humor are only considered socially acceptable if they use it to enforce social hierarchies, and obviously, Maddow’s intention is to dismantle abusive power.  Seriously, Olbermann is a lot meaner than her, but we expect it coming from a dude, I guess.

 

------

Registration is now required! We're still in the process of getting it all squared away, so for the moment don't forget to Login or Register using the links in the upper left menu before starting to write your comment.

Posted by Amanda Marcotte on 08:48 PM • (44) Comments

He was making a really piss poor attempt to play Jon Stewart to Maddow’s Tucker Carlson.

Like I said, he was piss, piss poor.

Comment #1: Ben D.  on  10/14  at  08:58 PM

I don’t blame wingnuts for trying to find equivalence between liberals cracking jokes and laying on the snark and conservatives openly fantasizing about violence and sometimes compelling it.

Oh come on. Frum never said her show was equivalent to yelling “Kill him” at a McCain rally.

He clearly said that he thought her show, with its “heavy sarcasm, sneering [and] disregard for the substantive issues” was an example of the polarization of American political discourse in the last eight years.

How Maddow construed this to mean that Krum was saying her show was the equivalent to threats of violence is beyond me.

What also bothers me is that I don’t think this was an honest mistake. He clearly explained twice what he meant and she just kept harping on it. She was obviously just conflating the issue for cheap partisan shots instead of getting to the substance of what he was saying.

Comment #2: Progressive Prince  on  10/14  at  09:21 PM

Progressive Prince: You are just WRONG. Did you watch the clip? He was trying really really hard to put some spin on the McCain supporters clear facism. As much as many liberals dislike Bush and hate what he has illegally and criminally done to this country, there has never been a Democratic rally featuring people chanting “KILL BUSH!!”

To conflate mockery and incitements to violence as similar requires extraordinary stupidity.

Comment #3: KMTBERRY  on  10/14  at  09:27 PM

What PP misses is that, oddly enough, Maddow’s show doesn’t have disregard for the substantive issues. As Maddow points out, as he repeatedly interrupts,  sometimes humor is a perfectly appropriate response to certain stances on the issues.

(And just to prove her point about being respectful, Maddow completely does not break into peals of uncontrollable laughter at the notion that Paul Wolfowitz has something crucially important to Tell The People about the necessity of building more and better nuclear weapons.)

Comment #4: paul  on  10/14  at  09:30 PM

What PP also misses is that he clearly to not explain tiwce. She gave him numerous opportunities to say “Rachel, youv’e misunderstood me - I certainly didn’t mean to imply moral equivalence between your sense of humor and the very serious violent undertones of which I spoke before referring to your show, and I’m sorry for not being clearer about that.”

Numerous opportunities. The fact that he simply could not bring himself to say “no, I promise there is no equivalence” is telling.

Comment #5: Ross Lincoln  on  10/14  at  09:35 PM

Yeah, all I can think is, “What a wanker” too.

Comment #6: Lisa KS  on  10/14  at  09:41 PM

Progressive, it’s sort of weird to see someone complaining about intellectual dishonesty in bad faith, as you’re doing.  Is there a word for hypocrisy within a single statement?  Like oxyhypocrisy?

Comment #7: Amanda Marcotte  on  10/14  at  09:44 PM

What I loved most about this segment was how after all that, Frum ends with some bullshit about how liberals don’t take threats to America seriously.  Way to totally ruin your little lecture there, buddy.  I mean, really, if you’re going to get all pissy that Maddow was snarky about how much of a fuck up Wolfowitz is, you really shouldn’t end the segment with some totally unserious bullshit, you know?

He’s just pissed off because she’s not afraid of conservatives likes he thinks she should be.

Comment #8: cola  on  10/14  at  10:02 PM

“Auto-hypocrisy”.  “Self-hypocritic”. “Speculahypocritic” (“speculum”=latin for mirror).

And yeah, Frum= disingenuous asswipe.  RM handled him perfectly.

Comment #9: Eric, Rejector of Memez  on  10/14  at  10:21 PM

“Conceptual onomatopeia”?

Comment #10: paul  on  10/14  at  10:22 PM

Rachel handled that very well; Frum came off as somewhat of an intellectual bully, and she refused to play along.

Comment #11: CHV  on  10/14  at  10:42 PM

Ahhh… David Frum, Canada’s intellectual (not kidding, that’s how he is referred to), jesus in order to make him an intellectual I’d have to lower my IQ by 100 and I’m not the sharpest tool in the shed.  There aren’t many people I hope the worst for but this dude is definitely one, because I don’t know of any other way to get him to just shut the f*ck up.

He was a regular on 4th Reading (TV Ontario production, play on parliamentary procedure and 4th estate) and would regularly get his ass handed to him by John Ralston Saul, it was embarrassing listening to him then just as it is in the Rachel Maddow video.

Of course as a “star” of Manufacturing Consent (see section where Noam Chomsky is talking at Harvard, Frum is the Bozo who thinks he just did a “gotcha”) I guess he might be used to it now after 20 odd years.

Anyway just posting to apologize, and while maybe not on behalf of all of us up here, at least just some who lurk and read.

Comment #12: died4nothing  on  10/14  at  11:04 PM

That was really shocking to hear Frum say this about MADDOW of all people.  It’s irony that makes her funny, not meanness or sarcasm.  If he wanted to talk about Oh, how awful liberals are, how MEAN they are, he picked the wrong person to take it out on.

Comment #13: Eric  on  10/14  at  11:07 PM

Ahhh… David Frum, Canada’s intellectual (not kidding, that’s how he is referred to)

By whom????  Surely not up here.  If so, please kill me.

Frum is the son of a powerful female media figure in Canada (now deceased)—Barbara Frum was top-line CBC in her day (when CBC used to be top-line).  I’m not sure what her politics were (wouldn’t surprise me if she were only slightly left of Barbara Ameil, given her response to the Polytechnique massacre), but considering her chops, it’s still odd to watch her spawn engage in Tucker Carlson bloviating-while-brainless dullness. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Frum

Comment #14: Ranylt  on  10/14  at  11:20 PM

<irresistible pedantry born of urge to justify decades in school > “speculohypocrite” won’t go because it mixes Greek and Latin roots. Recursive hypocrisy?

Comment #15: wapsie  on  10/14  at  11:37 PM

Maddow handled this guy really well. She came off as intelligent and in the right, doing her best to engage in mature discourse, while the oxyhypocrite (<—-I approve!) interviewee made shrill and polarizing accusations.

Actually, she’s kind of my hero this month

Comment #16: jericho  on  10/14  at  11:53 PM

My favorite part of Maddow’s take-down was the end, when she let him know he was completely wrong, that she vehemently disagreed with him, but still thanked him for coming on the program.  She was kicking him off her show, and he wasn’t going to get the last word in, and he realized he was being kicked off the show and that SHE was in charge, not him.  The pissy look on his face as he realized he was being dismissed and that Maddow not only wasn’t afraid of him, but had ever so politely called him an ass to the world…priceless.

He went home and wrote a whiny blog about how he thought it was supposed to be an interview about issues and instead Maddow jumped him with gotcha questions.  As if she hadn’t said “This wasn’t how I envisioned this interview” but she wasn’t going to sit back and let him lump her snark in with people calling for Obama’s head.

Oh, and he also mocks her “fans” for calling her “Dr. Maddow”.  Lesbians can’t really have Ph.d.s now, can they?  And even if they do, you can’t be calling a WOMAN “Dr.”

Comment #17: Caren-Sun-blocking Creator of Animorphic Pancakes  on  10/15  at  12:17 AM

Wow, has this person ever actually watched the Rachel Maddow show? I too think he has issues with her gender.

Comment #18: this kiss belongs to me  on  10/15  at  12:20 AM

Frum never said her show was equivalent to yelling “Kill him” at a McCain rally.  . . . He clearly said that he thought her show, with its “heavy sarcasm, sneering [and] disregard for the substantive issues” was an example of the polarization of American political discourse in the last eight years.

Let me join in the entertaining dogpile on Progressive Prince here.  Dude, whatever do you think “polarization” means?  If Frum places the guy yelling, “kill him!” on one pole and Ms. Maddow on the other pole, he’s calling them two equal but opposing forces.

Comment #19: rea  on  10/15  at  12:22 AM

Ha, this one is funny, bigtime hater Rachael Madcow, failed err america host, hired by Herr Olberdork and the Daily Koc, still floating the ‘kill him’ lie…then yawns at Sandra Berhart calling for Sarah Palin to raped.

Comment #20: KLH  on  10/15  at  12:39 AM

He clearly explained twice what he meant and she just kept harping on it.

Would one of those explanations be when he tried to deflect responsibility from McCain for stirring the pot in the first place and then refusing to speak up when people shouted “terrorist” right in front of him?

Frum is an enormous douchebag, period.

Comment #21: keshmeshi  on  10/15  at  12:47 AM

I had two thoughts.

First, I wonder if he’d tell Hannity or O’Reilly that they’re an example of what he’s talking about.

Second, despite his argument that she was an example of topics not being discussed respectfully or thoughtfully, that was probably the most thoughtful and respectful conversation he’s ever had discussing his opinions.

Comment #22: Wallace  on  10/15  at  01:08 AM

What PP also misses is that he clearly to not explain tiwce. She gave him numerous opportunities…  The fact that he simply could not bring himself to say “no, I promise there is no equivalence” is telling.

Not really. Ok - he could have been more articulate and concise in his answers.

But she also had an opportunity, didn’t she, - an opportunity to not deliberately misstate what he said. That’s my point and I don’t think she should be praised for such cheap behavior.

Let me join in the entertaining dogpile on Progressive Prince here.  Dude, whatever do you think “polarization” means?  If Frum places the guy yelling, “kill him!” on one pole and Ms. Maddow on the other pole, he’s calling them two equal but opposing forces.

The problem with your logic here is that you start from a faulty premise. Frum never, as you put it, “place[ed] the guy yelling, “kill him!” on one pole and Ms. Maddow on the other pole.”

Remember, as I already pointed out, was Frum actually said was that he thought her show, with its “heavy sarcasm, sneering [and] disregard for the substantive issues” was an example of the polarization of American political discourse in the last eight years.

Really controversial stuff - so right wing!

Maddow is the one who somehow used her loose logic to construe this to mean that Frum was saying her show is equivalent to threats of violence.

I would really like someone to actually make an argument that justifies this logic-defying leap on Maddow’s part. But somehow I doubt anyone will.

Comment #23: Progressive Prince  on  10/15  at  01:35 AM

Frum went to Yale and Harvard Law, then became a presidential speechwriter and still doesn’t know (or chooses to ignore) instances of humor and satire inserted into the political discourse before “the last eight years”? Either he hasn’t heard of Juvenal, Jonathan Swift, Gladstone & Disraeli, Ambrose Bierce, Lincoln and Adlai Stevenson during their presidential campaigns; or he thinks their political discourses had a net negative impact. He has to pick between ignorance and intellectual dishonesty.

Granted, he was a speechwriter for Bush so classical and historical references probably weren’t that common, but still.

There’s negative ROI for this guy’s oxygen consumption.

Comment #24: Dan  on  10/15  at  01:46 AM

wapsie

....“speculohypocrite” won’t go because it mixes Greek and Latin roots.

I thought that might be the case. —I don’t even know WHY I thought it, but it’s nice to know my instincts were right.  >8^D!

::ponders:: Now, how can I make that pay….?

Comment #25: Eric, Rejector of Memez  on  10/15  at  02:20 AM

And how exactly is the RM Show showing “disregard for the substantive issues”? 

By not regurgitating/falling for Rovian talking points??

She brings substantive issues every damn day, they just don’t have <strike>Himmler’s</strike> Karl’s stamp of approval.

Comment #26: Eric, Rejector of Memez  on  10/15  at  02:23 AM

Oh, and he also mocks her “fans” for calling her “Dr. Maddow”.  Lesbians can’t really have Ph.d.s now, can they?

First openly gay Rhodes Scholar, which is kinda ironic, if you look at Rhodes’ life. But if he did listen to the show, he’d understand that Maddow has the sprezzatura to joke about her Oxford DPhil, something that gummy Frummy (Yale, Harvard Law) is clearly pained about.

Comment #27: pseudonymous in nc  on  10/15  at  02:24 AM

What I’m amazed at is this strange belief from Republicans that there isn’t a cable news network and Youtube. I wasn’t there, I’ve only heard the snark of the left, etc… Who does he think he’s kidding. There’s fucking video evidence these days. We’ve got your asses on tape. McCain definitely heard it, because it was replayed on the networks and viral on the YouTube. And I second the cry that the false equivalence bullshit is way overtired and has been the only way conservatives have been able to have the power they do now.

Comment #28: Cerberus  on  10/15  at  02:53 AM

Wow. pure poise; very refreshing at that!
I never have watched Rachel’s show before, but this clip may cause me to tune in…

tangentially, this here is symptomatic of the republo-bot fury:

Ha, this one is funny, bigtime hater Rachael Madcow, failed err america host, hired by Herr Olberdork and the Daily Koc, still floating the ‘kill him’ lie…then yawns at Sandra Berhart calling for Sarah Palin to raped.

O, my frikkin’ Ceiling Cat,  KLH is pure TRAINWRECK!!!

Comment #29: alcoolworld  on  10/15  at  05:49 AM

KLH , do your parents always let you stay up late on a school night?

Comment #30: The Dark Avenger and Guardian of 10 Gold Chow Mein  on  10/15  at  09:11 AM

I have a crush on Rachel. She is one hell of a class act.

Comment #31: Lindsay  on  10/15  at  09:33 AM

He made Rachel look like an ass, he called her out for being such a biased assclown like Olberman.  Will MSNBC give any left wing nutjob their own show??  Could either of those shows be anymore biased and a totally pathetic piece of crap?  I was suprised she even invited him to be on the show. Rachel and Olberman usually only invite other left wing asshats to come on their shows to piss and moan for a few minutes. I would love to punch Olberman in the mouth!

Comment #32: cookie  on  10/15  at  09:48 AM

“Could either of those shows be anymore biased and a totally pathetic piece of crap?”

And how do you view Hannity and all the other right wing shows? Unbiased?

Comment #33: Lymis  on  10/15  at  10:12 AM

cookie, you have no idea who Maddow and Olbermann actually invite onto their shows - you only see the people who accept those invitations. If right-wingers are in general too terrified to argue with someone who isn’t working from the same script as they are, then what other options do the hosts have?

Maddow should have been more explicit in pointing this out to Frum when he complained that she had never invited Wolfie to her show. How the fuck would he know who she has and has not invited?

Comment #34: spencer  on  10/15  at  10:32 AM

Has cookie seen the shows it speaks of?  B/c since some of us have, you know…oh, wait.  I keep forgetting how the Right just ignores reality these days.  Carry on with the Flat-Out Lying, Cookie.

Comment #35: delagar  on  10/15  at  10:36 AM

Progressive is fascinating.  Once again, doing something while pretending to decry it.  It’s like wingnuttery has hit a black hole and on the other side, everything is folding in on itself, or a world of Mobius strips where they literally cannot speak about liberals without projecting all their worst tendencies outwards.

Comment #36: Amanda Marcotte  on  10/15  at  11:20 AM

Wow, this thread is showing that my suspicion is right—-some men are deeply, deeply threatened by funny women.  Women’s laughter is for male egos!  If women are funny themselves, then that’s worse than a rally of people calling for blood.

Comment #37: Amanda Marcotte  on  10/15  at  11:24 AM

oxyhypocrisy?

Which is sold by a shouting, bearded man on late night TV. It’ll get the intellectual honesty right outta yer rug.

Comment #38: Well, what?  on  10/15  at  01:09 PM

What the hell is David Frum’s problem…

Besides being another insipid wingnut crotchwaffle, every time i see him on TV or in a still pic, he looks like someone just volunteered him to get a prostate exam from a doctor with dry corncobs for fingers.

Comment #39: The Crapture  on  10/15  at  03:39 PM

I am not a lesbian, but I would totally go for Rachel Maddow, and I’m not lying or exaggerating.  Hot damn, there’s something sexy about seeing someone (whether it’s Maddow’s straightforward news-show discussion or Colbert’s Press Corps Dinner satire) civilly rip a new asshole on the right wing.

I think my boyfriend would understand, too, and would just be jealous of me.

Comment #40: Atheist Feminazi  on  10/15  at  06:44 PM

Does Hannity go on those long ass winded commentaries like Olberman does?? It is almost like watching a second grader kick and scream and throw a temper tantrum.  Does Hannity spend the entire hour bashing the left?  Or make crazy and down right insane accusations about the left like Olberman does? and poor poor Amanda, men are threatened by Rachel’s humor? is that what you call what she does is humor?  WOW, then perhaps someone needs to whisper in her ear, you’re not funny, try another approach.

Comment #41: cookie  on  10/15  at  07:33 PM

Does Hannity go on those long ass winded commentaries like Olberman does??

Yes.

Does Hannity spend the entire hour bashing the left? 

Yes.

Or make crazy and down right insane accusations about the left like Olberman does?

No, he outsources it by bringing crazy anti-Semites on his show to make insane accusations against Obama. 

Just because you believed Hannity when he told you that Obama was a secret socialist Muslim who was going to impose Sharia law if elected doesn’t mean it’s true, you know.  It just means you’re gullible.

Comment #42: Mnemosyne  on  10/15  at  07:43 PM

Does Hannity ever apologized as Keith has in the past for stuff he feels shouldn’t have been on show?

WOW, then perhaps someone needs to whisper in her ear, you’re not funny, try another approach.

Her ratings are pretty good, but it’s funny how trolls diss the free market when it goes against their political ideology.

Comment #43: The Dark Avenger and Guardian of 10 Gold Chow Mein  on  10/15  at  09:53 PM

@PP: Frum said McCain and Maddow were in a ‘symbiotic relationship’ - that’s at least equivalence, bordering on implied causation.

Really, let it go.

Comment #44: rotavirus  on  10/15  at  11:22 PM
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.