Skip to main content

I love Rachel Maddow, but she just completely wimped out by avoiding all the tough questions of O'Connor re Bush v. Gore.  She could have asked:

1. Why did you vote with the rest of the Reagan/Bush appointees to stop the vote count in Fla. and appoint the son of the person who had appointed some of you in defiance of what a later count would show would have elected Gore?

2. Did you feel bad or guilty when you found out that you had stolen the election not just from Gore, but from the plurality of voters both in Fla. and throughout the U.S., thus essentially stealing our suffrage?

3. Did you fell bad when it turned out that the President you appointed not only ignored intelligence that resulted in 3,000 Americans being murdered on 9/11, but also then fabricated intelligence that resulted in over 4,000 more Americans being killed in Iraq? Do you and the other Justices who circumvented the electorate feel any guilt about this at all, or are you all just sociopaths?

4. Why did the Court decide to make the Bush v. Gore decision have no precedence value for any other case? Were you just embarrassed or were you trying to limit the damage to American democracy of your decision as much as possible?

You might have some other questions, but I am so angry at Rachel at the moment that I could spit.  If that election-stealing woman wants to hawk copies of her book on TRMS, at least Rachel should make her pay the price!
 

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (40+ / 2-)

    NEW PALINDROMIC METAPHOR MEANING TO MAKE A PREDICTION THAT IS ASTOUNDINGLY OFF TARGET: "Pull a Gallup!" As in: "The weatherman said yesterday would be sunny and mild, but we got a foot of snow! Boy, did he pull a Gallup!"

    by Obama Amabo on Mon Mar 04, 2013 at 06:36:47 PM PST

  •  One day Rachel may be (23+ / 0-)

    so graceless as to treat a respected Justice that way, but I hope that I never see it.

    We are all aware of the history of that decision, and we can read the majority and dissenting opinions. What would she say that we can not already read?

    I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
    but I fear we will remain Democrats.

    Who is twigg?

    by twigg on Mon Mar 04, 2013 at 06:43:54 PM PST

    •  OK, so let's not hurt the fee-fees of those who... (13+ / 0-)

      ...steal our democracy.  After all, if we aren't going to go after those respected bankers who destroyed our economy, or those Bush Administration people who ignored the warnings about al Qaeda and faked intelligence to invade Iraq, and tortured prisoners, why should we go treat a "respected Justice" who stole our democracy with anything but politeness? Let's show respect for Rummy and Scooter and Cheney and Jamie Dimon and the whole pack of 'respected" criminals!

      You may "respect" Ms. O'Connor.  I don't! And I am VERY disappointed with Rachel.  If she is going to be polite to those crooks, then she needs to get out of the journalism business.

      I agree with the commenter who said she seemed intimidated.

      NEW PALINDROMIC METAPHOR MEANING TO MAKE A PREDICTION THAT IS ASTOUNDINGLY OFF TARGET: "Pull a Gallup!" As in: "The weatherman said yesterday would be sunny and mild, but we got a foot of snow! Boy, did he pull a Gallup!"

      by Obama Amabo on Mon Mar 04, 2013 at 06:56:25 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  As I wrote below, Rachel's a terrible interviewer (6+ / 0-)

        There's no back and forth, no fluidity, no interesting sidetracks, no hard-hitting. It's just a questionnaire that she reads from as she looks deeply pained.

        "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

        by kovie on Mon Mar 04, 2013 at 07:31:45 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  i couldn't disagree more. (3+ / 0-)

          She is respectful, intelligent, and she responds to her guests with clearly stated questions.  She is gracious at all times, despite the moments when she clearly disagrees with her guests.

          •  I.e. she's no Mike Wallace (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            blueoasis

            One of the finest interviewers ever. Screw civility. I want answers.

            "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

            by kovie on Tue Mar 05, 2013 at 05:56:43 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  It's not her forte. I've noticed before she has (0+ / 0-)

            trouble switching from her glib and geeky TRMS host persona into the "serious" journalist conducting an interview mode.

            I've seen that pained face she seems to paint on.  I don't think she's a bad interviewer, but she just needs to relax and be herself.  I get the feeling watching those interviews that she is trying to pretend to be someone she really isn't.

            I love Rachel the way she is, would love to see more of that in the interview type setting.

            Dont Mourn, Organize !#konisurrender

            by cks175 on Tue Mar 05, 2013 at 03:18:51 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  If you have an interview show where (4+ / 0-)

        you attack anyone who doesn't agree with your political philosophy you will quickly limit your guests to people who agree with you. You were not interested in Rachel having a conversation with Justice O'Conner, you wanted Rachel to give her a public spanking. If she did that not only would others like Justice O'Conner not appear on Rachel's show, but I don't think her boss at Comcast would like it either.

        "let's talk about that"

        by VClib on Mon Mar 04, 2013 at 09:43:24 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Piers Morgan spanks his guests from here to Sunday (0+ / 0-)

          and he doesn't have trouble lining up more guests to take another whooping.

          Rachel has established her credibility.  She doesn't need to be afraid of losing guests who don't want to face tough questions.  If they do, that's a reflection on them, not her.

          But in the ratings game, I can see where losing a big draw like Justice O'Connor might make the execs unhappy with her.

          Dont Mourn, Organize !#konisurrender

          by cks175 on Tue Mar 05, 2013 at 03:21:46 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Respected? (18+ / 0-)

      Not after throwing her legacy away on Bush v. Gore, because she wanted to retire under a Republican president.

      No, I hope she's kept awake every night, haunted by those that her selfishness killed.

      •  Exactly! Rachel could have asked: "What pills..." (10+ / 0-)

        "...do you have to take at night to shut out the screams of those who were tortured and murdered by the man you appointed when you stole our democracy?"

        (Only, ask it subtly, of course!)

        NEW PALINDROMIC METAPHOR MEANING TO MAKE A PREDICTION THAT IS ASTOUNDINGLY OFF TARGET: "Pull a Gallup!" As in: "The weatherman said yesterday would be sunny and mild, but we got a foot of snow! Boy, did he pull a Gallup!"

        by Obama Amabo on Mon Mar 04, 2013 at 07:16:25 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Can you guest host!? (7+ / 0-)

          I love your question.  

          I found myself growling at the TV.  

          This is a women whose first law firm hired her to make the coffee. She then selected the President who appointed justice Alito who as a law student led the fight keep women out of his school. Smooth move Gracie.

          One bit of poetic justice. No one who watched that interview will buy the book. I don't need yet another Bush'ian denial fest.

          "...to name something is to own it." Thomas L. Friedman. Pleonexia. Ruthless self-seeking. An arrogant assumption that others and things exist for one's own benefit. I now own the Republican Party.

          by Dave in Columbus on Mon Mar 04, 2013 at 08:49:24 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  I doubt it (0+ / 0-)

        She spoke at my law school while Bush was in office and Iraq was at its worst. Someone asked the question and she very calmly said she made the right decision.

        She was the 5th vote for all sorts of garbage. As "swing vote" I'd say she voted with the "liberals" (quotes because the current crop is nowhere near as liberal as Brennan, Marshall, etc.) about 85% of the time in 5-4 cases.

        Republicans...think the American standard of living is a fine thing--so long as it doesn't spread to all the people. And they admire the Government of the United States so much that they would like to buy it. Harry S. Truman

        by fenway49 on Tue Mar 05, 2013 at 07:24:12 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Objection, counselor... (16+ / 0-)

      ...to the characterization of O'Connor as "respected".  She threw that away when she voted to stop the recounts, turning the Court from a jurisprudential body into a nakedly political one.  She aided and abetted election theft, and gave us the Iraq War.  Many--myself included--think of her as little more than vile.

      The road to Hell is paved with pragmatism.

      by TheOrchid on Mon Mar 04, 2013 at 07:19:07 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'll never forget the day that the stay was issued (16+ / 0-)

        I've never looked at law quite the same way since.  A series of 5-4 politically motivated decisions of dubious provenance ensued in the following years.

        Some men see things as they are and ask why. I dream of things that never were and ask why not?

        by RFK Lives on Mon Mar 04, 2013 at 07:40:48 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I entered law school in 2001 (0+ / 0-)

          A friend and classmate asked me, during the first year, "You seem to be OK when they cut intellectual corners to reach a preferred result. Don't you think law should be something other than political?"

          This guy was moderate to slightly conservative, but mostly just obsessed with the process. I looked at him and said, "Where the hell have you been? This stuff is political and has been for a long time. Didn't you read Bush v. Gore? 'Today we accept an equal protection argument that we've rejected in mocking tones each time an actual voter raised it. But this case shall have no precedential value for future cases.'"

          Come on, if there is a bedrock principle that these states' rights people never blinked on, it's that federal courts like the U.S.S.C. must defer to state court interpretations of state law. Except in Bush v. Gore, when the Happy Five decided to overrule the Florida courts on Florida law. That was a coup, plain and simple.

          Republicans...think the American standard of living is a fine thing--so long as it doesn't spread to all the people. And they admire the Government of the United States so much that they would like to buy it. Harry S. Truman

          by fenway49 on Tue Mar 05, 2013 at 07:29:51 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Key word being "respected" (13+ / 0-)

      What's to respect about her blatantly and unforgiveably partisan hackery in that ruling? To hell with phony civility. How many people died because she violated her oath of office? Their blood is on her hands for ETERNITY.

      She was the exact opposite of a true conservative that day.

      "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

      by kovie on Mon Mar 04, 2013 at 07:30:06 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Respected by whom? (7+ / 0-)

      Certainly not by me... Bush v. Gore was a disaster for the nation and the world. That's what she will be remembered for.

      The law, in its majestic equality, gives the rich as well as the poor the right to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to eat dumpster donuts. - With apologies to Anatole France

      by chuckvw on Mon Mar 04, 2013 at 09:38:40 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  She seemed intimidated. n/t (3+ / 0-)

    "Michael Moore, who was filming a movie about corporate welfare called 'Capitalism: A Love Story,' sought and received incentives."

    by Bush Bites on Mon Mar 04, 2013 at 06:45:26 PM PST

  •  The actual Bush v. Gore case opinion (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    rb608, Susan from 29, exterris

    is focused on the intricacies of Florida voting law, and I imagine if O'Connor was asked about it she would have just gone over that stuff, which is pretty dry.  And if she was asked whether she just used those arguments as a pretext to steal the election, she would say, "no."  

    •  The opinion is pure sophistry (31+ / 0-)

      I've been a FL Bar member for 29 years, and I'm a graduate of UF Law.  There were few, if any, intricacies of our election code involved.  

      Our state's highest court issued a decision based solely on matters of FL law, and 5 purported advocates of "federalism" chose to ignore that ruling and create law out of whole cloth.  To make matters worse, those 5 issued a nakedly political stay that stood logic on its head.  Had that stay not been issued, Gore would've soon pulled ahead on the tallies running on cable TV screens, and there would've been a sea change in public opinion.

      To add insult to injury, 5 Supremes held that their opinion could not serve as precedent in future cases.  The whole point of a high court in any jurisdiction is set precedent for future cases.  I've never seen anything like it before or since.

      Some men see things as they are and ask why. I dream of things that never were and ask why not?

      by RFK Lives on Mon Mar 04, 2013 at 07:37:12 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  The SCOTUS (0+ / 0-)

      has no business inserting itself into the intricacies of Florida state law.

      the purpose of the second amendment is to promote a well-regulated militia, in the same sense that the purpose of the first amendment is to promote a well-informed electorate.

      by happymisanthropy on Mon Mar 04, 2013 at 08:15:21 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Disagree in general (8+ / 0-)

        In general, the SCOTUS should insert itself into state law if the state law violates federal rights under the constitution.  For example, if the state law mandated schools that were segregated by race.

        I don't think the SCOTUS had business inserting itself into the particular intracicies of Florida state law that it addressed in Bush v. Gore.

        •  Judicial review of state law is different (0+ / 0-)

          It's one thing to say state law, as written or as interpreted by the state, violates some provision of the federal constitution. It's entirely another, as you point out, to INTERPRET state law differently from what the state courts say it is.

          Judge Guido Calabresi (2d Cir. U.S. Court of Appeals), for one, has a longstanding practice of certifying questions of state law that arise in his cases. He asks the state courts to clarify what the state law means, seeing that as their job and not the federal court's job.

          Republicans...think the American standard of living is a fine thing--so long as it doesn't spread to all the people. And they admire the Government of the United States so much that they would like to buy it. Harry S. Truman

          by fenway49 on Tue Mar 05, 2013 at 07:36:49 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  That's just not true (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      blueoasis, Obama Amabo

      Rhenquist and Scalia tried to make the case about that when they took it, and in oral argument, but they couldn't get a majority on their technicality argument.  They had to hold -- literally -- that because some undervotes wouldn't be recounted, equal protection required that no undercounts be recounted.  And then they said  -- though not in so many words -- that the opinion was so ridiculous it could never be used as precedent in any future case.

      Think about it -- Scalia, O'Connor, etc., literally engaged in a judicial coup, appointed Bush President instead of letting Florica election law (which under the federal system had already been interpreted by Florida judges and was being applied as they ordered) proceed, and thereby stained the legitimacy of the Supreme Court as a neutral arbiter of the law.  She committed treason.  There's no other way to say it.  And she, and several others in the majority, had a personal stake in the election.  If nothing else, they should have recused themselves.  She wanted to retire and let a Republican president appoint her successor.  Was it Scalia whose son was in line to be appointed to a high level government position if Bush won?  I'm sure there were other conflicts, I just don't remember right now and don't have time to research it.

      "[W]e shall see the reign of witches pass over . . . and the people, recovering their true spirit, restore their government to its true principles." Jefferson

      by RenMin on Tue Mar 05, 2013 at 05:34:56 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Come on, Rachel can be subtle in her questioning (7+ / 0-)

    too and bring up these issues in a more "delicate" way. But not bringing up the issues at all? I agree with the diarist.

    •  Exactly! I've seen Rachel be very subtle in... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      whenwego, Liberaltarian

      ...raising subjects that guests didn't want to talk about.  And as you say, she didn't have to be as balled as the way I phrased the questions.  But in this case, she completely stepped away from being a journalist.

      NEW PALINDROMIC METAPHOR MEANING TO MAKE A PREDICTION THAT IS ASTOUNDINGLY OFF TARGET: "Pull a Gallup!" As in: "The weatherman said yesterday would be sunny and mild, but we got a foot of snow! Boy, did he pull a Gallup!"

      by Obama Amabo on Mon Mar 04, 2013 at 07:00:20 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  If Maddow had done as you suggest... (9+ / 0-)

    ...it would not have been as interesting an interview.  

    If you think you can do better, perhaps you should start sending your resume around.

    •  If you thought that interview was interesting,.. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      greengemini, RenMin

      ...you have a very unusual definition of the word.

      NEW PALINDROMIC METAPHOR MEANING TO MAKE A PREDICTION THAT IS ASTOUNDINGLY OFF TARGET: "Pull a Gallup!" As in: "The weatherman said yesterday would be sunny and mild, but we got a foot of snow! Boy, did he pull a Gallup!"

      by Obama Amabo on Mon Mar 04, 2013 at 07:02:24 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Was there an agreement that she not do that? (13+ / 0-)

    What were the terms under which O'Connor agreed to appear?  She is pushing her book, but Maddow's opening made it clear that she was given a list of restricted topics.  Do these things get to see the light of day?

    •  There probably was. But if so, then it reflects... (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      drmah, Massconfusion, Mr Robert, salmo

      ...pretty badly on Rachel.  She should have taken a pass on the interview if she was going to only lob softball questions.  That is NOT the reason so many of us like Rachel!

      NEW PALINDROMIC METAPHOR MEANING TO MAKE A PREDICTION THAT IS ASTOUNDINGLY OFF TARGET: "Pull a Gallup!" As in: "The weatherman said yesterday would be sunny and mild, but we got a foot of snow! Boy, did he pull a Gallup!"

      by Obama Amabo on Mon Mar 04, 2013 at 07:09:34 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  There it is: Rachel Maddow, book salesman (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      salmo

      Rachel is my favorite. Been listening to her since the Air America days. That being said, every once in a while, she misses the boat.

      As long as she does what she has to do to stay employed, I'll take it.

      I miss Olbermann.


      i just baptized andrew breitbart into the church of islam, planned parenthood, the girl scouts and three teachers unions. - @blainecapatch

      by bobinson on Tue Mar 05, 2013 at 12:52:51 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Hmm maybe that isn't (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Obama Amabo, Deep Texan

    Why she had her on or maybe not asking was part of her deal to go. What was the thrust of the interview?

    Why is it that, as a culture, we are more comfortable seeing two men holding guns than holding hands?

    by jsfox on Mon Mar 04, 2013 at 07:05:42 PM PST

    •  Softball questions. "What were you guys thinking.. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      RenMin

      ...as you waited for Bush to being inaugurated?"

      "We were bored."

      "What did you think of Reagan saying he'd appoint a woman?"

      Etc.

      NEW PALINDROMIC METAPHOR MEANING TO MAKE A PREDICTION THAT IS ASTOUNDINGLY OFF TARGET: "Pull a Gallup!" As in: "The weatherman said yesterday would be sunny and mild, but we got a foot of snow! Boy, did he pull a Gallup!"

      by Obama Amabo on Mon Mar 04, 2013 at 07:12:08 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  NO she didn't. She kept bringin up Bush Vs Gore (4+ / 0-)

    a lot

    a lot of different ways trying to see of S O would slip

    •  I disagree. Should I hide-rate you because... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ancblu, RenMin

      ...I disagree as you hide-rated me?  If you don't agree with my opinion, make a comment and then move on, or don't read my diary.

      NEW PALINDROMIC METAPHOR MEANING TO MAKE A PREDICTION THAT IS ASTOUNDINGLY OFF TARGET: "Pull a Gallup!" As in: "The weatherman said yesterday would be sunny and mild, but we got a foot of snow! Boy, did he pull a Gallup!"

      by Obama Amabo on Mon Mar 04, 2013 at 07:28:48 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yes, the hide rating is outrageous (0+ / 0-)

        Anyone HR'ing this is committing an outrage and abusing their TU status.  Agree or disagree with the  diarist (and I agree), there is certainly nothing hide-worthy or trollish about the diary.

        "[W]e shall see the reign of witches pass over . . . and the people, recovering their true spirit, restore their government to its true principles." Jefferson

        by RenMin on Tue Mar 05, 2013 at 05:39:37 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  actually the HR was per rules = U lied/ falsehood (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Deep Texan

        reality was different from what your title stated and the diary stated

        anyone not watching rachel last night would not know you lied

        •  How the hell (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Obama Amabo, second gen

          is expressing the OPINION that RM "wimped out" a "lie" in your view? (FWIW, I watched the show and agree with the diarist Rachel was not hard-hitting, but didn't expect anything different).

          The diary contains no lies. It states nothing at all, except the questions that the diarist wanted to see asked. Maybe they're bad questions, maybe it was never gonna happen, but the suggested questions are not "lies." The only other thing in the diary is a reiteration of the title. And the diarist is entitled to interpret the interview as "wimping out."

          If I say "Elena Kagan proving to be a disappointment," does that mean I'm lying because you're not disappointed? Surely there's more room for expression of views than that.

          Please remove the HR.

          Republicans...think the American standard of living is a fine thing--so long as it doesn't spread to all the people. And they admire the Government of the United States so much that they would like to buy it. Harry S. Truman

          by fenway49 on Tue Mar 05, 2013 at 07:50:22 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Your HR is inappropriate and should be removed (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ancblu, DeadHead, RenMin, fenway49

      "Mitt Romney looks like the CEO who fires you, then goes to the Country Club and laughs about it with his friends." ~ Thomas Roberts MSNBC

      by second gen on Mon Mar 04, 2013 at 10:17:15 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  look up. The HR was for diarist lying per the rule (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Deep Texan

        assume you did not watch rachel last night thus do not know she kept bringing up Bush vs Gore different ways and Sandra O was uncomfortable about it

        The diarist lied and per rules that is HR worthy

        •  LYING?? In the title??? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Obama Amabo

          Can you not see that "totally wimped out" is merely a difference of opinion.  You seem to be reaching for a valid reason, as your decision to HR because you disagree with the diarist vehemently has already been made.

          Is my opinion here worthy of an HR as well?????

          Have I also lied, or is my oinion merely different from yours?

          Ayn is the bane! Take the Antidote To Ayn Rand and call your doctor in the morning: You have health insurance now! @floydbluealdus1

          by Floyd Blue on Tue Mar 05, 2013 at 07:52:56 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  obviously you did not watch rachel last night (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Obama Amabo

            if you had you would understand

            1 thing is reality and the other even if clothed in "opinion" is not reality based for a reality based community

            Peace be with you

            •  Don't say "If you'd watched, you'd understand." If (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              second gen

              ...you think there is a lie, then explain it.  Because I DID watch Rachel!  And in my opinion, she totally wimped out.

              But even more to the point, I couldn't figure out why HRed it, but was willing to listen to why.  Now it's clear -- you are simply a flaming asshole (pun intended!).

              NEW PALINDROMIC METAPHOR MEANING TO MAKE A PREDICTION THAT IS ASTOUNDINGLY OFF TARGET: "Pull a Gallup!" As in: "The weatherman said yesterday would be sunny and mild, but we got a foot of snow! Boy, did he pull a Gallup!"

              by Obama Amabo on Tue Mar 05, 2013 at 09:54:40 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  U r the diarist and not the person I posted to (0+ / 0-)

                as the diarist you of course will defend your false diary come hell or high water

                please join the rest of us in a reality based community

                peace be with you

                •  Your HR is bullshit. Seeing something (0+ / 0-)

                  differently than you is not lying.

                  "Mitt Romney looks like the CEO who fires you, then goes to the Country Club and laughs about it with his friends." ~ Thomas Roberts MSNBC

                  by second gen on Tue Mar 05, 2013 at 01:59:58 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Unfortunately the rules (the ACTUAL rules) say (0+ / 0-)

                  I can't HR you now, as we've been in disagreement, but I'd totally bury you in HRs if I could, just for stupidity. I don't particularly like this diary, one way or the other. But disagreement IS NOT allowed for HRs.

                  "Mitt Romney looks like the CEO who fires you, then goes to the Country Club and laughs about it with his friends." ~ Thomas Roberts MSNBC

                  by second gen on Tue Mar 05, 2013 at 02:03:12 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  did u watch the rachel maddow show? (0+ / 0-)

                    have u noticed the diarist still hasn't posted any video clips of said interview

                    the lack of video in the diary should tell you something

                    take a deep breath

                    ...I'd totally bury you in HRs if I could, just for stupidity...
                    obviously you have had a bad day and are lashing out

                    Peace be with you

                    & again , question why there is no embeded video of said interview

                  •  First you blow the HR, then you blow up. Sad. n/t (0+ / 0-)

                    Dont Mourn, Organize !#konisurrender

                    by cks175 on Tue Mar 05, 2013 at 03:28:14 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

        •  That is an absurd interpretation of the HR "Lie" (0+ / 0-)

          rule

          Dont Mourn, Organize !#konisurrender

          by cks175 on Tue Mar 05, 2013 at 03:26:50 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  Okay, what's your problem with the hide-rate? If.. (11+ / 0-)

    ...you don't like my opinion, DEMon rat ankle biter, don't read my diary.  But there is NOTHING in this diary that is hide-rate worthy!

    NEW PALINDROMIC METAPHOR MEANING TO MAKE A PREDICTION THAT IS ASTOUNDINGLY OFF TARGET: "Pull a Gallup!" As in: "The weatherman said yesterday would be sunny and mild, but we got a foot of snow! Boy, did he pull a Gallup!"

    by Obama Amabo on Mon Mar 04, 2013 at 07:21:25 PM PST

  •  Maddow is a TERRIBLE interviewer (4+ / 0-)

    She's terrified of upsetting people and way too civil and polite and easy to intimidate with credentials and fake gravitas. She's no Mike Wallace.

    Btw, I just saw her recent program on the Iraq war, Hubris. WTF?!? This was rehashed boilerplate from like 5 years ago and I could swear I saw this a few years back. Is she being gradually "tamed" by MSNBC?

    "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

    by kovie on Mon Mar 04, 2013 at 07:28:23 PM PST

    •  I agree. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kovie, RenMin

      There were a few things recently on her show that caused me to delete her season pass from my Tivo and replace her with Ed.

      I don't miss the fawning, juvenile way she does her program any longer. She can't even say vagina or penis, what kind of journalist is that?

      The only foes that threaten America are the enemies at home, and those are ignorance, superstition, and incompetence. - Elbert Hubbard -9.62/-8.15

      by GustavMahler on Mon Mar 04, 2013 at 08:09:13 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  She has started to get a bit tiresome (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Liberaltarian, RenMin

        She doesn't do well with topics and situations she's not comfortable with, either clamming up or reverting to juvenile wiseass mode. Pretty much all the MSNBC hosts annoy me in one way or another. Lawrence is an arrogant know it all, Chris talks too fast, mumbles and steps all over his guests a la Charlie Rose, Melissa gets a bit too cutesy sometimes, Ed is too in your face, Al is, well, Al, and Tweety, well, let's not go there. I like Alex Wagner, though.

        "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

        by kovie on Mon Mar 04, 2013 at 08:18:30 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  See, I like O'Donnell (0+ / 0-)

          Maybe he's from Massachusetts, I'm from Massachusetts, and I'm just used to it. No problem with Chris Hayes either. Ed strikes me as too blowhard. Those stupid polls. Every night it's 98-2. What does that prove?

          I still like Rachel Maddow, but her ten minute introduction to each segment gets a little old. It seems she could set some context more quickly, without all the repeating herself, and then get more substance into a show.

          Republicans...think the American standard of living is a fine thing--so long as it doesn't spread to all the people. And they admire the Government of the United States so much that they would like to buy it. Harry S. Truman

          by fenway49 on Tue Mar 05, 2013 at 07:53:46 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I actually like all of them--even Tweety, sigh (0+ / 0-)

            It's just that when you watch them regularly, they all get tiresome one way or another (as I would if you heard me regularly, and which no doubt more than a few already do!). With Rachel, it's this anal-retentive obsessive-compulsive seemingly desperate need to be heard "You MUST listen to every little point I make because they're ALL important which is why I repeat them all THREE times" attention to excessive detail that drives me nuts.

            Plus, she really undermined her rhetorical credibility in my view with that truly silly "Hubris" show last week on the lead up to the Iraq war, which had been billed as "must see" with the implication of new information, when in fact it was 100% rehashed material that we've known about for years. Perhaps she was pressured by MSNBC to plug it that way and had no choice in the matter, but I saw at is self-plagiarism on their part given that it was sold as a new.

            "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

            by kovie on Tue Mar 05, 2013 at 09:00:09 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  At least she is still employed (0+ / 0-)

      Remember, she is employed by the grand pooh-bah of corporate media. If she doesn't play nice, she gets moved aside. It's not her fault she doesn't own her own cable network. She's wicked smaht. She knows what she is doing.


      i just baptized andrew breitbart into the church of islam, planned parenthood, the girl scouts and three teachers unions. - @blainecapatch

      by bobinson on Tue Mar 05, 2013 at 12:58:23 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Someone needs to create a truly progressive (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        bobinson

        network already that gives its hosts the freedom to say what they really want, with better production values and better run than Current TV was (am I the only one who tends to view Gore as a well-meaning dilettante who seems constitutionally incapable of closing the deal, be it in getting elected, getting action on climate change or building a network, perhaps because it would require a level of dedication and sacrifice that he's incapable of?).

        On such a network, provided they could keep the personalities from killing each other, they would truly shine.

        "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

        by kovie on Tue Mar 05, 2013 at 09:06:48 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Yeah, I'm sure there was an understanding that (12+ / 0-)

    the tough questions wouldn't be asked of O'Connor.  And along those lines, Rachel does have a respect for certain important conservative/center-right figures that many of us here of DKos probably don't.  

    O'Connor is 82 and a former Supreme Court Justice.  Rachel probably felt that landing someone like O'Connor, especially when it is tough for her to get notable Republicans, was worth having it basically be a "fluff" interview.  I imagine Rachel didn't want to make her uncomfortable.

    I noticed Rachel try to very delicately ease into some tougher topics, but of course O'Connor swatted those away and made sure that the interview stayed in fluff-land.

  •  o'connor just didn't want to talk (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    greengemini

    clearly O'Connor wasn't in the mood to dish the dirt.
    I don't think Rachel could have gotten anything more out of her.
    Kind of reminded me of that Glenn Beck interview where he apologized for wasting everyone's time...

    Obama 2012...going to win it with our support!!!

    by mattinjersey on Mon Mar 04, 2013 at 07:48:27 PM PST

  •  maybe if you're nice to Guest A, (5+ / 0-)

    you get an appearance later from Guest B.
    Maybe Sandy Day is too frail to be harangued. (I've seen her up close and I wouldn't do it.)
    If Rachel's sold out, we'll know.
    Remember what Brian Williams inferred about suits' control of how far you can go. Some topics are mostly fair game. Some people, too.
    But I doubt that Justice O'Connor's on that list. And I doubt RM's deference was inappropriate.
    The GOP's full of phony martyrs. They don't deserve a real one. Mercy. Mercy.

    Monsanto is poison, they gotta be stopped.

    by renzo capetti on Mon Mar 04, 2013 at 07:50:22 PM PST

    •  Yeah, Thom Hartmann does (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      renzo capetti, Gooserock

      interviews with right wingers that are selling books. I really disagree with it. Why are you giving someone with a view you really disagree with airtime and helping them sell books full of lies?
      Somehow the reason is that they will expose them or they are being fair or some such crap. I just don't like it.

      The only foes that threaten America are the enemies at home, and those are ignorance, superstition, and incompetence. - Elbert Hubbard -9.62/-8.15

      by GustavMahler on Mon Mar 04, 2013 at 08:12:42 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  But Hartmann Challenges Them Seriously. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        greengemini, TBug, bobinson

        When he falls short, my overwhelmingly majority conclusion is that the conservative talking point or way of framing was beyond his ability to field in the moment. When people are free to say any irrelevant or counterfactual thing, it's impossible to fully prepare for a so-called debate with them.

        Hartmann will often pose a question in a strongly liberal frame, frequently using derogatory terminology for a conservative view or policy.

        He and Ed are 2 sides of a coin, Hartmann's for the one-time NPR crowd, Ed's for the humane portion of the Limbaugh demographic.

        We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

        by Gooserock on Mon Mar 04, 2013 at 08:54:12 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Accepting your premise, (0+ / 0-)

      She shouldn't have done the interview at all.  Worse than useless.  This plays in to the whole syndrome of giving people who have done all they can to destroy our democracy a pass.  The same as appointing John Yoo to a law school faculty, or Wolfowitz to the World Bank.  These people are criminals and do not deserve to be treated with respect.

      "[W]e shall see the reign of witches pass over . . . and the people, recovering their true spirit, restore their government to its true principles." Jefferson

      by RenMin on Tue Mar 05, 2013 at 05:44:35 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  if being kid gloves to Sandra Day (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        VClib

        Wound up getting Rachel an on air interview with John Yoo, I'll bet she'd think it a good pro quo.
        Booking guests has some complexity we don't hear about.
        I don't think Sandra Day O'Connor is fair game, nor uniquely deserving of derision or rudeness. She has a place in history; not all of which is negative. Our nation is so ignorantly corrupt that you see advocates narrowed to issue by issue, crisis to event, because there is no Party of power addressing the evils as a whole.

        And, to repeat, beatin on Sandy doesn't win, doesn't work, and, if Rachel had done it, she would have taken damage for it, seen and unseen.

        Monsanto is poison, they gotta be stopped.

        by renzo capetti on Tue Mar 05, 2013 at 07:31:18 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Waste of time (5+ / 0-)

    SDO'C said things that were patently untrue and was not challenged. So why bother having her on? I understand about respect, and badgering her probably wouldn't have accomplished anything, but it was painful to listen to her saying that of course the court is never political without being challenged in any way. Ptui.

  •  There are reasons some people rise to the (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Deep Texan

    level that they get to ask important people questions.  There are reasons those that don't post them on the internet.  

    Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

    by thestructureguy on Mon Mar 04, 2013 at 07:55:33 PM PST

  •  Stolen? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Deep Texan

    Can we stop that tired whine? If Gore, the Democratic party,  or any other power wielding and affected party isn't willing to go there, then it is settled.  

    •  Sir, with all due respect, (9+ / 0-)

      it isn't a tired whine.  It is a fair representation of what happened.  Just because everyone decided to look the other way and spare us a constitutional crisis doesn't mean that a theft did not occur.

      It's the Supreme Court, stupid!

      by Radiowalla on Mon Mar 04, 2013 at 08:29:10 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  right (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Deep Texan

        everyone else is wrong.

        •  Don't pretend (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Obama Amabo

          there is some unanimous consensus. Maybe the DC Dems walked away and moved on, but take a survey of Democratic voters and activists around the country ("Do you believe the 2000 Presidential election was stolen by the Republicans?") and I have no doubt the vast majority would answer "yes."

          Republicans...think the American standard of living is a fine thing--so long as it doesn't spread to all the people. And they admire the Government of the United States so much that they would like to buy it. Harry S. Truman

          by fenway49 on Tue Mar 05, 2013 at 07:58:07 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Maybe they walked away (0+ / 0-)

            because "they" (which comprises those most affected a stolen election) don't have a case. I mean really IF there were a case to be made THEY of all people would have made it. They didn't. Controversial? Yes. Might have had a different outcome with a different SCOTUS make up? Possibly. Stolen? No.

            According to a massive months-long study commissioned by eight news organizations in 2001, George W. Bush probably still would have won even if the U.S. Supreme Court had allowed a limited statewide recount to go forward as ordered by Florida’s highest court.

            Bush also probably would have won had the state conducted the limited recount of only four heavily Democratic counties that Al Gore asked for, the study found.

            On the other hand, the study also found that Gore probably would have won, by a range of 42 to 171 votes out of 6 million cast, had there been a broad recount of all disputed ballots statewide. However, Gore never asked for such a recount. The Florida Supreme Court ordered only a recount of so-called "undervotes," about 62,000 ballots where voting machines didn’t detect any vote for a presidential candidate.

            As for your poll, that's true if you narrow it to the most wild eyed partisans - but they think the 2004 election was stolen too.  
  •  Uprated (10+ / 0-)

    There's nothing HRable in this diary.

    If I'm wrong, perhaps those that HRed it would care to point out the offense, as they should have done in the first place.




    Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us.
    ~ Jerry Garcia

    by DeadHead on Mon Mar 04, 2013 at 08:23:13 PM PST

  •  uprated to offset hr. (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Obama Amabo, ancblu, DeadHead, RenMin, fenway49

    .... i wish rachel had hit harder....

    but i'll bet it was agreed what she could bring up
    within reason, of course.

    oconnor is pushing her book and surely thats what she wanted to discuss.

    actually uprating you not only to offset
    but i think you bring up valid criticisms.

    every adult is responsible for every child

    by ridemybike on Mon Mar 04, 2013 at 08:29:15 PM PST

  •  What A Dry Interview..... (4+ / 0-)

    O'Connor recited pablum & Maddow ate it up by the spoonful.  No brown sugar, no raisins, no nuts or fruit on top.

    It was a complete bore, & it could have been conducted @ a table in McDonalds.  

    It was a complete wasted opportunity on Rachel's part.  Disappointing & insipid.  

  •  Rachel has a lot of class (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    not this time, exterris, Deep Texan

    and she is basically a kind person.  Any interviewer who would provoke SDO at this late stage in her life would be seen as a bully.  Plus, Rachel and SDO are both Stanford grads and Rachel is appearing soon on a book tour at Stanford.  Her welcome would not be very warm if she had just bullied the former justice who is something of a rock star there.

    So I'm not at all surprised that Rachel did not confront SDO.
    I would have expected it.

    It's the Supreme Court, stupid!

    by Radiowalla on Mon Mar 04, 2013 at 08:46:04 PM PST

  •  Haven't seen it yet... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Obama Amabo

    But is it possible that Rachel wanted to concentrate on matters more topical?  Bush v Gore was a tragedy but it was 12 years ago.

    Did she ask O'Connnor her thoughts on the current VRA case before the Court?

    About partisanship on the Court?

    Or was it softball after softball?

    If she asked other important questions it might have been a wise tactical move not to rehash old ground...no matter how fresh the wound feels.

    If not, too bad.

    I'll catch it later but now I'm wondering if it is worth the bother.

    "I don't give them Hell. I just tell the truth about them and they think it's Hell."

    by Notthemayor on Mon Mar 04, 2013 at 08:54:22 PM PST

    •  Rachel said up front that she would not ask... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      RenMin

      ...about anything affecting issue currently or soon to be before the court. There were moments when I thought she was moving toward a harder line of questions -- and then came another softball.

      NEW PALINDROMIC METAPHOR MEANING TO MAKE A PREDICTION THAT IS ASTOUNDINGLY OFF TARGET: "Pull a Gallup!" As in: "The weatherman said yesterday would be sunny and mild, but we got a foot of snow! Boy, did he pull a Gallup!"

      by Obama Amabo on Tue Mar 05, 2013 at 03:56:04 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Uprated... (5+ / 0-)

    Because there is nothing remotely HR worthy in this diary.

    If I'm mistaken please explain the reasons for the HRs.

    "I don't give them Hell. I just tell the truth about them and they think it's Hell."

    by Notthemayor on Mon Mar 04, 2013 at 08:58:54 PM PST

  •  She offered an opportunity, not a confrontation (12+ / 0-)

    I watched the interview and agree that Rachel didn't push Justice O'Connor. But she asked some very good questions to which the Justice offered poor, superficial and transparent answers. I think the performance made the Justice look very guarded, cautious and protective of the institution and the other justices, to the point of being incredible. I, frankly, found her answers absurd. The justices aren't motivated by their political philosophy! Really? What was Rachel supposed to do with that nonsense? Argue with her? The answers spoke for themselves. She did say that the justices should be held to the same ethical standards as all judges, then promptly absolved Scalia and Thomas for their right wing shenanigans. I think Rachel was the way she always is: good questions, but respectful. She can get argumentative, but never disagreeable. That's just her nature and is an asset. I think she did fine.

  •  Is it possible (0+ / 0-)

    Rachel Maddow would have asked tougher questions if Sandra Day O'Connor was a man?

  •  I was really hoping (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jan4insight, VClib, ancblu, Obama Amabo, RenMin

    To find an explanation for the HRs when I got to the bottom of the comments. Shame. Uprated.

  •  Uprated for inappropriate HRs (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ancblu, DeadHead, RenMin, cks175

    Maddow's staff probably thought SDO was a great get, but if she was too frail to handle a real interview, why bother?

    The law, in its majestic equality, gives the rich as well as the poor the right to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to eat dumpster donuts. - With apologies to Anatole France

    by chuckvw on Mon Mar 04, 2013 at 09:49:19 PM PST

  •  Rachel asked the leading questions (9+ / 0-)

    Justice O'Connor defused every single tough question.

    Asked about her reflections and how she felt after the Bush v. Gore decision, O'Connor said she didn't any different about it than any other decision she's made.

    Most people would lose it at that point and just move on to another subject.

    Rachel instantly reframed the question. She asked her why and how she could treat such an important and controversial precedent-setting decision as a typical day-to-day decision. She asked her if she could expand on the significance of this decision.

    O'Connor said it was an important decision. The Court knew that. And the Coutrt has made many important decisions.

    Again, O'Connor wasn't going to let Rachel have an answer.

    It's the age-old simple and effective technique of deflection. She has the same reaction as the others. That's the answer.

    Rachel still didn't give up.

    I'm seriously pissed at Justice O'Connor for refusing to answer any questions that might tarnish her grandiose opinion of her overstated legacy.

    That's gotta be the tone of her self-praising crappy book.

    My opinion of the SCOTUS just got worse, if that was possible.

    My opinion of Sandra Day O'Connor just hit rock bottom. She had most Democrats conned into believing her fake persona. SHe's just another strict interpreter of law who doesn't realize that the job of a Justice of the SCOTUS isn't the same as the job of a Federal Judge. It is the only court that isn't stricly required to base decisions solely on established legal precedent.

    The SCOTUS can and should weigh public sentiment and briefs in their decisions. This is important. This is often the reason that cases get elevated to the SCOTUS level.

    But the court is packed with Justices who insist on ignoring feelings, public sentiment, consequences, and above all, emotional appeals. Just stick to a strict legal interpretation of the words in the law, their arrogant interpretation of the US Constitution, their blatent disparagement of the other two brances of government, and their isolated world view inside their own inflated self-important bubble.

    And we thought Congress was broken.....

    SCOTUS decisions are coin tosses, apparently.

    Rachel wasn't about to rip into O'Connor. She's fortunate to get her on her show.

    There is such a thing as a horrible interviewee. O'Connor is just as awful trying to interview Paranoid Wayne NRA or that Kill The Gays idiot that was the worst interview EVER.

    There isn't anyone who would have gotten anything meaningful out of O'Connor. She knows how to deflect everything. She's good at stifling tough questions.

    The problem is O'Connor, not Rachel.

    Sorry that you didn't get anything worthwhile out of an interview that couldn't penetrate O'Connor's shield.

    Very, very, disappointing. About O'Connor, that is. I didn't expect her to be so closed, either.

    "Never wrestle with a pig: you get dirty and the pig enjoys it"

    by GrumpyOldGeek on Mon Mar 04, 2013 at 09:59:41 PM PST

    •  Apparently you actually paid attention (4+ / 0-)

      ...unlike the diarist who wrote this ridiculous diary.

      Apparently RM shudda got the horrible old woman in a headlock and screamed at her to confess and recant.

      She asked the questions, which were batted away blithely, so I guess the diarist thinks RM should have re-formed the same questions and asked them again, with harder, accusing language.

      O'Connor is on record as not regarding the Bush v. Gore decision as much of a big deal, thanks to RM. It was an INTERVIEW, not an INTERROGATION, not the TWO MINUTES HATE.

      Apparently the diarist was looking for a Grand Jury interrogation with RM as the prosecuting attorney, or perhaps a People's Tribunal with a cadre of Red Guard leaders screaming insults and hanging signs around her neck while sending her to the countryside for self-criticism and re-education.

      "Ronald Reagan is DEAD! His policies live on but we're doing something about THAT!"

      by leftykook on Tue Mar 05, 2013 at 03:58:40 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Maybe she wasn't interesting in (0+ / 0-)

    fighting the last war.

  •  i saw sdo recently and someone asked her about gay (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RenMin, Obama Amabo, cks175

    marriage...she pretended she didn't hear the question and just started taliking about something else...a true portrait in courage, sandy baby

    stupid hide rates, btw

    Howard Fineman needs to have a chat with Chris Cilizza about Grecian Formula and its effects on punditry

    by memofromturner on Tue Mar 05, 2013 at 04:18:09 AM PST

  •  I thought the interview was boring. (0+ / 0-)

    O'Connor dodged the questions, and Rachel was just excited to have her on the show that she really did not ask very probing questions, in my opinion.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site