Towleroad Guide to the Tube #142

HARDBALL: A discussion about civil unions and bigots.

AKON: Assaults a fan for tossing something at him onstage. Police seek kid to determine if there was any criminal offense.

POLITICS and TERROR: Keith Olbermann on the recent terror warnings.

CONYERS-JEFFERSON: FOX News confuses Congressman John Conyers for indicted Congressman Bill Jefferson.

Check out our previous guides to the Tube here!

Comments

  1. Cory says

    Chris Matthews got ONE thing right: “If everyone who opposes gay marriage is a bigot then we have an awful lot of bigots in this country.” Using your Reich Wing logic, back in the day when laws prohibited blacks from marrying, women from voting and segregation those people who supported such things weren’t “bigots”. The right wing is legislating religion and taking away the freedom of American’s, while 2 out of 3 high school students drop out, terrorism and anti-American sentiment is on the rise due to our occupation of Iraq, Osama is still on the loose, Bush has DIVIDED this country and created more strife, oil companies have recorded record profits while we’re still paying more for gas (using their logic that Katrina and the war has increased the cost associated with acquiring oil, in which case profits should remain EQUAL, not 10.7 BILLION as in the fourth quarter of 2005 and not Lee Reynolds’ $400 million retirement package), most American’s can’t afford education and health care, yet the right wing is more concerned about immigration, gay marriage and terrorism. It’s FEAR TACTICS and it’s time it STOPS.

  2. Leland says

    “But ja are, Blanche, ja are!” Write Matthews at hardball@msnbc.com and tell him that he IS a bigot. If you refuse something that is, by his own definition, a civil right to a class of people simply because they are in that group then you are a BIGOT. He can “think” about it all he wants, but if the white sheet and hood fit——WEAR IT, you fucking privileged white breeder male fascist!!!

    And for those unacquainted with Matthew’s history of paid insensitivity to us, here’s a part of the transcript from an infamous edition of “Hardball” last July:

    “MATTHEWS TO GUEST ANN COULTER: You are a controversial lady. You write beautifully. You have a brilliant brain. I stayed up last night reading your chapter on Willie Horton which was absolutely stunning in its satire, it reminded me of the young [conservative columnist] George Will.
    COULTER: Thank you. …
    MATTHEWS: I’m back in heaven. I think I’m on college tour again. This is the University of Hardball, here we are. We have Ann Coulter. Look at her, look at her, the picture of heaven. All brain, no heart. Just kidding! OK, let’s go now to the first question.
    … MATTHEWS: ….How do you know that Bill Clinton’s gay?
    COULTER: He may not be gay, but Al Gore, total fag. No, I’m just kidding. As someone, no —
    MATTHEWS: That’s based on your private life?
    COULTER: No, that’s a joke.
    MATTHEWS: OK.
    COULTER: That’s what we call in the writing business, a joke. No, I mean, I state a manifestly obvious fact. Someone pointed out on Free Republic, I think a little disgruntled yesterday, Ann’s amazing capacity is to state the obvious and make it news. I mean, everyone has always known, widely promiscuous heterosexual men have, as I say, a whiff of the bathhouse about them.
    MATTHEWS: But, you know, you were on — I was watching you on Deutsch [CNBC’s The Big Idea with Donny Deutsch] last night. I watched it because it was all over the blog sites, you can’t miss it.
    COULTER: Yes!
    MATTHEWS: You were immortal in that interview by the way. And you said it because you were sort of pushed to say it. I just wonder if you believe it.
    COULTER This is standard —
    MATTHEWS: It’s a joke. It’s a joke.
    COULTER I — I —
    MATTHEWS: It’s not a joke.
    COULTER It’s not only not a joke, it’s not even surprising. If feminists were not so in love with Bill Clinton, this is like standard —
    MATTHEWS: OK.
    COULTER For any feminist with the benefit of something beyond a community-college education, this is standard —
    MATTHEWS: OK.
    COULTER — feminist doctrine that wild promiscuity shows a fear-hostility of women.
    MATTHEWS: Well, thanks, Ann. You’re great.
    COULTER Thank you. …
    MATTHEWS: Thank you, Ann.
    COULTER: Thank you.
    MATTHEWS: Thanks for coming on. And a smart lady. Her book’s called Godless. Sometimes being smart isn’t enough for a civil discourse. We’d love to have her back.”

    Again, tell him what a fan you are at:

    hardball@msnbc.com

  3. ggreen says

    Why did tweety (Chris Matthews) get so upset about being called a bigot? Because it’s true that’s why. No matter how he sugar coats it he believes in one way for himself and another for people he feels are his inferiors.

  4. MJ says

    Too many of the Democrat-supporters have ignored these latest NYC terrorist arrests. (I don’t know if they could have pulled it off, but how many would be dead if they had?) The NY Times relegated it to page 37 when it was the lead story everywhere else. I don’t necessarily believe the Republicans would be better at national security than Democrats, but when the Democrat-supporters just ignore such news events, it starts to look that way.

  5. Tom says

    MJ,

    You have to apply LibLogic to the situation:

    If we are not attacked, there is no threat and it’s just fear mongering.

    If we are attacked, it’s Bush’s fault for “not connecting the dots”.

  6. Mike says

    Poor MATTHEWS called called on. He doesn’t want to be called a name but agrees with discrimination. He has lost all credibility in recent weeks by joining the bandwagon and editing Rosie’s remarks and had an entire panel agree with him that she called US troops terrorists because of the way the remarks were edited. He is a stupid, vile and loud jerk anymore.

  7. Antaeus says

    I hope Akon gets the book thrown at him. Can you imagine a White artist tossing an unruly black kid into the mosh pit?

    And Chris Matthews was never a liberal – he fawns over all the wrong people and sounds like he’s defensive about (having been) a Democrat. He’s just another straight male in a soft job who wants to be accepted as a man by his Southie friends.

  8. RJ says

    MJ, interesting logic. You cite one newspaper, the NYT, putting the story on back pages and you conclude that Democrats as a group would not take security threats seriously and deal with them accordingly. You also seem to confuse Democratic politicians with outspoken Democratic supporters.

    Tom, was it LibLogic when the Bush administration ignored the FBI report “Bin Laden determined to strike in US” that was given to them more than a month before 9/11? I guess Bush and Co. must have thought the FBI was just fear-mongering.

  9. Leland says

    Oh, look everyone, the warmer weather has encouraged another gay Repug to crawl out from under his rock. Tom, Tom, Tom. Give it up. Massa will NEVER accept you for what you really are. How is it in Stepford?

  10. Cory says

    MJ and Tom got OWNED.

    Further, the “atttacks” at JFK that were thwarted wouldn’t have been effective as they were illogical at best. The jet fuel they were attempting to ingnite wouldn’t have even lit to cause any significant damage (read the reports) which is precisely why there was little talk about it. AND the local police were mostly involved in thwarting the attacks, just as the local London authorities were in thwarting the terrorists attempts last year as well. What the Bush administration fails to realize is the war on terror should be fought at HOME through local authorities as well as intelligence NOT fighting wars for oil that can’t be won.

    To quote Dick Cheney in 1991:

    “I think for us to get American military personnel involved in a civil war inside Iraq would literally be a quagmire. Once we get to Baghdad, what would we do?… I do not think the United States wants to have U.S. military forces accept casualties and accept responsibility of trying to govern Iraq. It makes no sense at all.”

    So why are we there Mr. Vice President? Oh, I know, no bid contracts for Halliburton and securing oil for all your oil Repugnikkklan members and own personal investments. God Bless the USA.

  11. Dan says

    Did anyone see the Hardball show that had Chris Matthews’ son singing? My guess is that CM may have some regrets about what he is saying today when his own son gets married to his boyfriend.

  12. Sean H says

    First off, all you have to remember is that Matthews is the guy that said this little gem:

    MATTHEWS: I like him. Everybody sort of likes the president, except for the real whack-jobs, maybe on the left — I mean — I like him personally.

    That was said on November 28th, 2005. At that point, the polls still had Bush around the high 30’s to low 40’s for his favorable rating. Matthews is a giant tool.

    Secondly, Tom, it would help if you read that New York Times article…or any publication not owned by Rupert Murdoch. The fact is, the story was overblown. Majorly. This has happened way too many times for it to go unnoticed.

    By the way, where was your snippy comment yesterday when your main man Bush decided that the next Surgeon General should be someone who has tried to “cure” gays.

    You know whats amazingly stupid logic? You supporting a party that continually and brazingly attacks us on a daily basis. Sadly, you are also a tool.

  13. Adam says

    Oh MJ… just go off and run to your big tough Daddy Giuliani so he can whisper sweet nothings about 9-11 in your ear. Some of us “Democrat Supporters” have better things to do then be scared little sheeple.

  14. el polacko says

    matthews exhibits the problem that we face with so many of our ‘supporters’ (democrats, liberals, progressives and such)
    when it comes to equality for gay and lesbian citizens. they are fine with some vague theory of equality for all, but when it comes to the nuts and bolts, so to speak, of gay lives they are blinded to their bigotry by their squeamishness at things sexual. hence, matthews (who always becomes a bit hysterical when the topic of sex rears its ugly head) can see an obvious case of discrimination against a class of people but can still have to ‘think about it’ and ‘work it out’ for himself because, after all, we’re talkin’ about queers here and it’s just kinda icky, ain’t it ?

  15. Juliana says

    I’ve said it five thousand times and I’ll say it again.

    Marriage will always been seen as something between a man and a woman. 90% of society is heterosexual. There is no way that marriage will ever be viewed by that 90% majority as anything but a tradition between a man and a woman.

    The only way marriage is opened up to gays is if “homosexuality” becomes obsolete and the old terminology fades away, and if being gay is firmly believed by a large majority of Americans (as it is getting to be with teens and early 20’s) that being gay is PHYSIOLOGICAL, GENETIC, BIOLOGICAL, and is decided in the womb.

    This is very important. You have to replace the belief that being gay is a “sexual lifestyle” decided in adulthood with the very new, modern belief that whether a child is gay or straight is determined in the womb and therefore is a biological part of human life that cannot be helped or changed or cured, and therefore making it morally unacceptable by God and nature to deny CHILDREN the right to grow up, marry, and grow old with that person and have that marriage become as valued as any other marriage.

    When society gets to that point and when the gay movement broadens to include EVERYONE (parents, community members, old people, young people, professionals, students, friends, allies, celebrities, religious leaders, churches, soldiers) and when all of the participants in this movement reignite a new civil rights movement, and when we can march in our nation’s capitol with 5-6-7+ million Americans, and when lawmakers can no longer look a gay youth in the eye and tell them they can’t get married when they grow up, THAT IS WHEN MARRIAGE BANS ARE REPEALED and THAT IS WHEN MARRIAGE EQUALITY occurs.

    We should look to the movements I read about – the suffrage movement, which took 70 years, and suffered all the same defeated referendums that we have suffered -the process was so slow. Only until World War I did the movement begin to move full speed ahead with no turning back and it became real and possible all of a sudden after all those years of marching and fighting and praying and campaigning.

    I also believe we should all rally around a constitutional amendment – a Marriage Equality Amendment – codifying Loving vs. Virginia at the same time – that makes it unlawful for any U.S. state to deny marriage on the basis of the sex of either spouse or the race of either spouse. Something like that, the amendment would have to go through several drafts to get to language that is appropriate.

  16. Adam says

    ummm Juiliana…
    You seem very sweet and we are totally on the same side and all, but “this new movement” you are talking about has been going on for a while now. It’s called the Gay Rights Movement and it started in the USA in the 1950s. You might wanna look into that before preaching to a bunch of homos…

  17. Sean H says

    I’m halfway there with you Juliana. I understand where you’re coming from, but we can’t wait forever.

    Right now, Massachusetts alraedy allows same-sex marriage. California, Vermont, Connecticut, New Jersey, and now New Hampshire allow civil unions and domestic benefits. Coming in close to that are Washington, Oregon, Hawaii, Maine and D.C.

    (Quick partisan note—all Democratic Party controlled states—not a coincedence)

    When we’re this close, and when polls are finally starting to break our way, why get patient now? Doesn’t make any sense to me.

  18. John C says

    Gay rights is a movement with many fathers (as it were). Karl-Heinrich Ulrichs was campaigning in Germany in the 1860s, John Addington Symonds in Britain in the 1890s, and so on. Plenty of others around before you even get to the Mattachine Society in the 1950s.

  19. Adam says

    Yeah, I know about them as well John C. I was just talking about the USA.
    And Cory, I agree that Juliana has many fine points. It’s just that I thought her post was a little presumptuous. There are a lot of folks who post here who have fought for gay rights for many years.

  20. Cory says

    Oh, no worries Adam, you have a valid point too. :) It’s frustrating to say the least, when there has been so many years of struggle, to have more patience in the battle for acceptance. Both you and Juliana have excellent points, in the end, we just have to keep fighting the fight I suppose.

    Thanks for the nice comment though, and I make mention of that as a lot of commentors on here have tended to “flame” or be offensive towards others, it’s extremely refreshing to have a discussion without someone calling someone a name or getting personal or immature. Thanks =).

  21. anon (gmail.com) says

    CM was giving MG’s comments way too much credit. I doubt Mark thought about the implications much at all–he’s no Ann Coulter. That said, Mark’s not going to be invited back you can bet.

    The list of influential people who are no where near as smart as they think they are is long. Journalists are notorious in this regard. Momma Mia, how many idiotic questions did Ted Koppel ask over the years on Nightline? or the crew on 60 Minutes? and CM certainly belongs on that list. He barely has any creditials at all–he got his job because of his old connections through Tip O’Neill’s office. That is, he could get people to come on his show. That he has to “think” about the issue shows that he hasn’t given it any thought at all, or doesn’t want to say what he really thinks, and this may explain why these marriage amendments pass with such high percentages. The real problem was that he didn’t get far into the NH question he himself raised–how will the vote there affect the primaries? He was also wrong that all the Democrats were against marriage and for civil unions. It was just very sloppy journalism.

  22. says

    Sean H – DC may support marriage equality or civil unions, but the laws will never pass here because they would be vetoed by the federal government which has the power to say “no” to whatever we want here in our lovely nation’s capital where 500,000+ American citizens live under “taxation without representation.” It’s more likely to pass in Maryland than in the District.

  23. CK says

    Matthews is a complete and utter prick, actually, an EXCUSE for a prick, and YES… wanting to deny civil rights to a specific group because of your beliefs makes you … ta daa… a BIGOT (be brave enough to walk the walk, Chris!)

    Olberman on the other hand? Awesome, and not afraid to rip the Dems a new one when they need/deserve it even if he is a Liberal. Faux news.. take note… THAT is balanced! Plus, he’s rather cute too!!!!