Comments

  1. RyanInSacto says

    @Max: Why are you even reading news on a gay site? If you will “vote for whomever challenges Obama” then you must realize that you will be voting for some who is against GLBT rights. Perhaps you have not noticed, but among the leading Republican presidential contenders, there is not a single one who supports GLBT rights (and I do not count Fred Karger as he is not even registering a blip in the polls and will never be nominated). Regardless of how imperfect Obama’s record on GLBT issues has been, it is light years beyond anything the Republican party will offer us in 2012 (and it’s also beyond anything any previous president of either party ever offered us).

    Or maybe you’re just a random troll. If that’s the case, you should disregard what I typed above and just piss off.

  2. Bear says

    It’s true that R. Maddow is as smug as it is possible to be, and often. However everyone gets to have a few faults. She is a most gifted observer, reporter and champion of GLBT rights.

  3. Codswallop says

    Ah yes, the old “elitist” charge. Does anyone even know WTF that means? It’s really bizarre that people from the party which has done far more to protect the true financial elite from a tiny tax increase, the most to create and protect corporate monopolies, and the most to prevent oversight of those corporations have the gall to toss the word “elitist” around about ANYONE.

    It’s pretty much a clear sign the commenter has bought Faux News’ BS hook, line, and sinker. They think they’re standing up for “the common man,” that they’re populists, when really they’re doing nothing but empowering the true elites in this country beyond their wildest dreams. Using wedge issues and resentment, the Republicans have cast education and expertise as “elitism” and convinced much of the middle class to vote against their own interests. They exploit resentment against gays, blacks, feminists, immigrants (both legal and illegal), welfare recipients, and those awful, snooty “elites” so people will shoot themselves in the foot so long as “those people” don’t “get anything.” Populists For Robber Barons. The mind boggles.

    But on to Maddow. I like her. A lot. She’s excellent at explaining the connections between groups and the larger picture of what they’re up to, the Koch brothers and the Tea Party for example. But stuff like this clip make me see why some people don’t like her. It might have made a cute minute-long bit but stretching it out like it’s The Greatest Story Ever Told only makes it seem petty, and yes, smug. Just IMO of course, but I much prefer Rachel when she’s being ‘wonky’ instead of mocking.

  4. Chuck Mielke says

    Ms Maddow presents evidence that neither Santorum nor anyone in his campaign has the intelligence, discretion or savvy to be president. The right-wing elitists surely don’t want a candidate who keeps stepping in steamy piles of doggy dew with no idea of how to clean his shoe.

  5. Mstrozfckslv says

    Just an observer when you become a Rhodes scholar like Maddow than you to can be smug, till then 😛

    Max, elitist? You do understand that repub policies only work for the top 1%. Till your a multi multi millionaire then and or you are the issuer of your paycheck you are in wage slavery to the elites served by the modern repub party. The repub party of your father is long dead

  6. Josh says

    President Obama is the most pro-gay President ever. He signed the first federal gay rights bill (the hate crimes bill).

    The updated hate crimes bill was the first federal law that gave protections to gays. That was huge and historical.

    He issued a directive banning hospitals from discriminating against gay couples in respect to hospital visitations rights (being a directive and not a law by congress a Republican president could and most likely would reverse it).

    He signed the repeal of DADT. They are working to repeal the law that discriminated against gay troops.

    He has refused to defend DOMA.

    What more do people want from him? He is already going in the history books in regards to advancing gay rights.

  7. Bear says

    Codswallop’s is right about Rachael. Being smug is a shortcoming, proof that even a Rhode’s Scholar is out of line to be prideful and overbearing. She can be a smartass which can also be fun for an audience. Again, however, these are not disastrous shortcomings. Carrying on about a pismire like Santorum is akin to using a canon to weed a garden.

  8. Kakapo says

    I don’t think someone who objects to the smug style of the Rachel Maddow show is a troll. I find her perfectly charming in interviews. I don’t like this style on FOXnews shows, and I don’t like it even if I agree with (and generally like) the person utilizing it.

  9. Mstrozfckslv says

    max

    google is your friend

    Maddow apologized for her mistake and has stated multiple times since then that she will always apologize when wrong

    That isn’t smug, that is down right humble in a world where so few admit their mistakes

  10. Max says

    Mstrozfcklv, I didn’t call Rachel smug, I called her “the best pundit on cable news.” I called Ray smug for his ad hominem grammar attack.

    And I know all about the shortcomings of Republicans. I’m voting for them – at the top of ticket only – because I can’t stand Obama.

  11. RyanInSacto says

    Well, Max, it is your right as a citizen to use the only vote that you have to be petty and childish. Go for it. Enjoy it. Wear your “I Voted” sticker with the pride of knowing that you voted *against* someone instead of *for* someone. And also know that the person you will vote for is also against someone. Namely, you. And me. And probably everyone else on this thread.

  12. Mstrozfckslv says

    Hmmm Max then the only logical reason you will vote dem down ticket and repub for POTUS is because you hate the blackness of Obama’s skin

    stop denying it

  13. TJR says

    I never posted here before, however, after reading the comments that “Max” has posted I felt I had to say this:
    A vote for a republican is a vote for a return to the days of gay men and women returning to not even a second class level but to be treated like we are “deserving” of any of the freedom that is entitled to us by the U.S. Constitution. Think careful, before you pull that level in the voting booth, all you will be doing is hurting your country, community, peers, friends and yourself.

  14. I'm God says

    Not voting for Obama isn’t equivalent to voting for someone who opposes equality. One can vote for another Democrat, a pro-gay Republican like Karger, or a third-party candidate.

    Moreover, gay people aren’t single-issue voters. If one only disagrees with a Republican candidate on the issue of marriage equality, and disagrees with the Democratic candidates on everything else, why vote Democrat?

  15. just an observer says

    jeezus. people are welcome to watch her and love her. i simply stated the fact that while i want to be able to watch her (i often agree on many subjects) i find that i am unable to because of that smug delivery.

    i’m sure many love her for that same thing. no one ever lost money preaching to the choir.

    as for Santorum, he won’t be the Republican nominee. and that has nothing to do with the Savage treatment he was given. i find that approach (spreadingsantorum) rather childish. i was surprised to find the video of Maddow joining in. i thought maybe a Rhode’s Scholar might be above that.

    like i said, enjoy it. wallow in the santorum if you so choose. it’s just not my thing.

  16. Scott says

    “Smug” and “elitist” are words people use to describe those who are smarter than they are. Sorry some of you are threatened by a brilliant, confident woman! Maybe she should surround every statement with some humble geisha laugh to seem “unsmug”.

  17. RyanInSacto says

    @I’M GOD: Do you have any idea how elections work in the US? It doesn’t seem like you do, which is odd – given your name, I would think you would know everything.

  18. RyanInSacto says

    @Just An Observer: Maddow is not “joining in” just because she is reporting on a new development regarding something that has been recognized for awhile – Santorum has a google problem. This problem started 7 years ago after Santorum decided to compare same-sex marriage to bestiality and Dan Savage responded with the spreadingsantorum.com thing. Maddow had nothing to do with it and is not the first to report on it. In fact, it’s gotten widespread reporting, both online and off, from the likes of Roll Call, Politico, the Daily Caller, New York Magazine and the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette to name but a few (google is a useful tool for finding such information). Are these media outlets “wallowing in santorum” by reporting on this? Why not criticize them as well? Considering Maddow has a personal stake in the anti-gay nonsense that Santorum espouses, I actually applaud her restraint!

  19. I'm God says

    @RyanInSacto: You have stated that I’m wrong, but you haven’t said why I’m wrong. Anyone can do the former, only those who are right can do the latter.

  20. Mstrozfckslv says

    Max

    Herman cain? well that destroys your voting down ticket D

    Herman Cain loves the ryan kill medicare plan, more tax breaks for the rich, destroy all unions, anti gay rights, anti women rights, remove all regulations like FOOD regulations…..do you like being poisoned? do you like arsenic in your water supply?

    Sorry but nothing you have said is logical what so ever

    now, i might not like it personally but writing in betsy the cow for POTUS while voting down ticket dem would be logical if you truly dislike obama

    herman cain’s policies are diametrically opposed to every democratic principal

  21. Mstrozfckslv says

    PS

    I’M God so you are in the top 1%?

    If not then there is no way you can agree with repub policies, they are against your own economic self interest

  22. RyanInSacto says

    @I’M GOD: Where should I start?

    You wrote: “One can vote for another Democrat, a pro-gay Republican like Karger, or a third-party candidate.”

    You know that Barack Obama will be the only Democrat on the ballot, right? Who is this other Democrat that one can vote for?

    Fred Karger? You do realize that the Republican Party will have primary elections or caucuses in every state, right? These will determine the party’s nominee. You could, if you’re a Republican, vote for Karger in these primaries/caucuses. Under no circumstances will you be able to vote for Karger in the general election – he will not win his party’s nomination. Neither will any other “pro-gay Republican.”

    A third-party candidate? Yes, you could vote for a third-party candidate, assuming that a third-party candidate qualifies for the ballot in the state in which you live. If not, then no, you cannot vote for a third-party candidate. Also – the poster who spurred this debate (Max) does not sound at all like he’s considering voting for a third-party candidate.

    Do you mean that you could do all of these things via a write-in vote? Well, yes, you may write-in anyone’s name that you like. You may even write-in the name of my cat. He spells it Puddin Head and he would be happy to have your electoral support. Be careful, though. I hear he’s in the pocket of the cat food lobby and he’s also rumored to have a serious catnip problem. He also has as much chance of being elected president as does “another Democrat, a pro-gay Republican like Karger, or a third-party candidate.”

    [If you would like me to explain our first-past-the-post/winner-take-all electoral system and how it determines the number of viable parties/candidates, just say so. I would be happy to do that as well.]

  23. RyanInSacto says

    @PDX GUY: Well done. I lament the fact that I almost overlooked what is perhaps the best and most succinct comment on this whole thread.

  24. I'm God says

    @RyanInSacto: To summarize your post:
    – President Obama will be unchallenged in the caucuses/primaries and will be the Democratic nominee.
    – No “pro-gay” Republican will be nominated.
    – Independent candidates have little chance of winning the election.

    None of these points demonstrate that I lack knowledge about US elections; you are instead arguing that voting for someone who will most likely not win a party’s nomination or be elected President is not the right decision.

    Of course, the point of my post was to question the US political binary, not to bet on who will most likely be elected President. Unlike you, I would vote for someone who may not win (or not vote at all) instead of voting for “the lesser of two evils.”

  25. thom says

    Uh, Max?…You just “outed” yourself as a typical GOP voter! Congrats, man! At least you admit you are an idiot…and a potential poster boy for the far right!….
    Guess you are partly responsible for 8 wretched years of incompetence and fear mongering at the Bush rodeo?
    Good show, Max Good show..now go away and count the days so you can cast your vote for ANY GOP candidate…brilliant stategy,just brilliant…. Troll.

Leave A Reply