Rolling Stone Profiles Rachel Maddow

I know that the blog is a little top-heavy lately with a couple of subjects, namely stuff that happened on The Stephanie Miller Show, or alternatively, on The Rachel Maddow Show. Why such fascination with witty lesbians? I know, I know. Summer blogging is something of a slog, and my topics can get boiled down and reduced to the basics. But indulge me on this one post.

See, I really like Maddow. But often, when I read anything about her, I don't recognize the person they're talking about. Particularly if the story is from a right-leaning writer (or if they have appeared in abundance in the comments section). Commentators will make one of a very few stale jokes (she looks like a dude, something about lesbians, or just Mad Cow), and writers will use adjectives that don't fit, like shrew, brittle, shrill or angry. She is rarely any of those things. The Rolling Stone article below actually captures the real Maddow. I haven't entered the comments section though.


[Excerpt]


Rachel Maddow's Quiet War

. . .From the start, Maddow's brand is not so much out lesbian or angry liberal, but full-on nerd: the chunky black glasses, the flailing limbs. She doesn't seem to care much about the question that Olbermann has fixed on: So just who is Sarah Palin? "We don't know very much about Governor Palin," Maddow says, when Olbermann finally gives her a chance to speak. "She's basically been a human-interest story in terms of the political press in this country thus far." Then she moves on to what really interests her: not politics as personality but politics as mechanism, not who is winning power but what is being done with it. . .

Read more: Rolling Stone

Keith Olbermann's Special Comment on Robert Gibbs and President Obama

So, the White House Press Secretary said some things that really irritated the Democratic base the other day. I kind of ignored it because I've never been very big on any of the press secretaries, regardless of party. They're spin-meisters, and as we used to say about Tony Snow and Dana Perino, spokes-liars.  Robert Gibbs usually comes off better than they did--and he's a damned sight better than Scott McClellan--but I usually just don't care what he has to say.

Then again, Gibbs does speak for the President. Or is it for David Axelrod or for Rahm Emanuel?  Whatever. What he said indicates that within the administration, there is a disconnect as to what they think liberals think and want, and the reality.  Keith Olbermann thought enough of it to do a Special Comment on Tuesday's Countdown, so this is probably my final word on it. How could I top that?

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Captain Obvious: President Obama is Not a Radical Liberal

Captain Obvious is a new feature at Greenlee Gazette, where I get up on my soapbox and opine on issues that should be obvious but for some reason aren't. I'll make an attempt to be brief and pithy, but I have a tendancy to get windy, so please bear with me while I hammer out the format.

Do you ever listen to right-wing talk radio? How about FOX "News"? If you've dabbled in either, you know that you can't partake of the offerings of either without hearing that President Barack Obama is a radical liberal. Or a Marxist, socialist, communist. . .name it. They think (or rather, they want to convince you) that Obama is out there. . .wayyy out of the main stream.

After the eight years of Rovian reality-bending we got before 2009, conservatives are used to getting to set the agenda. Truth became "truthiness" (thank you Stephen Colbert), or something that feels true, facts be damned. FOX & Rush, et. al, didn't get the memo that times have changed, and they're still trying the same old tactic. It works on tea baggers, but I'm convinced (or at least hoping really hard) that fewer people are buying it these days.

One of the talking points that has been repeated endlessly is that the "vast majority" (actually a slim majority) of Americans are against "ObamaCare­­™". This is true, but usually devoid of context. Yes, conservatives are by-and-large against it. Independents are divided. And liberals are often against it. That's right, liberals too. But for vastly different reasons from conservatives. Liberals think the health care reform bill didn't go nearly far enough. This opposition is hardly homogeneous for those on the right and left.

And that's just the thing. While conservative conventional wisdom says that Obama is a radical leftist, actual leftists think he isn't any where near left enough. Those like me, converted Republicans now just a few ticks left of center, still feel to the left of Obama. When I hear that Obama is a crazy far left moonbat, I think, "Holy cow, what does that make ME?" He simply isn't. He's a centrist. He even dabbles on the right. The caricature painted of him by Glenn Beck is just that: a cartoon. It isn't real.

Doubt me? Then tell me why the reform bill is practically a rebranded version of the Republican health care proposal from the 90s? Why is Obama protecting the Bush Administration? Why has the Obama Administration continued so many--unpopular to their base--Bush Era policies? Why is Obama opening up off-shore drilling? Why was the public option tabled? Why was single-payer squelched? Why are gays still unable to serve openly in the military? There are countless popular liberal agenda items that are being rebuffed. And Obama's a radical? As Rachel Maddow might say, bull pucky.

Right vs. Left: An Interesting Case

Image from source, Utne Reader

I found this article very interesting. And I can't say I disagree with its main assessments exactly. Though I think just about everybody would take issue with at least half of the headline excerpted of the piece. Conservatives aren't ignorant? Surely, some are. Liberals aren't un-American? While I'd say most aren't, many conservatives would be sputtering about that one.

The setup to this piece is pretty much that there are five basic moral points, and that liberals hold two of them dear, and conservatives hold to the other three. While the author thinks that successful politicians or policies would find a way to embrace all five, I'm much more cynical than that. Especially when it comes down to the spiritual-religious part. I want no part of that. No, I think if this guy's right, never the twain shall meet.

[Excerpt]

Liberals Aren’t Un-American. Conservatives Aren’t Ignorant.

Jonathan Haidt is hardly a road-rage kind of guy, but he does get irritated by self-righteous bumper stickers. The soft-spoken psychologist is acutely annoyed by certain smug slogans that adorn the cars of fellow liberals: “Support our troops—bring them home” and “Dissent is the highest form of patriotism.”

“No conservative reads those bumper stickers and thinks, ‘Hmm . . . so liberals are patriotic!’” he says, in a sarcastic tone of voice that jarringly contrasts with his usual subdued sincerity. . .

Read more at: Utne Reader

Why Liberals Are Turning on Obama

In my last post, I shared my idea of how to resurrect the yes we can Barack Obama from the current, will conservatives like me if I concede everything to them? Obama. The won't, by the way. But if you want a more in depth dissection of just what has the liberals so irked, here's a great article for you.

[Excerpt]

Liberals: Why didn't Obama fight?



More than anything else in Barack Obama’s presidency so far, health reform has exposed a get-a-deal-at-any-cost side of Obama that infuriates his party’s progressives.

And as Democrats tried to salvage health reform Tuesday, some liberals could barely hide their sense of betrayal that the White House and congressional Democrats have been willing to cut deals and water down what they consider the ideal vision of reform. . .

Read more at: Politico

Glenn Greenwald on the Difference Between Conservatives & Liberals

Image from source, Salon

I've written many a post on the basic differences between conservatives and liberals. The problem with such a post of course, is that they're inherently subjective. They're usually pure opinion pieces, rife with generalizations. So even if you're right, you can't often prove it definitively. Well, this post comes as close as I've seen to a verifiable case. Glenn Greenwald doesn't just fill his piece with opinion, he backs them up with sources and links. It's good stuff, check it out.

[Excerpt]

A major difference between conservatives and progressives

One of the linchpins of the Bush presidency, especially during the first term (and well into the second, until he became a major political liability), was the lock-step uncritical reverence – often bordering on cult-like glorification – which the “conservative” movement devoted to the "Commander-in-Chief." An entire creepy cottage industry arose – led not by fringe elements but by right-wing opinion-making leaders – with cringe-inducing products paying homage to Bush as "The First Great Leader of the 21st Century" (John Podhoretz); our "Rebel-in-Chief" (Fred Barnes); "The Right Man" (David Frum); the New Reagan (Jonah Goldberg); "a man of extraordinary vision and brilliance approaching to genius" who is our "Big Brother" (John Hinderaker); and "the triumph of the seemingly average American man," the supremely "responsible" leader who, when there's a fire, will "help direct the rig to the right house and count the kids coming out and say, 'Where's Sally'?" (Peggy Noonan). . .

Read more at: Salon

Conservative Hand Wringing over Rachel Maddow Show

Image from MediaEyeblast.org

As I have stated here in abundance, I was thrilled to hear that Air America Radio's Rachel Maddow landed her own show on MSNBC. Feel free to type her name into the search box above to see the many superlatives I've given her if you wish. But in the wave of joy heard across the blogosphere over the event, is much (mostly conservative) hand wringing.

They lament that MSNBC is now officially "the liberal channel," and that Maddow's hire is some sort of death knell of "objective news." News flash: cable news--at least the prime time shows--haven't been objective in a very long time. And they have been overwhelmingly conservative. I don't recall such strife over Tucker Carlson or Joe Scarborough. But they're conservative, something we're used to in cable news.

Get something straight, people. The "liberal media bias" dealie is a myth. There is exactly one liberal show in all of cable news right now, and that is Countdown with Keith Olbermann. And he's been known to skewer more than one liberal. Maddow brings the total to two (and I ain't buying that Chris Matthews' Hardball is liberal.)

[Excerpt]

The decay of serious journalism and Rachel Maddow's new show

. . .Over the past seven years, the following people have hosted prime-time cable news shows: Joe Scarborough (MSNBC), Michael Savage (MSNBC), Glenn Beck (CNN), Tucker Carlson (MSNBC), Nancy Grace (CNN), Bill O'Reilly (Fox) and Sean Hannity (Fox). None of that seemed to bother the likes of Zimmerman. None of that was depicted as the downfall of objective journalism or the destruction of civil, elevated, high-minded discourse. Quite the contrary, Zimmerman practically went into mourning when Tucker Carlson's MSNBC show was canceled. . .

Read more at: Salon.com

Clear Channel Radio vs. Clear Channel Outdoor

I was recently reading an article about Clear Channel Outdoor Advertising's refusal to put Harry Shearer's (of The Simpsons & more fame) new album cover on any outdoor billboard. 'Songs of the Bushman' features the graphic you see to your left gracing the cover. I like it! Hard to believe that such closed mindedness in advertising can occur at the same company that this occurs...
Pride: Gay lifestyle radio programming 24/7.
And guess what, it is their break away hit radio station.
Now while each, 'advertising' versus 'radio', claim to be separate arms of the Clear Channel business... are they not of the same octopus? I guess opposites do attract... The Christmas parties at this company must be something to remember.

NEW YORK – January 22, 2007 – FM radio listeners in Denver, Hartford, Las Vegas, Tucson and West Palm Beach can now hear Pride sensations Ryan & Caroline every Sunday night on local FM stations. The crossover of the popular program, whose FM broadcasts begin this week, makes Pride the most successful Format Lab genre to date. Read on...

Steven Weber: See Me, Feel Me, Touch Me, Smear Me

It's been a while since I featured a post by actor Steven Weber, so when I got my Huffington Post alert that he'd written something new, I decided to see if it was blog-worthy. It is, and once again I'm jealous at his ability to write the way I wish I could. Check him out.

[Excerpt]

See Me, Feel Me, Touch Me, Smear Me

"Elitism": the new "Liberal".

Which was the new "Card Carrying Member of the ACLU".

Which was the new "Pinko". Which was the new "Jew-boy". And each manifestation, each new framing of radical right wing conservative expressions of disdain was and continues to be extrapolated from one source: fear. Fear of losing profit, losing identity, losing hegemony, losing power. . .

Read more at: Huffington Post

Jonah Goldberg's Book Filed as Parody at Amazon

Hee hee! Hey, I usually make it a practice to read a book before passing judgement on it. In fact, it burns me up if I really, really like a book, and somebody who hasn't read it trashes it. But I'm making an exception here.

Why? Because Jonah Goldberg, author of Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning, has been making the talk show, cable news and right-wing talk radio circuit, discussing this book at length. And his premise is rather laughable. He's basically saying that despite criticisms of conservatives resembling fascists, the definition actually fits liberals.

After watching Golberg's feeble attempt at selling his book on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart (see video here), the objective of the book just fell flat for me. Stewart eviscerated him and his premise.

Anyhow, here's the funny part. Amazon.com has classified Liberal Fascism as a political parody! Hilarious.

[Excerpt]

Goldberg's Liberal Fascism filed under 'Parodies' at Amazon

Jonah Goldberg's new book Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning has provoked controversy and dispute in a variety of media. But at internet commerce giant Amazon.com, Goldberg's critics appear to have advanced a new front in their battle against the book: having it classified as a "parody. . ."

Read more at: Raw Story