Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Rachel Maddow’

Crooks & Liars- By Heather Wednesday Jul 14, 2010 9:00am

Rachel Maddow reviews the case against six New Orleans police officers who are now finally facing federal charges for shooting unarmed citizens on the Danziger Brige in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. It’s really sad that it has taken this long for the Justice Department to finally be doing something with this case. It’s long overdue. TPM has more.

DOJ Charges Six NOPD Officers Involved In Danziger Bridge Shooting:

The Justice Department has charged four New Orleans police officers with opening fire on unarmed civilians in the days after Hurricane Katrina, killing two and wounding four. The DOJ has also charged them, and two other officers, with conspiracy relating to the resulting cover-up.

U.S. Attorney Jim Letten and Attorney General Eric Holder announced the charges in an afternoon press conference today, five years after the shootings on the Danziger Bridge in New Orleans.

Four police officers — Kenneth Bowen, Robert Gisevius, Robert Faulcon and Anthony Villavaso — are being charged with civil rights violations in connection with the shootings. If convicted, they could face life imprisonment or the death penalty.

The two others, Archie Kaufman and Gerard Dugue, are charged with conspiracy to obstruct justice. Kaufman and Dugue were the investigators in the original case, and are accused of falsifying reports and false prosecution.

Five other police officers and one civilian have already pleaded guilty to charges related to the cover-up. The four accused of the shooting had been charged with murder in connection with the incident, but the case was thrown out in 2008.

On Sept. 4, 2005, seven NOPD officers, including the four charged today in the shootings, rode to the Danziger Bridge after getting reports of officers under fire. There, they encountered a family on their way to the supermarket for supplies. For unknown reasons, the officers allegedly opened fire, killing 17-year-old James Brissette and wounding others.

The officers then allegedly drove to the other side of the bridge, where they found another group of people and again opened fire. Ronald Madison, 40, who was mentally disabled, was shot in the back and killed.

Faulcon is the one who allegedly shot Madison, according to the indictment. Bowen is accused of kicking Madison as he lay on the ground dying.

Read Full Post »

Bill Maher On BP Oil Spill: ‘I Feel Oily … I Feel Their Sh*t On Me’ (VIDEO)

Huff Post- First Posted: 06-12-10 01:06 AM   |   Updated: 06-12-10 09:09 AM

Friday marked Bill Maher’s last show of the season, and while the BP oil spill has been a subject on “Real Time” from week to week, this time Maher defined it as the subject.

“I have been holding my nose about this oil issue. Every week, I do not want to talk about it and we do. But you know, this is the last show of the season, my last time to vent, so I kind of had a change of heart this week, and this whole show might just be about how much oil sucks,” he said at the opening of the show’s panel segment. “And I feel oily. Now that those pictures come in of the wildlife, I feel dir– I feel their shit on me. I feel like someone from Greenpeace should scrub me down every night.”

Rachel Maddow, Newsweek editor Jon Meacham and former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) joined Maher on the panel, and when he asked what would have to happen for the gulf catastrophe to have some meaning, all three turned to the obvious answer — a major step forward on a comprehensive alternative-energy policy.

“We’re trying to drill all of our oil, or a huge proportion of our oil, from the place where we get all our shrimp and oysters. And that’s awkward, it turns out,” Maddow quipped.

Maher let loose on a host of villains-of-the-week during the segment, laughing at Blanche Lincoln’s claim that her vote was “not for sale” and calling the Houston oilman, lifelong game hunter and recent estate-tax dodger Dan Duncan a “world-class asshole.” But the panel zeroed in on the Senate filibuster as the reason why President Obama, in Maher’s words, “had to lie, basically.”

“I saw this week that Lindsey Graham is pulled out of the global warming bill, and the whole reason Obama was coming out in favor of more drilling was as a sop to the conservatives. To try to get Lindsey Graham on his side, somebody like that, to get a couple of Republican vote, which would not be necessary if we did not have this filibuster nonsense, if you didn’t need 60 votes to pass anything. That’s why this president said something. That’s why he had to lie, basically. And the lie was, drilling has never been safer. And we know for a fact, actually, drilling has never been more dangerous. Not just this spill, but before this spill.”

Frist employed several less-than-coherent defenses of Senate procedure and minority rights (most notably: “In the Senate, you can do anything that can’t be done”), but Maddow laid the blame at his party’s door for paralyzing Congress by procedural means. “And Republicans should have to answer for that,” she said, “because it’s a really stupid way to run the country.”

Later on, Maher targeted the political canard of “running a state like a business,” which he and Maddow pointed out can be foolish given the cross-purposes of government and private enterprise. And Arizona won the final showdown in Maher’s “Stupidest State” contest, edging out Texas to receive a trophy of a man with his head up his ass. Maher claimed he’d send the trophy to Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer.

WATCH VIDEO HERE

Read Full Post »

Crooks and Liars- By Nicole Belle Thursday May 20, 2010 6:00am

Normally, I’d cut this video down from its full 19 minutes, but truly, to appreciate the wonderfulness of Maddow’s approach and the sidestepping Rand Paul attempts to avoid the corner Maddow in which deftly places him, you really must watch the whole thing.

And boy, does Rand Paul squirm under the surgical questioning of Rachel Maddow. He never answers her questions, and how can he? His stance makes no sense. Taylor Marsh:

It’s the nakedness and naïveté of Mr. Paul’s views on civil rights laws, that legislation should not impact businesses, that is not only evidence that he’s unfit for Congress, but that he’s actually dangerous. To think that the United States would no longer require laws to protect minorities is just ignorant and lacking in experience in the real world.

As for his anti-women’s rights views, especially on individual freedoms, it’s absolutely discriminatory against women. It’s appalling in this day and age that a doctor would believe that women should be forced to carry a pregnancy to term against her will. The editorial board found his views “repellent” and they are correct. To say that the unborn has “equal” rights to the woman is simply wrong.

I think Taylor hit it on the head: his naïveté is dangerous. Like many–if not most–”isms”, libertarianism may make sense on an academic level, but only when conceived in vacuum of intellectual exercises. In the gritty friction of the real world, the exercise falls apart. To say that only publicly owned entities should be legislated from discriminating ignores centuries of oppression and injustice. Glibly dismissing any real examples such as the Woolworth’s lunch counter by claiming his “abhorrence of racism” and saying that people would vote with their dollar to not patronize those business is laughably naive.

Obviously, the tea party adulation, in all its authoritarian and uncritical glory, did not prepare Rand Paul for prime time. He’s clearly uncomfortable with follow up questions and being confronted with his own stances. Even though he brought it on himself by telling the Louisville Courier-Journal and NPR that he thought the Civil Rights Act should be done away with, Paul whines about “red herrings” and that the act is forty years old, so why is anyone asking him about it? Joan Walsh:

You’ve got to watch the whole interview. At the end, Paul seemed to understand that he’s going to be explaining his benighted civil rights views for a long, long time – but he seemed to blame Maddow. “You bring up something that is really not an issue…a red herring, it’s a political ploy…and that’s the way it will be used,” he complained at the end of the interview. Whether the Civil Rights Act should have applied to private businesses – “not really an issue,” says Tea Party hero Rand Paul.

Methinks Paul better get used to having to answer for his tacit endorsement of racism and oppression of minorities, especially if Tweety’s outrage is any indication of the larger media response. That may play well with the teabaggers, but they’re not going to win Paul the elections. If I was Jack Conway, I’d be smiling right now.

##############################

Rand Paul On ‘Maddow’ Defends Criticism Of Civil Rights Act, Says He Would Have Worked To Change Bill (VIDEO)

Huff Post- First Posted: 05-20-10 02:13 AM   |   Updated: 05-20-10 02:21 AM

Kentucky Senate candidate Rand Paul believes that the federal government blurred the lines between public and private property when it passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and made it illegal for private businesses to discriminate on the basis of race.

Paul explained his views on “The Rachel Maddow Show” Wednesday, just one day after wholloping his opponent in Kentucky’s Republican primary.

Maddow focused on the Tea Party-backed candidate’s civil rights stance after he publicly criticized parts of the Civil Rights Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Paul told Maddow that he agrees with most parts of the Civil Rights Act, except for one (Title II), that made it a crime for private businesses to discriminate against customers on the basis of race. Paul explained that had he been in office during debate of bill, he would have tried to change the legislation. He said that it stifled first amendment rights:

Maddow: Do you think that a private business has a right to say that ‘We don’t serve black people?’Paul: I’m not in favor of any discrimination of any form. I would never belong to any club that excluded anybody for race. We still do have private clubs in America that can discriminate based on race. But do discriminate.

But I think what’s important in this debate is not getting into any specific “gotcha” on this, but asking the question ‘What about freedom of speech?’ Should we limit speech from people we find abhorrent. Should we limit racists from speaking. I don’t want to be associated with those people, but I also don’t want to limit their speech in any way in the sense that we tolerate boorish and uncivilized behavior because that’s one of the things that freedom requires is that
we allow people to be boorish and uncivilized, but that doesn’t mean we approve of it…

MORE HERE

Read Full Post »

Rachel Maddow: Taking the Human Cost Out of the Cost of Mining Coal

Crooks & Liars- By Heather Thursday Apr 08, 2010 9:00am

Rachel Maddow recounts the horrid safety record of Massey Energy and how the CEO of Massey Energy spent over $3 million to get his choice of Supreme Court Justice elected in West Virginia, who as Rachel Maddow noted, then ruled in Blankenship’s favor for his company and their safety violations, surprise, surprise.

Rachel talked to Jeff Biggers, author of Reckoning at Eagle Creek: The Secret Legacy of Coal in the Heartland about the core of the problems with the coal mining industry which is more worried about profit than the worker’s lives. As Biggers pointed out, virtually all of the major accidents in the coal industry have taken place in non-union mines, and he pointed out that Massey Industry is not only one of the worst companies for their safety record, but also for “breaking up the unions in the 1980′s and 1990′s” and added this about what kind of difference unions make when it comes to mining safety.

BIGGERS: You know, that‘s a wonderful point to make. Virtually, all the major accidents and disasters have taken place in non-union mines. And really, Massey Energy is infamous not only for their state of violations both with underground and but also surface mining, but the fact that they really were part and parcel of being aggressive about breaking up the unions in the 1980s and the 1990s. And this is ultimately what we‘re paying for.

You know, in the old days, Rachel, or in a union mine, you had union fire bosses who came in, who pointed out the violations. And it was a brotherhood to really make sure that those violations were corrected and you have a safer mine, because those were members of the union that were in there.

Today, we have less than 20 percent of our coal miners, estimated, who actually are with the United Mine Workers or any sort of union. And ultimately now, we‘re paying the price. You know, that‘s the problem. The coal companies and their representatives who do any kind of inspections outside of federal inspectors, they see regulations as just obstacles to production. They don‘t realize that regulations are about human lives. It‘s about protecting American citizens and the coal miners.

Full transcript via MSNBC below the fold.

MORE HERE

Read Full Post »

Early Morning Swim: Rachel Maddow on John McCain’s Abandonment of “Maverick” Brand

Firedoglake- By: Blue Texan Tuesday April 6, 2010 4:50 am

And it’s not just that he’s used that sham of a nickname for years. He just did last week.

At a campaign really for McCain on March 26th, Palin asked Arizona voters to “send the maverick back to the United States Senate” as McCain looked on. She told the crowd that McCain’s “maverick” status hasn’t won him friends from the “Washington D.C. elite machine.”

One reason McCain may be shedding the “maverick” label is that it doesn’t play well with Republican primary voters. McCain is facing a primary challenge from former congressman J.D. Hayworth, who has deemed McCain less than a true conservative.

Really brings the choice of Palin into focus, doesn’t it?

SOURCE

############################

John McCain: I’m NOT A Maverick — Or Am I? (VIDEOS)

Huff Post- First Posted: 04- 5-10 02:30 PM   |   Updated: 04- 5-10 08:05 PM

John McCain, the maverick? Apparently not anymore.

“I never considered myself a maverick,” McCain told Newsweek’s David Margolick in an interview in which he seems to distance himself from his trademark moniker. “I consider myself a person who serves the people of Arizona to the best of his abilities.”

But as recently as last month, McCain’s 2008 running mate, Sarah Palin, touted the Arizona senator’s “maverick” status, referring to “McCain the Maverick” four times in 15 minutes at a campaign rally in Tuscon.

(The Newsweek piece, is ironically subtitled “A maverick fights for his political life–and his soul.”)

Until now, McCain was never reluctant to embrace the “maverick” label. Here’s a look at some of his past ads and appearances that tout his maverickiness:

MORE “MAVERICK” VIDEOS HERE

Read Full Post »

Crooks & Liars- By Heather Wednesday Feb 17, 2010 2:30pm

Rachel Maddow calls out Beck for editing her criticism of him on her show and making sure his viewers didn’t see Rachel calling him out for his bullshit. I had said before that Dylan Ratigan was wasting his time engaging Beck. That’s because Ratigan actually thought it would be a good idea to either bring Beck on his show or go on Beck’s show. I do not think when Beck lies about one of them they should let it go unchallenged and am glad Rachel Maddow pointed out Beck’s hypocrisy here and how he edited her segment. Engaging him is a complete waste of time. He’s not going to come on MSNBC any time soon and he sure as hell isn’t going to bring either Ratigan or Maddow on his show any time soon and if he did they’d be in some debate box where he could hit the mute button any time he wanted instead of live on his set.

It’s useless to even pretend like that might happen in any fair manner, ever, as Ratigan proposed. Calling him out for his bullshit is not. Although I would love to see the idiot try to debate Rachel in person if he wasn’t just allowed to yell over her, cut her mike or filibuster the entire time. I would imagine it would be much like Beck bringing a toy knife to an assault rifle fight if he actually had to debate Rachel Maddow on any subject and those were the rules of the game. I hope Rachel doesn’t spend too much time on this pissing contest with Beck though because in the end, too much time spent on this serial liar is just a waste of energy. Fox doesn’t care how much he lies and neither do his brain dead viewers. Well enough to point it out and move along.

Read Full Post »

Rachel Maddow Stuns Rep. Aaron Schock By Calling Out His Spending Hypocrisy (VIDEO)

Huff Po– Sam Stein-  First Posted: 02-14-10 12:33 PM   |   Updated: 02-15-10 10:36 AM

A heated exchange took place during NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday when MSNBC host Rachel Maddow accused Rep. Aaron Schock (R-Ill.) of hypocrisy for railing against a spending bill in public while touting its benefits in his home district.

Appearing alongside each other during a panel session, Maddow pivoted from a discussion on job creation to note that Schock had appeared at an event on Friday touting a grant program that he had voted against.

“You, in your district, I just read that you were at a community college touting a $350,000 green technology education program, talking about how great that was going to be for your district,” she said. “You voted against the bill that created that grant. That’s happening a lot with Republicans sort of taking credit for things that Democratic bills do and then Republicans simultaneously touting their votes against them and trashing them. That, I think, is a problem that needs to be resolved within your caucus. Because you seem like a very nice person but that is a very hypocritical stance to take.”

A somewhat taken-aback Schock insisted that Republicans were “not consulted on the stimulus bill” and shouldn’t be blamed for the lack of a bipartisan vote for its passage. This didn’t really get to Maddow’s point. So after some back-and-forth among the other panelists, Schock jumped back in.

“I think the argument that liberals are making is absolutely ridiculous,” he said. “With all due respect, Rachel, does that mean you are going to give back your Bush tax cuts that you continue to rail against. The fact of the matter is our country operates and is governed by a majority. And I, along with almost all my Republican colleagues and a good number of Democrats, have voted against the stimulus, the omnibus and all this runaway spending. But we lost those battles in the House… At the end of the day my constituents and their children and grandchildren will be on the hook for the deficit being created by this majority and they deserve to their fair share of federal spending.”

New York Times columnist David Brooks — appearing alongside Maddow and Schock — chimed in to suggest that the argument over who should take credit for the stimulus’ successes exemplified what was wrong with Washington. But that debate seems likely to only grow in prominence leading up to the 2010 elections. This past week, the Washington Times reported that a host of Republican lawmakers were doing exactly the same thing that Schock was — only with a bit more insincerity.

“More than a dozen Republican lawmakers, while denouncing the stimulus to the media and their constituents, privately sent letters to just one of the federal government’s many agencies seeking stimulus money for home-state pork projects,” the paper reported.

Regarding Schock’s appearance at the green technology education program ribbon-cutting ceremony, the bill providing funds for that program was an omnibus-spending bill that Congress took up last spring. Maddow’s point, nevertheless, remained the same.

“If you vote against the omnibus bill,” she said at the end of the exchange, “if you complain about the omnibus bill, if you tout your vote against the omnibus bill, it is hypocrisy to then go to your district and go to a ribbon cutting ceremony for something that is funded by the omnibus bill that you voted against.”

Watch the exchange at 2:20:

Read Full Post »

Crooks and Liars- By Heather Wednesday Feb 10, 2010 8:00am

Rachel runs down the list of GOP hypocrites who have been willing to go against everything that the Obama administration and the Democrats have proposed but are willing to go home and hold up big checks and take credit for that money coming into their local economies without batting an eye. As Rachel points out, it’s not a secret that they’ve done this, and they don’t care. And they are never, never, never going to vote with the Democrats no matter what they do or how much they extend their hand to the Reblicans and try to work with them.

As Rachel pointed out, Think Progress has done a lot of great work on the subject and here are a few examples.

GOP Senate Candidate Rep. Mike Castle Takes Credit For Over $5 Million In Stimulus Funds He Voted To Kill

In KY, McConnell Brags About Stimulus Projects, Requests More Money; In DC, McConnell Says Stimulus Should End

Republicans Who Opposed The Stimulus Continue To Pan It As A ‘Failure,’ While Also Taking Credit For Its Success

Jindal Tours Louisiana Attacking ‘Washington Spending’ While Handing Out Jumbo-Sized Stimulus Checks

Jindal takes credit for stimulus, presents constituents with jumbo-sized stimulus check.

Rep. Shuster Bashes The Stimulus As A Failure While Taking Credit For Its Success

Republicans Who Opposed The Stimulus Line Up To Criticize It Publicly, Request More Money Privately

Kit Bond Touts Effects Of Stimulus Bill He Voted Against

All In A Day’s Work: Rep. Kingston Smears The Stimulus On TV, Takes Credit For Stimulus Jobs In His District

The GOP is not interested in productive policy and instead as Rachel noted sabotaging the President’s agenda. I’m not sure what good he thinks this meeting is going to do other than hopefully point out their rank hypocrisy, but so far he’s giving way too much deference to the party of “no” that deserves none. The Republicans are more than happy to continue to drive the economy into a ditch if they think it will keep them in office.

Read Full Post »

Rachel Maddow Interview with Former Evangelist Frank Schaeffer: Christian Right Is ‘Trolling for Assassins’

AlterNet. Posted November 19, 2009.

Schaeffer: “There is a crazy fringe [receiving] messages that have been pouring out of FOX News … talking about doing away with Obama, asking God to kill him.”

The following is an excerpt of a transcript from a recent episode of the Rachel Maddow Show:

Rachel Maddow: With our president overseas, Republicans and conservatives here at home have been taking the opportunity to crank up their criticism of him.  Former Vice President Dick Cheney telling Politico.com that President Obama advertised weakness when he bowed ceremonially to the emperor of Japan.  Cheney said, quote, “Our friends and allies don‘t expect it and our enemies see it as a sign of weakness. There is no reason for an American president to bow to anyone.”

He does have a point. I mean, imagine an American president bowing to anyone. [Maddow displays photos of various U.S. presidents bowing to foreign leaders] Imagine. Imagine, say, oh, President Nixon bowing to Chairman Mao in China. Imagine, say, President Nixon — oh, there he is, again, bowing to Japanese Emperor Hirohito, that was here in America.  Imagine President Eisenhower bowing to Charles de Gaulle of France — France!

And four our pals in the press, when a former vice president, like, Dick Cheney says something like there‘s no reason for an American president to bow to anyone, the appropriate response is to say, “What else do you have against President Eisenhower, sir, or President Nixon?”  Or you could just copy down what Cheney says and write a whole story as if Cheney really has a point, which, of course, he doesn‘t—at all.  But I digress.

Beyond the former vice president, Mr. Obama‘s trip abroad has generally brought out the unhinged among the president‘s critics.  The troubled conservative “Washington Times” newspaper, for example, allowed their editor emeritus, Wesley Pruden, to assess President Obama‘s trip abroad this way, quote, “”Mr. Obama, unlike his predecessors, likely knows no better.  It‘s no fault of the president that he has no natural instinct or blood impulse for what the America of the 57 states is about.  He was sired by a Kenyan father, born to a mother attracted to men of the third world and reared by grandparents in Hawaii, a paradise far from the American mainstream.”

That was published in an actual newspaper.

MORE HERE

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 504 other followers

%d bloggers like this: