Maddow actually said:

“At MSNBC, on the other hand, “there are people here who are identified as liberals, but there is no political agenda”.”

LOL….funny.

Oh, just curious has Ms Maddow weighed in on the brutal attack on the transgendered lady? Haven’t heard or seen her remarks.

Larry?

More Liberty5 said:
Maddow actually said: “At MSNBC, on the other hand, “there are people here who are identified as liberals, but there is no political agenda”.” LOL….funny. Oh, just curious has Ms Maddow weighed in on the brutal attack on the transgendered lady? Haven’t heard or seen her remarks.

that was the funniest thing posted on mediaite today, rachel really believes it though

No, Maddow, no they DON’T. Maybe they don’t WANT their private life to be everybody else’s business, Maddow.

So Rachel wants folks at ABC, NBC and CBS to come out if they’re gay? Seeing as MSNBC, Fox and CNN don’t operate news operations in the evening, that seems a bit odd.

Rachel Maddow said:
At MSNBC, on the other hand, “there are people here who are identified as liberals, but there is no political agenda”. </blockquote

Uhhhhh …… Have you seen your new promos ?

No Rachel thanks, with all the freaks out here, they’d look you up and make your life hell. You know who you are.

How about, if you are a news person, your only responsibility is to report the news. Why do I care if the person who is reporting, is gay or not as long as they are credible and report the truth? I guess that the mentality at MSNBC is that everything else comes before reporting the news, like reporting what Fox is doing, what Beck is doing and who you decide to sleep with. Maddow should be fired for making such a silly statement.

“grew up in a “very conservative, nasty little town”
-Maddow

“an equally well-known news presenter who is widely assumed to be gay but has never come out”

My gaydar tells me that is Ed Schultz. Has to be.

Why is that their responsibility to reveal private information about themselves? How about reporting the news without bias and getting the facts correct. Amazing the bubble these people live in.

Another example of a petty little Lefty telling everyone else how to live.

Kitsune said:
No, Maddow, no they DON’T. Maybe they don’t WANT their private life to be everybody else’s business, Maddow.

Don’t you just love how the libs tell you how to run your life? Gays have a responsibility to come out? To whom Ms. Maddow?

Rachel thinks sticking your nose in someones elses
underwear is something to brag about! I don’t think so!

espo222 said:
How about, if you are a news person, your only responsibility is to report the news. Why do I care if the person who is reporting, is gay or not as long as they are credible and report the truth? I guess that the mentality at MSNBC is that everything else comes before reporting the news, like reporting what Fox is doing, what Beck is doing and who you decide to sleep with. Maddow should be fired for making such a silly statement.

Thomas on MSNBC during the day is gay, but I think he does a very good job of balancing the “news” of the day. He’s even fairly objective when they’re covering gay-related topics, despite his personal objective with the subject matter.

OMG – what a bitch (word approved by the ladies of the View and NOW) she it. Who the hell does she think she is to claim others have a responsibility to reveal their sex lives to the viewing public. We don’t care Rachel.

And then, she said with a straight face that FNC is in bed with a particular party, but MSNBC is not? LOL LOL LOL

vwahahahaha

hohoho
hehehe
hahaha

Journalistic integrity requires that you tell the world about what you like to do with your genitals, then? Interesting.

Probably NOT wrong said:
Rachel thinks sticking your nose in someones elses
underwear is something to brag about! I don’t think so!

I was being nice BTW

So Maddow is as ignorant about the gay community as she is about economics? Is that possible?

Maddow needs to face reality and give it a rest…those female hormone shots just ain’t working at all.

WCinWI said:
Thomas on MSNBC during the day is gay, but I think he does a very good job of balancing the “news” of the day. He’s even fairly objective when they’re covering gay-related topics, despite his personal objective with the subject matter.

agreed, he is pretty obective

So will Tommy C follow Maddow’s advice?

At MSNBC, on the other hand, “there are people here who are identified as liberals, but there is no political agenda”.

How can anyone take Maddow seriously when she says things like that? The woman has zero credibility. Has she even seen the new MessNBC “Loon forward” advocacy ads yet?

Her snide remarks about the town she grew up in also is an indicator of why she has so much hatred and venom towards conservatives, and explains her motives for attacking conservatives with so much intellectual dishonesty.

Boo-hoo, she didn’t fit in with the normal people of her home town. They’re all sooooo mean, and now she has a platform to get her revenge. Such a small person.

And it’s pretty sad that she has to seek such an underhanded and cowardly way to go after Shep Smith in order to attack Fox News and to try to stir up trouble there.

WCinWI said:
Thomas on MSNBC during the day is gay, but I think he does a very good job of balancing the “news” of the day. He’s even fairly objective when they’re covering gay-related topics, despite his personal objective with the subject matter.

I’m not saying that you can’t be a gay news anchor or show host and be objective, I just don’t think that you have a responsibility to anyone but yourself to come out of the closet. Why make it an issue, if it isn’t, currently? Just be honest and read the news and do whatever you want at home. I don’t see a problem with that, but I do see a problem with Maddow lecturing others because she made a decision that suits her.

The Lantern digs chicks . Is it necessary to say that ?
Who’s business is it but the lucky chicks ?

Just dumb .

She’ s insufferable. Her cable “colleague” doesn’t lead a closeted lifestyle, at all. But, he apparently does feel the need to discuss it publicly. Good for him.

I would hope that whatever decisions he makes in his personal life, especially as it relates to his sexual partner, is really none of anyone’s business and surely wouldn’t influence his professionalism as a journalist. I’m sorry Ms. Maddow can’t separate her personal life from her professional life.

There are several anchors, both in cable and in broadcast news, that are gay but don’t discuss publicly but also aren’t in the “closet”. So what?

Is there even a LIBERAL out there who believes Maddow?

MSNBC has no political agenda? Really?

Wow. Talk about delusional! How can someone thats supposed to be so smart be so detached from reality?

Either the dishonesty is deep and profound to her core, or MSNBC is like the “smug alert” South Park episode…Everyone there loves the smell of their own farts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OM9jhGiIAFM

Rachel is a disgrace; I would expect every lefty to stand up and tell her to STFU. It is nobody’s business who does what to/with whom in the privacy of their own homes. Is she making a veiled threat here to reveal private information about her colleagues, even if they are on competing networks?

WOW

I wonder what COMCAST thinks about her threatening to reveal private information about others???

TfT said:
Rachel is a disgrace; I would expect every lefty to stand up and tell her to STFU. It is nobody’s business who does what to/with whom in the privacy of their own homes. Is she making a veiled threat here to reveal private information about her colleagues, even if they are on competing networks?

WOW

I wonder what COMCAST thinks about her threatening to reveal private information about others???

She doesn’t have to. Shep Smith has made no secret of the fact for years.

The Lantern of Truth said:
Who’s business is it but the lucky chicks ?

Hey Lantern, got any testimonials to back that up? :)

Pablo said:
Journalistic integrity requires that you tell the world about what you like to do with your genitals, then? Interesting.

That’s what always amazed me, why does it matter?

I assume they’re talking about Anderson Cooper, right?

Why does Jason Biggs get to decide how people NOT HER decide on their private lives?

Who died and made Jason God?

Penguin60 said:
Hey Lantern, got any testimonials to back that up? :)

Talk to the Lantern’s ex …uh …Morgan Fairchild !

skyfet said:
No Rachel thanks, with all the freaks out here, they’d look you up and make your life hell. You know who you are.

Number 239847928374923847987 of the SkyFart “WTF did he just say?” collection……..

Penguin60 said:
Hey Lantern, got any testimonials to back that up? :) That’s what always amazed me, why does it matter?

Because far too many people feel that if you’re not willing to make it the public’s business, then you’re not “fighting the good fight”.

david r said:
“an equally well-known news presenter who is widely assumed to be gay but has never come out” My gaydar tells me that is Ed Schultz. Has to be.

I know you’re joking…. but really, when is Wolf Blizter going to come out?

This is superfluous. We all know that major “news” figures who are gay include Ms. Maddow, Messrs. Cooper and Smith and Basil Marceaux, I mean Gordon Blower.

skoorbekim said:
“grew up in a “very conservative, nasty little town”-Maddow

…….that improved considerably when a certain citizen left for Palo Alto…….

And if you’re UGLY, you have an obligation to GET THE HELL off my TV.

So, goodbye, Rachel.

-0bama – First to Worst-

It is no such thing TRRK. Rachel’s claim is ignorant and abusive. Everyone here, both commenters and mediatie staff alike, should chastise Rachel for her suggestion. It is NO ONES business, and no one cares. If Rachel choses to be out of the closet and promote herself as a lesbian, then fine, but for her to claim others have that respnsibility, is well, it is SICK.

OxyCon said:
And it’s pretty sad that she has to seek such an underhanded and cowardly way to go after Shep Smith in order to attack Fox News and to try to stir up trouble there.

Or could it be Anderson Cooper? Nah, I’m with David R. She’s calling Schultz out.

I guess it’s time for Greta Van Susteren to out herself.

I think she is looking at you Lt. Col. North.

And here all these years I thought that what people did in the privacy of their bedrooms was nobody’s business and they didn’t have to share that intimate information with anyone.

Silly me.

Emma said:
I guess it’s time for Greta Van Susteren to out herself.

Now, now, she might just be fond of natty blazers and cuffed slacks.

Harry Flashman said:
And here all these years I thought that what people did in the privacy of their bedrooms was nobody’s business and they didn’t have to share that intimate information with anyone.

Silly me.

I would prefer it if less intimate information were shared.

This is exactly what is wrong with the majority of gays today.They place unreasonable demands on others, even their own kind. You give them a couple of fingers, but their never happy. Now their demanding the whole fist.

Curse you Ellen Degenerate, this is all your fault.

Maddow has a responsibility to mind her own business. The idea that anyone has a responsibility to publicly declare their most private things is about as wrong headed as it gets.

This is why she has so little credibility. The ongoing social crusader nonsense is just that. Nonsense.

THE REAL ROYAL KING said:
Now, now, she might just be fond of natty blazers and cuffed slacks.

Now, we’re gettin somewhere…let those true colors show!

Rather a sad commentary on her belief system. Sexual preference is the most important part of her (or anyones) existence?

Maddow, who says she grew up in a “very conservative, nasty little town” in California and came out while a student at Stanford, concedes the idea of inspiring pride in the gay community “gives me joy.

Well she certainly knows a thing or two about ‘nastiness’.

And who’s even surprised by her overall point? She’s like John Gotti of the gay mafia.

Militant and a-a-angry.

” Of Fox News, she says simply “When it starts to seem like you have popped into bed with a specific party, it makes it difficult for people to believe you are not doing someone else’s bidding for them.”

What is she smoking ? All I can say is show her the coverage of the midterms on Fox and her own station’s coverage of it, Her included.

” Although Fox News took the most criticism during this campaign season for its alleged bias, it was MSNBC — whose new “Lean Forward” tagline inspired CNN’s promo — that wore its point of view most on its sleeve Tuesday night. ”
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/44620.html

At MSNBC, on the other hand, “there are people here who are identified as liberals, but there is no political agenda”. ”

Right . Chris Matthews thinks it’s his job to help Obama succeed. Ed Schultz is a Union shill. And Maddow was caught lying by Politifact on the Wisconsin deficit.

“…but I do think that if you’re gay you have a responsibility to come out”

Why is she picking on Keith Olbermann??
Rachel is a bully!

“but I do think that if you’re gay you have a responsibility to come out,”
That’s so weird, because I thought that it was a personal decision. Well, I guess Maddow know best… right? Now that she is the spokes person for all things gay… right?

Great to see Rachel Maddow covering important stories, such as the sexual preferences of newscasters. This ranks up there with her point-by-point coverage of Ugandan parliamentary debates.

What you won’t see on Maddow’s show, however, is coverage of unimportant stories, such as the impending bankruptcy of Social Security and Medicare, the rising casualties in Afghanistan, the border problem, the $14 trillion national debt, the unemployment problem, the stagnant economy, the failed stimulus bill and other trivial little issues.

Clearly directing that to Anderson Cooper.

That said what kind of pompous asshole would say that ? A leftist-feminazi .

At MSNBC, on the other hand, “there are people here who are identified as liberals, but there is no political agenda”.

Why is this not the headline ? Didn’t her producer say the same thing a couple months ago ?

I dont buy that she believes that , no way —pure deception and lie. Andrea Mitchell , Contessa Brewer , Tameron Hall , and Bashir use Media Matters , DNC/White House talking points daily …. Literally

HAHA ….Maddow beat Hannity’s much touted “Liberal Media Bias” special in the demo.

At MSNBC, on the other hand, “there are people here who are identified as liberals, but there is no political agenda”- Rachel Maddow

And she said that with a straight face.

Hahaha oh Maddow you are such a joke.

BeckFinallyDemoted said:
HAHA ….Maddow beat Hannity’s much touted “Liberal Media Bias” special in the demo.

I dunno it’s a Friday night? Younger Liberals don’t have a life ? Not very social ? Don’t get out much ?

does maddow feel a responsibility to “come out” as a liberal?… i guess not, since all the liberal cable anchors are objective there’s obviously no need for her to do so… it’s those pesky conservative anchors that wear their ideology on their sleeve and therefore are incapable of being objective, even though they make no such pretense…

as for the sexual orientation of tv personalities, i do not care… but i am hopeful there is a snorting-meth-with-a-male-prostitute-scandal in sean hannity’s future…

Anderson?

I wonder if Steve Doocy and Shawn will take Rachel’s advice…

david r said:
My gaydar tells me that is Ed Schultz. Has to be.

She’s talking about Anderson Cooper.

"Real" American said:
I wonder if Steve Doocy and Shawn will take Rachel’s advice…

I doubt it sprocket.

what is it that rachel doesn’t understand, its not any of her business

cjd ohio 1 said:
what is it that rachel doesn’t understand, its not any of her business

Rachel Maddow is a progressive, she makes it her business. (they like neocon’s do not respect personal boundaries)

“Of Fox News, she says simply “When it starts to seem like you have popped into bed with a specific party, it makes it difficult for people to believe you are not doing someone else’s bidding for them.”

At MSNBC, on the other hand, “there are people here who are identified as liberals, but there is no political agenda””

Fox doesn’t sell republican bobbleheads, action figures or refrigerator magnets with the decription “bring reform to your refrigerator.”

http://nbcuniversalstore.resultspage.com/search?w=obama&v=nbc

Nope. No political agenda at all.

.

What a sad sack of cells this thing turned out to be. Some advice for Ms. Maddow. Some people would like to be individuals; their work be known based on their talent, not identity politics. Since you have no talent, I can see why you have to rely on your sexual orientation.

God, I hate progressives.

Well…well…well…I always knew it about Chris ‘Tingles’ Mathews.

I totally agree Rachel, we are waiting Sean Hannity.

Oregon Conservative said:
What a sad sack of cells this thing turned out to be. Some advice for Ms. Maddow. Some people would like to be individuals; their work be known based on their talent, not identity politics. Since you have no talent, I can see why you have to rely on your sexual orientation.

God, I hate progressives.

Of course you hate, you people are so consumed with hatred it makes you stupid. Just hope one of you crazy teabags don’t hurt anyone.

i guess the right of privacy means nothing to rachel

Of course in the case of Glenn Beck he didn’t have to come out, it is common knowledge. But who cares he got fired. Tee Hee.

http://www.mediaite.com/columnists/glenn-beck-and-paul-ryan-tell-each-other-i-love-you-during-cloying-radio-interview/

I think she has a responsibility to keep details of her sex acts to herself; most decent people don’t really care about how much fun (or not) other people have in the privacy of their homes. What Rachel really means is that gay people have a responsibility to turn their private lives into political issues that can be used against others.

And if you don’t agree with me, you’re just a racist homophobe who’s worse than Hitler!
(Actually, I stole the line from Greg Gutfeld, but you know that)

illusive man said:
Rachel Maddow is a progressive, she makes it her business. (they like neocon’s do not respect personal boundaries)

No, News Corp. just donates millions of dollars to the Republican Governors Association, and hires half of the potential 2012 Republican candidates.

But, man those fridge magnets are destroying our democracy!!!!

she is talking about Spitzer; he turned after he got caught. And of course, her own colleagues Andrea Mitchell and Chris Mathews and Chuck Todd.

laceyunderalls said:
Maddow, who says she grew up in a “very conservative, nasty little town” in California and came out while a student at Stanford, concedes the idea of inspiring pride in the gay community “gives me joy.

Well she certainly knows a thing or two about ‘nastiness’.

And who’s even surprised by her overall point? She’s like John Gotti of the gay mafia.

Militant and a-a-angry.

You accuse Rachel of “nastiness” and in the next line call her the John Gotti of the gay mafia?

I have two questions for you.

1. Do you dress yourself?
2. Who types your comments?

I get the feeling her remarks are directed at Dylan Ratigan.

Color Me Badd said:
No, News Corp. just donates millions of dollars to the Republican Governors Association, and hires half of the potential 2012 Republican candidates. But, man those fridge magnets are destroying our democracy!!!!

You’re a bit off topic Color Me Badd.
I was talking about progressive “people” forcing real people out of the closet before they are ready.
And the reason is because progressives are programed to interfere with other people’s lives.
Thus my point, “Rachel Maddow is a progressive, she makes it her busniess”.
And no we are not a democracy, we are a constitutional republic. Please get it right.

timzank said:
Rather a sad commentary on her belief system. Sexual preference is the most important part of her (or anyones) existence?

Great point. She sounds like someone banging the “I’m gay” drum. Who gives a damn? Must we socialize ?

At MSNBC, on the other hand, “there are people here who are identified as liberals, but there is no political agenda”.

I spit my coffee out on this one. O… BTW Maddow you might want to check with Matthews on that lie you just told…

CHRIS MATTHEWS: Yeah, well, you know what? I want to do everything I can to make this thing work, this new presidency work, and I think that –

JOE SCARBOROUGH: Is that your job? You just talked about being a journalist!

MATTHEWS: Yeah, it is my job. My job is to help this country.

SCARBOROUGH: Your job is the make this presidency work?

MATTHEWS: To make this work successfully. This country needs a successful presidency.

Maddow is a dumb liar who can’t keep her lies straight.

I think the world of Rachel Maddow, but I disagree with her on this. While it’s true that acceptance of homosexuality is a political issue in a way that acceptance of heterosexuality never has been, the choice to participate in those politics is entirely personal.

Many people are happy to talk about their personal lives in public fora; most are not, because they fear that do do so will distract from what they’re doing publicly (which is often earning a living) or that it will expose their private lives to unwelcome intrusion. After all, why are paparazzi so despised (regardless of the fact that their products are so eagerly consumed)?

Nope, Rachel, I think you got this one wrong.

Color Me Badd said:
No, News Corp. just donates millions of dollars to the Republican Governors Association, and hires half of the potential 2012 Republican candidates.

But, man those fridge magnets are destroying our democracy!!!!

What GE (then MSNBC parent company) has given to Democrats:

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000125

What Time Warner (CNN parent company) has given to Democrats:

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000094&cycle=2010

tatboy said:
At MSNBC, on the other hand, “there are people here who are identified as liberals, but there is no political agenda”.

I spit my coffee out on this one. O… BTW Maddow you might want to check with Matthews on that lie you just told…

CHRIS MATTHEWS: Yeah, well, you know what? I want to do everything I can to make this thing work, this new presidency work, and I think that –

JOE SCARBOROUGH: Is that your job? You just talked about being a journalist!

MATTHEWS: Yeah, it is my job. My job is to help this country.

SCARBOROUGH: Your job is the make this presidency work?

MATTHEWS: To make this work successfully. This country needs a successful presidency.

Maddow is a dumb liar who can’t keep her lies straight.

Regardless of whether you agree with the Obama Administration’s policies, the negative effects of a failed presidency hurt everyone. That’s all Matthews was saying — a statement, admittedly, colored by his personal enthusiasm for Obama.

Here’s an example — George HW Bush’s presidency was, on the whole, successful, and yet the electorate turned him out of office. I was in America at the time and I don’t remember anyone seriously trying to ensure Bush’s failure, even if they wanted Clinton to succeed him. They were able to believe that Clinton was a better choice without having to pretend that Bush was a disaster.

Frankly, if you’re committed to making a presidency fail, you’re mirroring Lenin’s tactics, which required that things get disastrously worse so his revolution could succeed. That didn’t work out so well.

Oregon Conservative said:

God, I hate.

At least you have found your calling.

The LBGT community should be VERY concerned to see a public figure issue such an edict from the forum of a mass audience political show.

There’s too fine a line between telling LBGTs media members that it’s in the community’s best interest that they decide to come out, from saying that it’s in everyone’s best interest that they be outed.

Not everyone is like her. If anyone one who has a show or works in news. That’s there bussnes wather of not to come out. If your gay or not. It don’t matter to me. it’s a personal for anyone to come out. Rachel has no right to even make that coment. She can speak for herself. I think if anyone feel ready to come out it there call.

THE REAL ROYAL KING said:
This is superfluous. We all know that major “news” figures who are gay include Ms. Maddow, Messrs. Cooper and Smith and Basil Marceaux, I mean Gordon Blower.

I wouldn’t consider Bloyer a “news figure.” More of of the “Gordon who?” category.

And I really, really, really, REALLY don’t want to know his sexual orientation.

VoiceofReason said:
…….that improved considerably when a certain citizen left for Palo Alto…….

Ever been to Orinda? Just sayin’.

mediadoubt said:
Frankly, if you’re committed to making a presidency fail, you’re mirroring Lenin’s tactics, which required that things get disastrously worse so his revolution could succeed. That didn’t work out so well.

Well, if you consider a particular political philosophy or particular policies to be failures in the sense of having benefit to the country, you don’t want their proponents to succeed in effecting them.

It’s the high water mark of grandiosity to expect ANY opponent to feel otherwise.

mediadoubt said:
And I really, really, really, REALLY don’t want to know his sexual orientation.

You don’t. TRRK was engaging in a gay slur.

Cecelia said:
Well, if you consider a particular political philosophy or particular policies to be failures in the sense of having benefit to the country, you don’t want their proponents to succeed in effecting them.

It’s the high water mark of grandiosity to expect ANY opponent to feel otherwise.

But we’re not talking about using political methods to bring about a change in elected government. Just looking at this site and the thousands of others that are more overtly political (this is, in theory, a media-watchers’ site after all), you’ll see post after post after post that propose assaults on Obama that would effectively wreck the government.

Even George Bush didn’t attract the same level of vitriol, and most people on the center-left considered him among the worst presidents in history.

This is different, and disturbing.

Cecelia said:
You don’t. TRRK was engaging in a gay slur.

And I nearly fell into that trap myself. While I find Bloyer pretty despicable, I couldn’t care less where he puts his peepee.

Ralph E. Vaughan said:
I think she has a responsibility to keep details of her sex acts to herself; most decent people don’t really care about how much fun (or not) other people have in the privacy of their homes. What Rachel really means is that gay people have a responsibility to turn their private lives into political issues that can be used against others.

This is absolutely…positively…the 100% TRUTH.

Look, I DON’T CARE who Rachel Maddow is sleeping with. REGARDLESS of what sex they are. Seriously, I don’t care if she’s “easy” and is hanging out in bars, looking for a quick pick-up to bang on a Saturday night, NOR do I care if she’s old fashioned and “committed” to someone, and finds herself in a more caring, long term relationship.

Because whether it’s one or the other is HER business and NOT mine. The same way what I’m doing in MY private life — and by extension, everyone else in theirs too — is none of HER business.

But I will say this as well…

With the passage of time — and from having her own show and now reaching a certain status level — Maddow has clearly succumbed to Hollywood-itis, where she now believes that simply BECAUSE she has a show of her own, she somehow has the moral authority to literally LECTURE everyone else. And frankly, I’ve had ENOUGH with people telling me HOW I’m supposed to live my life or WHAT I’m supposed to believe in, constantly lecturing me to the point that you just want to tell them to shut the hell up. Not because you’re no longer interested in having an intellectual debate. But, frankly, because they’ve simply become a lecture-some BORE, who makes you roll your eyes every time they speak.

And THAT is the way Maddow speaks now. Seriously, watch her opening comments each night and look at the way she presents herself these days, compared to her shows in the past. Earlier in her career, she was more about presenting news or facts — but NOW it’s clear she just thinks everyone else in the world is simply one of the “little people”, who desperately need direction from someone as lofty and as high as she.

Because once again — in a show of classic Liberal arrogance — Maddow knows what’s better for you than you ever will. So you should just shut up and do whatever she says. Otherwise you’re a bigot or racist or homophobe or Islamaphobe or whatever else she chooses to label you, for DARING to disagree with her.

So, I say this — Maddow can take her views and pound them up her boney, scrawny ass.

She’s becoming a pontificating bore and blowhard. And it’s truly LAUGHABLE for her to declare that MSNBC is not like Fox News because they don’t have a “political agenda”, yet THEN she turns right around and uses her show to continually PROMOTE a political agenda, such as gay rights.

And if Maddow doesn’t see the HYPOCRISY in her stance, someone in the news footage department should pull out her newscasts back when California was voting on Prop 8. EVERY NIGHT she used her show as a platform for gay marriage, as she continues to do to this day. Now, it’s okay to believe in gay marriage, if that’s your personal belief. But DON’T tell me you’re NOT being political all while using one hour of national TV air time each and every night to promote and campaign for it.

Like I said: she’s become a lecture-some BORE at this point.

Rachel’s veiled threat to out her colelagues should be of concern to everyone in management at her network.

Rachel is hilarious..the fact that he does not even see his bias is laughable. Tell you what Rachel..anyone who cannot recognize his own incerdible bias the way you do..has no business telling gay people wether to come out or not.

Reminds me of that joke about Howard Cosell telling us which football players don’t like strawberry ice cream. Is it really necessary to know?

LA screenwriter said:
Look, I DON’T CARE who Rachel Maddow is sleeping with. REGARDLESS of what sex they are.

. . . etc., etc., etc., . . .

Wrong on so many levels. While I agree that Maddow’s calling for media figures to out themselves was inappropriate, her taking advantage of her celebrity to highlight issues of concern to her (especially in an off-camera interview that did not take place during her show) is a traditional use of fame. And what you consider her “new” tendency to lecture on her show is not new at all — it comes with the role of political commentator. I don’t see you criticizing O’Reilly or Ingraham for the same behavior.

If you find her opinions boring, obnoxious, snooty, or whatever, then don’t watch. And yes, she’s a very smart lady and you might think she’s talking down to you when she discusses complex issues — but that’s more your problem than hers. If you disagree, then disagree. I’ve never seen her suggest that you have to agree with her to be a good person. On the other hand, if you believe something odious, she’s not necessarily going to say that’s OK.

In terms of “where she can put her views,” now you’ve revealed yourself as a vile creep and so, to the degree that the rest of your post had valid points, you’ve just tossed them in the gutter and pissed on them. Nice work!

And the distinction she was making between Fox’s blatant support for the right-Republican agenda, and MSNBC commentators’ support of liberal causes (and not as the handmaiden of a party’s platform) is completely valid. As an example, the Prop. 8 issue is not a part of the Democratic platform, but instead something that is dear to the hearts of a large chunk of liberals. There’s a difference.

mediadoubt said:
Regardless of whether you agree with the Obama Administration’s policies, the negative effects of a failed presidency hurt everyone. That’s all Matthews was saying — a statement, admittedly, colored by his personal enthusiasm for Obama.

Here’s an example — George HW Bush’s presidency was, on the whole, successful, and yet the electorate turned him out of office. I was in America at the time and I don’t remember anyone seriously trying to ensure Bush’s failure, even if they wanted Clinton to succeed him. They were able to believe that Clinton was a better choice without having to pretend that Bush was a disaster.

Frankly, if you’re committed to making a presidency fail, you’re mirroring Lenin’s tactics, which required that things get disastrously worse so his revolution could succeed. That didn’t work out so well.

With Obama we don’t have to pretend. I also noticed, you being the consumate con man and all, passed of GW and went right to his father to make your non case. Some things never change in the underbelly that is liberalism in this country.

black and WHITE said:
With Obama we don’t have to pretend. I also noticed, you being the consumate con man and all, passed of GW and went right to his father to make your non case. Some things never change in the underbelly that is liberalism in this country.

I couldn’t make the case the GWB wasn’t a disaster with a straight face. Even I have my limits.

mediadoubt said:
you’ll see post after post after post that propose assaults on Obama that would effectively wreck the government.

Even George Bush didn’t attract the same level of vitriol, and most people on the center-left considered him among the worst presidents in history.

This is different, and disturbing.

Democrats called Bush’s elections an installation and called the U.S. a “banana republic” in 2000.

It was proposed on the senate floor that Bush be impeached.

Over sixty percent of Democrats believed Bush either had foreknowledge of 9/11 or weren’t sure if he knew or not.

You’re going to have to give me some specifics on the proposed assaults on Pres. Obama, before I can determine if they are new and different.

mediadoubt said:
And the distinction she was making between Fox’s blatant support for the right-Republican agenda, and MSNBC commentators’ support of liberal causes (and not as the handmaiden of a party’s platform) is completely valid. As an example, the Prop. 8 issue is not a part of the Democratic platform, but instead something that is dear to the hearts of a large chunk of liberals. There’s a difference.

Can you tell the effectual difference between the two stances when it comes to a news organization?

With that logic, one could argue that the ‘heart-felt’ conservatives on FNC seem more aligned with the Republican Party because the party closely follows the principles of conservatism.

How does one explain calling these MSNBC liberals calling the Bush Administration the very undoing of habeas corpus as well as personal privacy, because of Guantanamo, military tribunals, and the NSA wiretapping, and yet not loudly denounce (as loudly as Maddow demanded that gay media members out themselves) any president who would continue these same policies, as well as the party that nominated him.

It’s THEIR hyperbole.

No, if MSNBC hosts aren’t the handmaidens of the Democratic Party (PARTICULARLY if merely by convenience) then the word handmaiden is meaningless.

It

Rachel must be feeling lonely. She thought there were legions of gays ready to march with her to glory.

mediadoubt said:
I couldn’t make the case the GWB wasn’t a disaster with a straight face. Even I have my limits.

Then next time try a gay or Bi face liar.

Cecelia said:
Democrats called Bush’s elections an installation and called the U.S. a “banana republic” in 2000.

It was proposed on the senate floor that Bush be impeached.

Over sixty percent of Democrats believed Bush either had foreknowledge of 9/11 or weren’t sure if he knew or not.

You’re going to have to give me some specifics on the proposed assaults on Pres. Obama, before I can determine if they are new and different.

I take you haven’t read any posts on this site and have never watched Fox News.

Cecelia said:
Can you tell the effectual difference between the two stances when it comes to a news organization?

With that logic, one could argue that the ‘heart-felt’ conservatives on FNC seem more aligned with the Republican Party because the party closely follows the principles of conservatism.

How does one explain calling these MSNBC liberals calling the Bush Administration the very undoing of habeas corpus as well as personal privacy, because of Guantanamo, military tribunals, and the NSA wiretapping, and yet not loudly denounce (as loudly as Maddow demanded that gay media members out themselves) any president who would continue these same policies, as well as the party that nominated him.

It’s THEIR hyperbole.

No, if MSNBC hosts aren’t the handmaidens of the Democratic Party (PARTICULARLY if merely by convenience) then the word handmaiden is meaningless.

It

Here’s the difference: Fox is owned by Rupert Murdoch and run by Roger Ailes who undeniably work toward realization of the Republican Party’s agenda (and the right wing of that party to boot). They make damn sure that their on-air talent and newsroom staff know the editorial slant to take. It also seems quite likely that they hire people who concur with that slant in a heart-felt way: to do otherwise would be inefficient.

MSNBC has a broader range of leading talent with substantially more idiosyncratic biases, and the programs are not explicitly tied by management to a party platform. That management has, recently anyway, decided there may be market space in being the anti-Fox, and has recruited and developed liberal commentators.

Similarity between the two networks (they’re working off the same domestic and international news) is inevitable. However, taking your orders from Republican apparatchiks is not synonymous with sharing some of the beliefs held by liberal Americans.

And Obama has been roundly criticized for many of the policies he’s retained from the Bush era — by Rachel Maddow, among others — and in fact, when you look at Obama’s favorable ratings, a lot of the sag in his popularity is because he hasn’t turned out to be as liberal as we thought, rather than he has turned out to be too liberal.

black and WHITE said:
Then next time try a gay or Bi face liar.

Good god, get your hand out of your pants!

Color Me Badd said:
Of course you hate, you people are so consumed with hatred it makes you stupid. Just hope one of you crazy teabags don’t hurt anyone.

Color Me Badd said:
Of course in the case of Glenn Beck he didn’t have to come out, it is common knowledge. But who cares he got fired. Tee Hee.

The sad thing is that someone this full of hate and bigotry doesn’t even get the irony of their posts. Go figure.

mediadoubt said:
Here’s the difference: Fox is owned by Rupert Murdoch and run by Roger Ailes who undeniably work toward realization of the Republican Party’s agenda (and the right wing of that party to boot). They make damn sure that their on-air talent and newsroom staff know the editorial slant to take. It also seems quite likely that they hire people who concur with that slant in a heart-felt way: to do otherwise would be inefficient.

MSNBC has a broader range of leading talent with substantially more idiosyncratic biases, and the programs are not explicitly tied by management to a party platform. That management has, recently anyway, decided there may be market space in being the anti-Fox, and has recruited and developed liberal commentators.

Similarity between the two networks (they’re working off the same domestic and international news) is inevitable. However, taking your orders from Republican apparatchiks is not synonymous with sharing some of the beliefs held by liberal Americans.

And Obama has been roundly criticized for many of the policies he’s retained from the Bush era — by Rachel Maddow, among others — and in fact, when you look at Obama’s favorable ratings, a lot of the sag in his popularity is because he hasn’t turned out to be as liberal as we thought, rather than he has turned out to be too liberal.

Well, perhaps you’ve never watched MSNBC…

Not only has CEO of the network’s former parent company gone on to be appointed by the president as head of the president’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness, the company has directly benefited from TARP money:

“The company did not initially qualify for the program, under which the government sought to unfreeze credit markets by guaranteeing debt sold by banking firms. But regulators soon loosened the eligibility requirements, in part because of behind-the-scenes appeals from GE. ” http://tinyurl.com/nqnn2l

MSNBC has directly championed some of the president’s green initiatives from which the company stands to profit nicely.

As to the argument that somehow the “idiosyncratic biases” of MSNBC trend toward independence rather Democratic allegiance, the same can be said for FNC.

The opposite of your argument is true. MSNBC talent may be willing to criticize the president for breaking his promises ( and “criticize” is ironic considering their “end of days” hyperbolic rhetoric when these programs were initiated by Bush), but they march in lockstep with DNC platforms.

However, both Hannity and O’Reilly were actively critical of RNC immigration reform policy. O’Reilly, a populist, is hardly a raging champion of the Party’s “free trade” stances. Greta VanSusteren can hardly be called a conservative.

None of these personalities have ever been presented as hosts and anchors of political campaign and events coverage, as MSNBC routinely does with it’s admittedly liberal primetime line up.

You’re argument that while liberal, MSNBC hosts are not DNC champions is a filmsy justification for a network whose ad campaigns…Go Green… Lean Forward…actively hype Democratic initiatives and WH agenda. Whose parent corporate overlords have benefited monetary and professionally from WH embraces and government largess.

When it comes to this argument, you’d do well to get the moat out of MSNBC’s eye before pointing the finger at FNC, my friend. That includes the big peepers of those Democratic champions whose only caveat with the DNC would be to move the party further to the left– Ms and Messers Maddow, Matthews (in his current incarnation…), O’Donnell, and one stupid son-of-a-bitch named “Ed”.

Penguin60 said:
The sad thing is that someone this full of hate and bigotry doesn’t even get the irony of their posts. Go figure.

Oh, he realizes it. The point of his posts is to take the focus off the argument, and put it onto him. And unfortunately, by me pointing this out to you, he gets exactly what he wanted.

From the Smartest Liberal “ever”!!!!!! It must be true!!! Only at the Guardian could you talk like this without the guy falling off his seat in laughter. . I wish she would stick to arranging stories on the floor of her office instead. Only a Brilliant Liberal like the Great Maddow can do that you know….Don’t believe me, ask a Liberal..

Clearly she was referring to Bill O’Reilly.

‘At MSNBC, on the other hand, “there are people here who are identified as liberals, but there is no political agenda”.’

Now if you believe this from nasty-town girl, you might want to hedge your bets on the stock market by buying a piece of the Brooklyn Bridge. Send $1000 in cash to: BRIDGE c/o FanOfGrendel, Box 02134, French Lick, Indiana. Better than gold.