Apparently, Rachel Maddow really served Cathy McMorris Rodgers and Alex Castellanos on Meet the Press yesterday but I made the mistake of hitting play at the start of the video and caught this:
DAVID GREGORY: […] And Hillary Rosen, here you are. This issue is not going away. And neither are you.
HILARY ROSEN: Neither am I. […]
DAVID GREGORY: I do want to remind people about your comments about Ann Romney that started quite a debate. Watch.
(videotape)
Rosen is the exemplar for this observation (by an interesting guy):
One must beware of anyone who is stupid and diligent — he must not be entrusted with any responsibility because he will always cause only mischief.
Update: Here’s the meat of what Rachel had to say, minus the useless Hilary Rosen part:
nastybrutishntall
stupid and diligent: the illest villain.
Schlemizel
Ignorant and arrogant is a worse combination and it seems to be more prevalent amongst the talking heads
gogol's wife
Great quotation.
Chris
Never heard that quote. It’s a good one.
A Humble Lurker
Rachel was fun to watch. The other four, not so much. And by not so much, I mean it was like a hot salted poke[r in my eye every time one of them opened their mouths.
Ash Can
No, David, you useless idiot, it won’t go away, as long as you and all the mindless talkers like you insist upon covering it instead of real news stories.
low-tech cyclist
Much as I hate to defend IP strangulation lobbyist Hilary Rosen, she was actually right on target in her observation a few weeks back that started this particular fire: that Mitt Romney is relying on Ann Romney for his information about what matters to women in this election, and Ann Romney has no fucking clue what struggles the typical American woman faces:
Was she right, or was she right? I personally can’t stand Hilary Rosen, but dammit, we should have rallied behind this statement.
Boudica
@low-tech cyclist:I had never heard of Hilary Rosen before this kerfuffle of hers. I agree with you. Her one sentence was taken out of context. What she said was right on the money and that the Dems let this be turned into a rehash of stay at home momv vs working moms was ridiculous and poorly handled.
Ash Can
@low-tech cyclist: It’s too bad she threw in the sentence about working a day in her life, which is what opened her up to attack. If she had just left that out, this never would have even made the news.
butler
Do you think Alex Castellanos was born that smarmy and condescending, or does he have to practice to get like that?
tesslibrarian
I admire Rachel’s ability not to punch that guy in the neck.
And both low-tech cyclist and Boudica are right: Rosen’s point was true, and that Dems let it get away from them rather than work for them (“why can’t Romney talk to women himself? what are Ann’s qualifications outside of her gender?”) was depressing.
But I still want to punch that guy in the neck.
Valdivia
The effing condescension from that Castellanos a-hole. Can we get a rusty pitchfork in him please?
Villago Delenda Est
@Schlemizel:
I believe Dancin’ Dave is a good example of this type.
...now I try to be amused
If only Rosen had said, “Ann Romney never had to work a day in her life.”
A bit of Doonesbury dialogue stuck in my memory. Jane Fonda’s housekeeper said to Jane Fonda, “Ma’am, you’re busy because you want to be. I’m busy because I have to be.”
ruemara
I don’t get why “the Dems let anything blablahblah happen” is the outrage here. You do realize that the democratic mouthpieces are few and far between and the media will spin it that way without any Dem help whatsoever? Although I do second punching whatever asshat that is in the neck, nuts and a few vital organs until he achieves some sense.
mistermix
@low-tech cyclist: Sorry, disagree. The message is right, but she steps all over it with the “never worked a day in her life” part. Good messaging is the right thing said the right way. Rosen did exactly the opposite.
Either she’s stupid or she knowingly threw down some bait for the media to get her mug on the TeeVee. Either way, there she is on MTP, still distracting from the underlying message.
Chris
Come to think of it, that quote covers the vast majority of the Republican voter base. They’re pretty stupid, but it wouldn’t matter so much if they didn’t diligently vote in elections whose issues they don’t understand, follow news designed to keep them stupid and refuse to learn from anyone who actually knows shit from peanut butter.
Biscuits
That twat of a man. The arrogance. I just realized why I couldn’t make it through the whole clip. Condescension. The talking over her, his tone…the “now now little lady” of the whole thing. I hate them.
Mino
I don’t know. Ann Romney promply stepped all over her own message with the birthday quote and a lot of people took a harder look at her. (I have friends in the Morman church and she is not particularly liked among those who know her best.)
And Rachel shows everyone how to do it.
Elie
..And since then, Anne Romney has gone on to further effups relating to the fact that she “loves” the fact that many women have to work and raise children. And let us not also forget the line she gave about it being “our (their) turn”.
Don’t worry. She is as clueless and tone deaf as her husband and the MSM will have to work very hard to keep interpreting their eruptions in a positive light…
Ash Can
@Elie: She’s obviously none too bright. As long as she keeps talking every time a microphone gets pointed at her, people will keep sticking microphones in her face, and she’ll keep fucking up, unless and until the campaign geniuses wise up and throw a net over her. And they may never do that, seeing as how they have yet to demonstrate that they’re anything other than none too bright themselves.
Obama and Biden versus the Romneys plus whomever gets roped into being Romney’s running mate. This campaign is shaping up to be sheer box office. (And no way in the entire world is Michelle O going to get anywhere near this circus or even say word one about it, but I can still fantasize about watching a debate between her and Ann Romney…)
Kay
@low-tech cyclist:
Good advocates don’t continue to appear as advocates once they’ve made mistakes that distract from the issue, because that’s self-serving.
If you set yourself up as a speaker for others, as Rosen did, and screw up and you’re no longer an effective speaker on that issue, don’t appear.
She’s putting herself over the people she’s speaking for, and they didn’t even choose her. She’s a paid pundit, not an elected official. No one chose her. I certainly didn’t.
Sorry, but lots of things aren’t “fair”. It’s a real disqualifier, this behavior, in my book. I don’t think it matters, because I think the War on Women was NOT driven by pundits and media or campaign professionals, I think it was more organic than that, but once it’s about her, no matter how that happens, she’s no longer an effective advocate on that issue.
WWStBreitbartD
Really????
“Maddow: Don’t tell me what the reasons are.”
So using the Maddow standard, Obama ate a Dog.
And the progressive talking point that he was only 6 (could have been 6-10) can be refuted with “Don’t tell me what the reason was.”
...now I try to be amused
@Ash Can:
Oh yes. It would be three debate mismatches instead of only two.
Tuffy
Women work fewer hours. They drop out of the workforce (to have children or care for family members). They go into lower paying fields. They go into jobs with more flexibility in exchange for lower pay.
If you control for these factors, men and women are paid the same. It isn’t rocket surgery, and Rachel shouting down her opposition doesn’t change these facts.
Villago Delenda Est
@WWStBreitbartD:
Ah, the slime makes itself heard.
I am so glad your shitstain hero is dead, asshole.
Kay
@low-tech cyclist:
If I had my druthers. we’d get away from the idea that we need each and every self-proclaimed advocate that (purportedly) espouses liberal causes. I don’t think we owe the advocates themselves individual loyalty. If they’re no longer the best available on any given issue, well, there are lots of people who can make this case, and better. It doesn’t have to be so personal, because that isn’t what speaking on behalf of others is about, really. No slaps in the face or throwing under the bus. Just looking for the best advocates available, on any given issue.
gaz
Captain douchey mcdouchebag sort of reinforced Rachel’s point by interrupting her and condescending her. What an ass.
ruemara
@Tuffy: We do? I had no idea I chose this low pay, even though I do the same as my boss and I have no kids. And I work with a 24/7 availability clause. And that you can go fuck yourself.
gaz
@Tuffy:
Really? We must not have been watching the same video just now. If you’re gonna be disingenuous about it, you’ll have to do better than that.
Why don’t you answer ONE question? It’s one rachel brought up too, but now it’s being brought up by a man, so maybe you’ll listen:
Why is it fair that a women who finally figures out she is getting paid less than a man for the same work should have to be penalized because it took her so long to discover the wage disparity? How is that fair?
Villago Delenda Est
@Tuffy:
The women I served with in the Army worked the same shitty hours I did, 24/7.
So you can stuff it, asswipe.
Ash Can
@Tuffy: You sound awfully eager to dismiss the issue of equal pay for equal work, which is what the pay controversy is all about in the first place. And you sound completely and thoroughly ignorant of the social and economical dynamics that have been forcing women into the kind of jobs you mention for ages.
If you’ve got that kind of axe to grind, you’re not going to get a whole lot of sympathy for grinding it here.
gaz
@WWStBreitbartD:
FTFY
Maddow was too kind to do so on the air.
Cacti
@Tuffy:
The Truthiness is strong in this one. Meanwhile, in the real world…
Using data from longitudinal studies conducted by the U.S. Department of Education, researchers Judy Goldberg Dey and Catherine Hill analyzed some 9,000 college graduates from 1992–93 and more than 10,000 from 1999-2000. The researchers controlled for workplace flexibility, ability to telecommute, as well as other several variables including occupation, industry, hours worked per week, whether employee worked multiple jobs, months at employer, and several education-related and “demographic and personal” factors, such as “marital status,” “has children,” and “volunteered in past year.”
The study found that wage inequities start early and worsen over time. The portion of the pay gap that remains unexplained after all other factors are taken into account is 5 percent one year after graduation and 12 percent 10 years after graduation.
butler
Then why did Lily Ledbetter have a reason to file suit? Clearly it isn’t always the case that equal work = equal pay.
Or to put it another way: if men and women are getting equal pay, then why would Romney refuse to endorse something as innocuous as the Fair Pay act?
Enlightened Liberal
@low-tech cyclist:
Good observation. This is why the right-wing “wins” these arguments. They pick their “slur” and then run with it, so they never have to debate Hilary Rosen’s point, which is 100% valid.
Unfortunately, we have no way to silence the outrage machine so that substantive disagreements can be discussed. Instead of arguing whether or not Mrs RMoney has her finger on the pulse of American women, we argue whether a minor Democratic operative hates June Cleaver, and therefore all Democrats including the Kenyan usurper blah person hate Stay at home Moms too.
gaz
@Cacti: Thank you for that. I’m working right now, or I’d have posted it. You saved me the effort. =)
cheers
gaz
@low-tech cyclist:
I’m mixed on that. The statement may have been true, but the optics of it were fux0red. It’s far too easy to take it and wield it like a cudgel. If one were to decide there was value in picking ones battles, I wonder if the democrats would have fared much better for getting behind it. I’m pretty sure Obama recognized this. OTOH, you could be right, but we’ll never know for sure.
brent
@WWStBreitbartD: You misunderstand what she was getting at and so your analogy is incorrect. Castellanos stated that Maddow made a factual error not one of interpretation. But asked to back up this claim, he starts by trying to explain away her facts rather than demonstrate that they are somehow incorrect. Her response (don’t tell me about the reasons) was about establishing that he obviously couldn’t back up his claim that she had made a factual error. Despite that, he repeated the claim several times in that exchange. He seems not to understand the difference between a fact and the interpretation of a fact. Hes a bit dim.
The dog analogy is incorrect because no one has said to the claim that Obama ate dog that the claim itself is factually incorrect. Merely that the fact itself isn’t particularly salient to the issue of how an adult treats a family pet.
gaz
@brent: Fuck off with your facts and logic. That’s so 90’s of you. =)
cheers
gaz
@Kay: I have to cosign that.
Shinobi
I bothers me that the moderator couldn’t do any actual fact checking on the statements both Maddow and Alex Condescention were making.
Why don’t they have people in the back with google and a headset who can weigh in on these facts? Isn’t that their job? It is a news organization after all?
Cacti
@gaz:
I think the POTUS actually played it pretty well, being the good cop to Rosen’s bad cop. By coming out forcefully against “attacks on family” he boxed the Romney camp in re: future attacks on the first family.
Also too, after the tempest in a tea pot died down, the phrase that was left in the public consciousness was “Ann Romney has never worked a day in her life”.
TooManyJens
@Tuffy:
And these factors all have to do with choices freely made by women, having nothing at all to do with them being driven out of higher paying fields or with men not taking on their share of the work of childrearing, right?
Also, if you control for those factors, men and women still aren’t necessarily paid the same. There are still cases like, oh, Lilly Ledbetter’s. Are you trying to tell us that straight-up wage discrimination never happens, or just that women shouldn’t have adequate legal recourse when it does happen? Because you pretty much have to believe one of those things to vote against the Fair Pay Act.
gaz
@Tuffy:
OT a bit, but I have to ask exactly what “rocket surgery” is? Does it pay well?
gaz
@Cacti: All excellent points, from where I sit. =) cheers
TooManyJens
@gaz:
Not if you’re a woman.
gaz
@TooManyJens: win! I tried to work that in, but I needed a 3rd party to deliver a punchline. You fucking read my mind. heh. double win. I’ll be shipping your internetz UPS, if that works for you =)
feebog
Cacti @ post 34 for the win. As usual, facts have a well known liberal bias.
ThatLeftTurnInABQ
@mistermix:
__
The only way you can get on Villager TV if you are Dem is if you are (1) an idiot useful as a foil and chew toy for the conservatives who are there to push the message the Village wants pushed, (2) a traitorous DINO (Call me Harold!) on camera to stab the Dems in the back for similar purposes, or (3) somebody who is too powerful and important to be ignored. Draw your own conclusions about which category any given guest falls into, but it all boils down to idiot, traitor, or well-fuck-I-guess-we-have-to-put-you-on-sigh.
EnfantTerrible
In my not-so-humble opinion, Maddow did some important work yesterday by calling out Castellanos on one, raising his own spin of the facts above the facts themselves; and two, showing that his attempt to deny Maddow the opportunity to get her point across by interrupting her was rooted in the belief among Republicans that women’s perspectives don’t count. And she is absolutely correct that the discussion over women’s issues should be framed in terms of *policy*.
serge
I don’t think that Alex Castellanos should even be allowed to drive a car.
Brachiator
@mistermix
Great quote.
I tried to stay away from the episode, but was curious because I wondered why Rosen was on, and wanted to see Maddow.
The first segment with the GOP strategist was kinda interesting. Gregory asked is the US was safer under Obama and the guest deflected the question into the standard GOP talking point, that the US was not stronger. Being super mighty really matters to these guys.
@low-tech cyclist:
Rosen pointlessly stepped on her message and alienated women. She still comes to close to suggesting that stay-at-home moms are lazy slugs who don’t do anything, and that the Democratic party are full of elitist feminists who look down on ordinary women.
Even suggesting that Mrs Romney doesn’t understand ordinary women just because she is wealthy is equally stupid. A woman friend of mine who is deeply liberal felt sympathy for Mrs Romney as a mother because of a story Romney told about feeling somewhat overwhelmed when Mitt was away campaigning.
There is an element of sisterhood that cuts across ideology, and Rosen is tone deaf to this.
Worse, she made her MTP appearance about her, not about any message. Dumb.
Judas Escargot, Your Postmodern Neighbor
@Shinobi:
I’ve wondered the same thing myself, and this would be an excellent news/panel format.
However, it does not serve the interests of the PTB. Therefore… we don’t get to have such a Nice Thing.
PurpleGirl
@gaz: It’s a mixture of two terms — rocket science and brain surgery. You can call someone dumb twice with one word.
From Urban Dictionary: A mixed metaphor describing a non-existent, yet implicitly high level of qualification. The greatness of this term is in its subtle ability to call someone stupid twice in one euphemism. The irony may go over someone’s head and they would call out that this field of study doesn’t exist.
WWStBreitbartD
@brent:
Rachel had one fact and the phrase “Not exactly” does not equal “Maddow made a factual error.”
Ben Cisco
@Shinobi:
This would have required:
1)A moderator that was interested in facts.
2)A moderator that was capable of fact-checking.
3)A show producer that was interested in having 1) and 2) above.
4)An audience that was interested in having 1) through 3) above.
Please note that the lack of all four is a feature of the program and not a bug.
twiffer
@Tuffy: next time my wife has to work all weekend to meet a deadline (after working a full week and overtime), i’ll let her know that women work fewer hours. i’ll be sure to let all the women on my team at work know that as well. i’m sure they’ll agree with you.
jefft452
@WWStBreitbartD:
RM: Women in this country still make 77 cents on the dollar for what men make. So if—
AC: Not exactly.
So, is it exactly 77 cents or not, what is it? 76.8 cents?
AC: Actually, if you start looking at the numbers, Rachel, there are lots of reasons for that
Ah, so by “not exactly” you mean you agree that it is 77 cents on the dollar, you just think that it is justifiable
Not what “not exactly” means in English as she is spoke
Richard S
I don’t think their facts diverged at all – Women are simply worth less than men to right wingers.
joel hanes
anent the quote:
Here’s the first version I saw; it was attributed to “The Officer’s Guide” :
“There are four types of officers :
The clever and industrious you must send to the General Staff.
The clever and lazy you make your combat commanders, for only they have the requisite nerve for life and death decisions.
Some use can be found for the stupid and lazy.
The stupid and industrious you must get rid of without delay, for they are really dangerous.”
wiscomom
@Shinobi: Sad truth of it is I think the answer to your question is that David Gregory is too lazy to do actual fact checking. He doesn’t appear interested in carrying conversations forward based on “facts”…both sides do it, and everything, you know. He is profoundly disinterested and does not appear to pay attention or listen to the responses of his guests; he simply moves on to the next question on his notepad.
This is a man who books John McCain as often as possible. I wish they would start booking John Kerry as much as they do McCain if they believe we need to hear from failed presidential candidates and all that.
gaz
@PurpleGirl:
That’s why the term is ironic. Employing it arguably makes the person wielding it the dumb one.
catclub
@Tuffy: “If you control for these factors, men and women are paid the same. It isn’t rocket surgery, and Rachel shouting down her opposition doesn’t change these facts.”
Except for Lily Ledbetter, who was doing the exact same work and getting substantially less pay. Facts are inconvenient things.
Also, it was very clear that Rachel never did shout.
TooManyJens
@jefft452:
Precisely.
@catclub:
Not to mention that Castellanos was interrupting her when it was her turn to talk. I guess she just should have deferred to him like a woman who knows her place instead of insisting on getting to make the point she was invited there to make.
John M. Burt
@Cacti: Thank you for giving Tuffy the takedown he really needed: facts which prove his is talking out the side of his punch-deserving neck.
JCT
@Cacti: Now, now — the study authors were WOMEN, so this is likely to be all mad cup
/snark.
Not surprisingly, this issue goes all the way up the tree — professional women who are negotiating for new, higher paid jobs are well known to be “lousy” at it. They accept lower starting offers and then are not as aggressive at seeking raises as men. Employers take advantage of this all the time.
Sentient Puddle
@Shinobi:
Here, it seems relevant to point out that when asked about how ABC was getting PolitiFact to do fact-checking for This Week and whether or not NBC should do it for Meet the Press, David Gregory said (and I quote) “People can fact-check ‘Meet the Press’ every week on their own terms.”
So to answer your question, David Gregory disagrees with the premise, saying that fact-checking isn’t even his job.
OzoneR
@low-tech cyclist:
As if that would’ve done any good? The media decided within moments of that statement that the real story was “mean old Hilary Rosen picking on cancer-survivor mom of five Ann Romney”
priscianusjr
Who is Hillary Rosen? Wait — don’t tell me, I’m really not interested. I could say the same about a lot of people everybody’s talking about, I just don’t care. Life’s too short.
Skerry
@Cacti:
Thanks for the civil reply and presenting facts.
I was thinking of saying something more along the lines of DIAF, Tuffy.
Tuffy
@34
So I guess women aren’t paid 77 cents per man-dollar, but rather 95 to 88 cents?
pseudonymous in nc
@JCT:
It’s well-documented: if a woman in a professional field tries to negotiate in the same way as a man for a salary or raise, it’s interpreted not as “tough bargaining” but as “overbearing and demanding”, and do we really want a ball-busting woman nagging us for more money? Etc.
This even applies in public-sector work, where salaries are graded, and we can see that when they’re disclosed under open records laws: women occupy the bottom of the range for a given position, men the top.
pseudonymous in nc
@Tuffy: I guess you should fuck off to your man-basement and play with your man-micropenis.
pacem appellant
Who’s the rude dude in the mustache? He couldn’t stop being a chauvinist pig even when told he was being one! Our country is doomed if the Interruptor gets to decide what gets said on the TeeVees.
Ben Wolf
@Tuffy:
The portion of the gap which remains unexplained, you dummy. You’d have been better off not responding at all, because the screeching dodge you just made to the original point was the equivalent of shouting out, I’m wrong and I know it!.
Jebediah
@Tuffy:
So I guess you are conceding that there is pay inequity that is strictly gender-based?
Provider_UNE
@butler:
Do you think Alex Castellanos was born that smarmy and condescending, or does he have to practice to get like that?
I once posed a nearly identical question to Lee Hamilton when he visited my highscool back in the early eighties about Political Rhetoric. He was the rep of my district at the time, visted the school for a talk in our auditorium and had a q&a at the end and I was a smart assed 16 or 17 year old with an axe to grind about Reagan. Unfortunately I did not get a satisfactory answer, though took satisfaction, that not only was he was not prepared for the question, it was clear that he did not appreciate it at all.
Within a couple of years (can’t remember whether I was a Sophmore or Junior at the time) I graduated as the first Black Senior class President (and possibly only) in the history of the school in question.
We ran a very subversive campaign, setting the stage for one of my neighborhood friends to take the title the next year. After that “rules were adjusted.”
Anyway thanks for the memories.
.
edited for spelling
Polar Bear Squares
I’m going to hope that title of this post refers to one of favorite songs by Madlib and I’m going to try and forget how Rachel is basically the only sane person in this room. But that’s the Republican answer for everything. Sexism? Actually its really not. Racism? Actually YOU’RE the racist one. Hate crime? Actually that’s not fair to the hater. This is their answer for everything. They can justify (to use a really inappropriate metaphor) a nun being raped if would continue said injustice. Because the real injustice is not the occurence but the government actually stepping in and doing something about it.
Sigh.
kestral
To the guy in the MTP clip talking about how women don’t go into fields like engineering and math: say that to my IBM-engineer-turned-math-teacher mother, you jackass.
Brian
This is kinda where fact checking and anything to set the record straight or allow equal time by Gregory might be handy.