Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiA Liberal Pundit Soars To A Prominent Perch
ST. PAUL - When Rachel Maddow arrived at a local café one morning last week on behalf of the Air America affiliate that broadcasts her three-hour drive-time show in the Twin Cities, she was dressed for radio, with a loose-fitting V-neck T-shirt and thick-rimmed black glasses.
![[Rachel Maddow (second from right) in an MSNBC broadcast from St. Paul last week with Norah O'Donnell, Chris Matthews, and Pat Buchanan. (John Tlumacki/Globe Staff) ]](http://www.commondreams.org/files/article_images/maddow.jpg "maddow.jpg")
One of the hundreds of listeners who patiently waited in line to meet Maddow came with an offering: a "Give Peace a Chance" lapel pin that she hoped Maddow would sport on her MSNBC television show. "I won't wear jewelry" on the air, Maddow said, apologetically affixing the pin to a corner of her shirt, near her waist. "I don't want to start a cascade of things I can't control."
It may be too late to stop the gush. Maddow was part of the original lineup on Air America, founded in 2004 to counter conservative dominance of talk radio under the market-friendly promise that liberals, too, could be entertaining. More than anyone else, Maddow fulfilled that pledge, with an affable and erudite approach to the day's news and the rhetorical combat that inevitably surrounds it.
Tonight, "The Rachel Maddow Show" debuts on MSNBC, leaving her on the cusp of full-blown stardom in the mainstream media that her most devoted fans see as an enemy.
Maddow, 35, was an accidental radio personality. She got her start on Holyoke's WRNX-FM only after winning a tryout to be a morning-show sidekick; Maddow had moved to the Pioneer Valley after college to pursue a career in AIDS policy, and still spends every weekend there, prizing the Massachusetts fishing license that allows her to catch trout near her Northampton-area home.
She brings a studied ambivalence about her newfound TV fame, which has come thanks to steady appearances as an MSNBC pundit. (The glasses usually are left behind.) Maddow has not owned a television since leaving home at 17, and she spends more time describing how she will defend her new program from the medium than taking advantage of its possibilities.
"The strategy is to make it as much as possible reflective of who I am, and avoid the homogenizing tendencies of TV production," she said. "It's like being put through a meat grinder and coming out as a pasteurized and homogenized meat product. I want to remain a veal chop."
Since auditioning in 2005 for a role as a sidekick to Tucker Carlson on his since-canceled afternoon show, Maddow has become a key face of the new, feisty, ratings-boosted MSNBC.
"MSNBC is trying to define a niche for itself as a center for commentary," said Sid Bedingfield, a former CNN executive who teaches journalism at the University of South Carolina. "It wants to be the home for liberal and left-wing viewers."
Much of that has been propelled by the ratings success of Keith Olbermann, whose nightly show gleefully attacks Republicans, rarely with counterpoint. Maddow was a frequent substitute host for Olbermann on his "Countdown" show, and he pushed MSNBC executives to give her the slot between his 8 p.m. broadcast and a replay at 10 p.m. (The two now share an agent.)
"With Keith Olbermann, TV finally figured out, like a lot of the radio industry, that talk for the left is economically successful," said Janet Robert, owner of KTNF, the Minneapolis-area Air America affiliate.
While critics increasingly call the network a Fox News of the left, an MSNBC executive said the network had not made a conscious decision to hire liberal talent, but was not bothered if efforts to alter its style had left it ideologically imbalanced.
"I look at the MSNBC brand as high-powered intellects," said Bill Wolff, a vice president for prime-time programming. "I'm not saying we're NPR, but there is an appetite for really smart discussion of the news. That's more about what I'm trying to make Rachel's show about than her position on a particular issue. I don't think you have to agree with Rachel in your views to really enjoy Rachel."
Although she happily holds up the liberal position in left-right debates, Maddow prides herself on being "cripplingly patriotic" - she signs radio-station bumper stickers "Your Country Needs You, xox" - and, the daughter of an Air Force captain, she has a yen for national-security issues.
The former Rhodes scholar, with a doctorate in political science from Oxford, is writing a book about military politics in postwar America and is famous at MSNBC for bringing a scholarly rigor to her preshow research and preparation. She has been known to arrive at Rockefeller Center from her Manhattan apartment nine hours before she is due to go on air, cloistering herself in a cubicle with an iPod as she reads and writes on the day's news.
"One of the things that separates Rachel from many people is the amount of fresh information she brings to her storytelling," said Wolff. "She really often isn't expressing an opinion as much as laying out facts that lead to the conclusion."
When Maddow took questions at the St. Paul cafe, it was clear her fans saw no limits to her potential expertise: Would Sarah Palin withdraw? How concerned was Maddow about voter fraud? Does human nature include an instinct for compassion?
"I'm not a biologist," Maddow cautioned. "But I think that we're naturally empathetic."
Maddow, who came out as a lesbian as a teenager, says that one of the galvanizing moments in her political development was Pat Buchanan's declaration of a "cultural war" at the 1992 Republican convention. Now the two are frequently used as good-humored, left-right sparring partners on MSNBC. Maddow praises Buchanan as a "gentleman."
"Pat enjoys debating, and I enjoy debating," Maddow told her fans in St. Paul. "When Pat is saying something outrageous, you know when you yell at the TV? I get to yell at him in person. I get to yell at the TV and it hears me."
As a host, Maddow says, she expects to continue debating on her show, but only as part of a broader repertoire of reported pieces, interviews, and commentaries. "I won't be Punch and Judy. I'm not into the fight for the sake of the fight. If it's not illuminating to present two sides of an issue, I don't want to," she said.
Maddow said she was particularly looking forward to taking on subjects of personal fascination - Kurdish politics and the failures of American infrastructure - that she says do not get covered enough. She wants to have debates on same-sex marriage and the need for more troops in Afghanistan, where the presidential candidates did not necessarily disagree in predictable ways.
"Where's the left and right on that?" she said. "Let's hash it out."
63 Comments so far
Show AllI find it hard to believe that someone genuinely on the left would be on the msm. I admit I haven't watched TV in many years so I have never heard of this person. Does she accept an anti capitalist and pro socialist point of view? If not than she is a fraud like most people who claim themselves on the left in the USA. Most of the "left" in this country are wishy washy liberals who are just not hard core neo-liberals. (Reactionaries)
What our country needs (and our planet) is hard core revolutionaries who care about people and are willing to take a stand. I do not mean a dogmatic party line on any issue but someone who "questions everything"!!! and does not accept the conventional wisdom. We need people who do not worship any state or artificial power base.
WORKERS OF THE WORLD UNITE
Good point!
I do admire Amy Goodman, but she always has an injured air, as if somebody just said something really hurtful to her -- and her voice is so tired she almost puts me to sleep. Rachel Maddow, on the other hand, is lively, very well-informed (who knew she had a Ph.D. from Oxford in PolySci?) and most of all, WITTY! God knows we need more of that.
Having listened to her for months now, claims on this thread that Rachel is not a real progressive seem bizarre to me. I guess if you think Osama bin Laden, al-Zawahiri and their fellow mass-murderers hanging out in Afghanistan after 9/11 -- and the Afghans refusing to turn them over -- was NOT a casus belli, that makes Rachel (and me) a "corporate tool." Oh boy.
Oh boy a chirpy lively war monger who wants to kill people to steal their oil we already have that in Sarah Palin isn't another one redundant?
Artemis:
Claiming "patriotism" is not necessarily a football game between liberals and conservatives. Please be more specific when you say that "Al Queda took down the World Trade Center". I think you mean Al (CIA)da, which includes NEOconservative elements in the U.S. government, and a mix of other criminal elements in Israel, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and whatever other criminals who profitted from 911. You really should studiously look into this topic. I think you would find it more than a little fascinating and Horrifying. I haven't considered myself a conservative since leaving high school, but I am indebted to certain conservatives who woke me up concerning 911. I believe that 911 is still probably the crucial point of denial which feeds the delusion that the next election will put us back on the path of democracy. I believe that the truth about 911 is the dirty little secret shared by both Republicans and Democrats. People who want explanations about 911 other than the fairy tale of the 911 Commission, the ludicrous NIST report, or the equally ludicrous BBC 911 "documenaries", are people who are joining together from many different political persuasions in increasing numbers. I really am not expecting any help from Rachel Maddow. She's just another talking head put up by the powers-that-be to serve as a mesmerizing vent to perpetuate the illusion of free speech and open discussion. HOPE I'm wrong, but I don't see the template changing.
Artemis:
Claiming "patriotism" is not necessarily a football game between liberals and conservatives. Please be more specific when you say that "Al Queda took down the World Trade Center". I think you mean Al (CIA)da, which includes NEOconservative elements in the U.S. government, and a mix of other criminal elements in Israel, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and whatever other criminals who profitted from 911. You really should studiously look into this topic. I think you would find it more than a little fascinating and Horrifying. I haven't considered myself a conservative since leaving high school, but I am indebted to certain conservatives who woke me up concerning 911. I believe that 911 is still probably the crucial point of denial which feeds the delusion that the next election will put us back on the path of democracy. I believe that the truth about 911 is the dirty little secret shared by both Republicans and Democrats. People who want explanations about 911 other than the fairy tale of the 911 Commission, the ludicrous NIST report, or the equally ludicrous BBC 911 "documenaries", are people who are joining together from many different political persuasions in increasing numbers. I really am not expecting any help from Rachel Maddow. She's just another talking head put up by the powers-that-be to serve as a mesmerizing vent to perpetuate the illusion of free speech and open discussion. HOPE I'm wrong, but I don't see the template changing.
Watched her first show. It was great. Rachel has the ability to respond to the dialogue of the moment. She was a courteous, but firm host and gave as good as it was given by Pat Buchanan during one portion. It is now only Keith Olblermann's Countdown, and Rachel's show that are worth my time. I think I'm going to forgo the national network newscasts and stick to the local news for what is happening in my city and state. What's the point of listening to the manufactured news and getting pissed off at what I know they're not reporting? Too bad for you if you aren't getting the real news on the Rachel Maddow Show, or on Countdown with Keith O.
"talk for the left is economically successful"
Oh really? GOD let it talk but DON'T let it walk.
She's is so totally obviously a corporate stooge.
rocyahsoul@yahoo.com
www.lamegame.name
Daniel Vincent Kelley
Reality check: a true liberal will NEVER, EVER be anywhere NEAR prime time on a General Electric cable channel or any other corporate network. So wake up.
Maddow's the Sean Hannity of the Democraty Party, she's no liberal, she's a Dem Party prostitute, a media sham. Liberals tell the truth, Maddow lies. She lies for Dems, apologizes for them. Democrats helped Bush hijack the country, they're co-conspirators. That's something really simple that will never come out of her mouth.
Sure, she calls Democrats "timid" and "tepid", but that's exactly part of the corrupt MSM charade, which Maddow's a proud member of.
They work hard to make Americans believe Democrats are simply that, afraid. And of course, they're not afraid, Democrats are accomplices, accessories, aiders and abettors.
AMEN !!!!!!
hootowl-Thanks for posting those lyrics. Those kind of liberals annoy the shit out of me. I never got into the Dead Kennedys.
I catch Maddow a little here and there. My parents love her and Olbermann. As for me, I can't see how a lesbian can even sit next to, joke around with, and have any kind of civil discussion with a bigot like Pat Buchanan. Yeah, I know he criticizes the Bush administration, corporate power, etc. but anyone who describes Washington DC as "racially polluted" ( I do remember him saying that in a newspaper column once.) isn't someone I'd want to "hash things out with."
I hate those kinds of civil discussions. They're all upper-middle class people, mostly white. Where's their stake in all of this? They're all playing tiddlywinks as far as I am concerned. There's no fire because they're all making a good living. They're all just punching a clock.
A "gentleman" my ass.
Nonetheless, hey good for her. She and Olbermann may not be left enough for me, but I'd take them over any right-wing hack anyday. Even those who are moderately left can help push things in the correct direction. It shows that there is a demand for progressive thought over the airwaves, which runs counter to what The Right would have us believe.
Again, not that I watch MSNBC a whole lot.
Still, imagine if Amy Goodman's show had the same kind of prime-time exposure. Now you'd be getting my attention.
Her first choice for her show was "Life During Wartime". She's been singing that neocon meme for years.
The same "Wartime" her corporate candidates support and fund
but let's not worry about silly things like the truth and the issues
Be afraid ! Be a Democrat !
Rachel Maddow is a small step in the right direction when the first step is at sea level and the summit is the top of Mt. Everest. She does the one thing that is prized in attention starved American television: she can function in what Noam Chomsky calls the "politics of concision," (something that has seen Chomsky depart the television pundit scene since the early 80's). What remains to be seen is if she can carry over Olbermann's audience, and perhaps even add to it.
Hootowl: I don't care who calls her out as long as someone does...loud and clear!
Sorry but i find out it odd that someone using the login "peacegurl" is supporting someone calling for more troops in Afghanistan it seems distinctly hypocritical to me. We need to encourage our grass roots anti war radicals IMO, some of whom may even shockingly appear in magazine like The American Conservative. They certainly will not appear on the corporate funded MSM though unless it's a set up to get shouted at and their mics cut off by O'Reilly and his thousand corporate MSM clones.
You're going to be disappointed. If Maddow were really left wing, she wouldn't be within sniffing distance of promotion. Of course, since US liberals actually seem to conceive of themselves in terms which the rest of the world would call conservative, perhaps you won't. The real left will, though.
One of the problems with Olbermann's show is that the focus is far too narrow.
I hope Rachael's shows explores more stories and more angles.
When was the last time any cable tv show reported on the danger of GM foods? The Fairness Doctrine? The failings of corporate news media to act as a check against government.
It'd be very exciting if these taboo topics were given air time.
Rachael is smart and likeable.
I wish her success.
"A Liberal Pundit Soars To A Prominent Perch"
This is pure corporatism. Rachel Maddow is a DNC whore who is getting up in the world, like Barrack Obama, because she has shown the corporations just how safe she is.
Rachel Maddow is not a liberal. I'm tired of corporations deciding who represents the liberal point of view. People to the right of Dwight Eisenhower are not liberals, no matter how many times Air Pollution America and Nova Mova refer to themselves as the "liberal" voice of America. Rachel Maddow doesn't care for Ralph Nader or Cynthia McKinney, she rarely mentions them, and when she does mention them it is to oppose them. She's too busy stroking the DNC and pushing another corporate whore down our throats...in the name of "liberal"ism.
What a frackin joke. Simply impossible to be more corporate transparent. As long as we continue to accept their version of reality, instead of the truth, we will never get our country back, and that's as it should be. There has never been a sheep rebellion.
Bravo to Rachel!!!
Condi Rice, Alberto Gonzalez, Clarence Thomas, etc all prove that the color of your skin means nothing...all about the content of your chararter.
Hope Rachel stays on the Palin nomination and unamasks who she really is!
"Peacegurl" supports someone who says "the need for more troops in Afghanistan" the mind boggles... :( Surely we can find someone less odious to call Palin out like say Amy Goodman, or Noam Chomsky?
sierra7
I truly like Rachel...but,...."More troops to Afghanistan???????"
Sorry, Rachel you've just lost me!!!!
None of these characters compares with a William Blum, Noam Chomsky, Edward Herman, Howard Zinn......etc.
I like her. Good luck Rachel
I loved Rachel the first time I heard her on AAR. She is a genuine, one of a kind, original with a heart of gold and a brilliant mind to guide it. Did I mention that I like her?
"They'll" be gunnin' for her because she is the real thing and there is nothing "They" hate more than the real thing. But I think she will ride it all with grace and humor. But I hope she keeps her slot on the radio because she does it so well.
God bless you Ms. Maddow.
Watch out, she's not approved, she doesn't follow the company line blindly. She by all accounts must be a closet Republican warmonger.
Hardly a closet warmonger but really rather overt: "...the need for more troops in Afghanistan..." I wish lesbians more luck getting fair treatment in the media but just as Palin and Hillary were the wrong women for progressives to support an overt war monger is the wrong lesbian IMO.
It's time that liberals reclaimed patriotism. When Al Qaeda took down the World Trade Towers the conservatives stole that national tragedy and used it for their own ends. Liberals let them and went blindly following after them into Iraq. Afghanistan is where we should have gone then and should be now. Liberals should not have allowed themselves to be cast into the mold of limp pacifists who will not defend the country when defense is required. It's possible to see in Maddow a liberal who combines the best of the liberal tradition. This is a positive development. As far as her sexual orientation. No offense, Rachel, but sexual orientation is not relevant in the public arena. Should any 2 people be allowed to go to city hall and take out a marriage license if they so desire? Well, of course. End of story.
So are you saying that liberals should simply become indistinguishable from conservatives? I hate to inform you, but this is what liberals have already been doing for about 20 years now.
And please carefully explain to me, artemis, how raining bombs, invading and occupying a despserately poor nation that had no navy, air force, or weapons systems more spophisticated than a kalashinikov rifle, constitutes "defending the country" and how this defense was "required"? Afghanistan was no threat to the US in any way.
Please explain this to me, and be specific!
And in anticipation of you writing "they attacked us!!!" To be blunt, NO, they didn't. The 19 international criminal suicide hijackers of Sept. 19 included no Afghans, and little if any of the planning and training was done in Afghanistan (it was done at flight schools right here in the US). And even if these things were true, the attack of Afghanistan would not be justified. After Oklahoma city did we bomb Buffalo, NY (Mcvey's home town)? After, a rash of drug/gang killings do we bomb all the poor neighborhoods in a city?
No, we get them addicted to crack and kill them with aids. Different strokes for different folks... But when this place goes police state, you can bet the bombings will start then. The gov will always have some way to blame someone else while in reality it was minimally bought by them and often they're directly involved in the planning and execution...
rocyahsoul@yahoo.com
www.lamegame.name
Daniel Vincent Kelley
"Afghanistan is where we should have gone..."
Because imperialism to safeguard oil pipeline routes is sooo much better when the party doing it has a name that begins with D. It's this sort of fallacy by D supporters that means I'll be voting for Cynthia and the Greens unless it's really close in Michigan in which case I'll vote for Obama, but only because Palin is insane and I fear she's become Prez and get us into WWIII.
What a pleasant opportunity for those of us on the Left, left on the sidelines.
Maddow's promotion will be a real test for the MSNBC heads. Will this move be questioned and rejected in the week's ahead? Will Maddow be allowed to push the envelope - she is clearly smart enough to be successful. If she is given free rein and becomes a hit, what's next? A shot at the mother network?
One thing at a time, I guess. It's going to be an interesting ride for now....
Most of us have pretty low expectations, when it comes to cable "news" efforts. I'm ready to be surprised, aren't you?
Not really, I'd rather already tune in to Amy Goodman Democracy Now podcast now and watch a woman who has been "pushing the envelope" for decades. Rather than kissing up I think Amy has the right idea of growing grass roots independent media from the bottom up.
Bladerunner:
Yup. Makes me worried for Rachel's show.
On the other hand, we'll get that potted plant, David Gregory - enabler of the run up to war, to host election coverage! :|
You shall know the truth and the truth shall make you angry.
A Liberal? On MSNBC? I give her two weeks.
War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength.
I like the idea that she does not watch TV or even own one. What will be interesting will be if and how long she is able to resist the celebrity and ass-kissing nature of the beast that is TV. Flattery has been a path that has led to the destruction of more than one determined and honest journalist. When you lie down with dogs you usually get up with fleas unless yopu are very careful. Good luck to Rachel Maddow!.
Poet
You can camouflage the meat with veggies, but you still got meat soup.
I think she won't change. At least I hope so.
As a now-and-then listener since day one to DNC Radio -- I mean, Air America -- I can tell you that you're too late. I've witnessed Ms. Maddow changing on an almost weekly basis. This is NOT the Rachel that started off with Liz Winstead and Chuck D; after Liz got canned and AAR pushed Rachel from her AM slot to a tiny dinnertime slot, she kow-towed and began towing the DNC line.
I especially like it when she talks to a call-in listener, a woman who is a supposed to be a rabid Hillary supporter who feels so betrayed by the (D)s that she's gonna vote for McCain. Instead of seeing (and calling) the mole as the (R)-in-disguise that she is, Rachel gets into one of these lame, going-nowhere arguments. I mean, even if she wanted to treat this media- and (R)-created phenomenon as real, she could simply point out that if certain Hillary supporters are so driven by cult-of-personality politics -- if their vote is so incredibly identity (race/gender) based -- then they should be voting for Cynthia McKinney & Rosa Clemente. But (as LesserEvilismIsEvil posted on the 8th @ 6:51 pm) you'll NEVER hear the Green Party candidates' names (or Nader's) on AAR except when they are being ridiculed. Thom Hartman, P.o.S. Lionel (and who the fork is this dip stick, anyway?!), and especially Dave Bend-over and Jon Eliot. Ditto with Jones Radio (R)s-in-sheep-clothing Ed Schultz and Stephanie "Boring" Miller.
No, I'm afraid we'll just get to see Ms. Maddow continue her DNC- and Clinton-inspired Run-for-the-Center continue at an even faster pace.
For a reminder of how MSNBC treats even its highest-rated star when they begin to tug too hard on the corporate apron strings, just say Phil Donahue three times. (And for NPR just substitute the name Bill Moyers.)
"no gods, no masters" --m. sanger
I am thrilled that Maddow is getting her own show. Finally a recognition that someone that is liberal doesn't have to represent the far marxist left. That being patriotic is a liberal position.
I have found her to always be fair and even handed in her presentations. She's no pushover though, she'll go toe to toe with anyone. And as Pat Buchannan is a gentleman, she is a lady. You don't have to be strident or shrill to be right.
I'm really looking forward to her debate on same sex marriage and other social issues plus her take on the military.
Kudo's to MSNBC for hiring a real journalist.
Is someone who wants more troops in Afghanistan and who in many ways is a liberal hawk really someone we want to get enthused about here at CD? I'd say in many ways we have more in common with the Libertarian right antiwar.com than the squishy "liberal" "left" like this, again feel free to disagree.
These days, people call themselves anything whether they really are what they call themselves or not.
Just one example: The so-called "liberals" who are pro-war and make excuses and apologies for anything the Bush-enabling Dems do because it's the politicians with a big D behind their name doing it. These so-called "liberals" also scream about how the Repugs are ruining the nation while conveniently leaving out that it's the Repugs AND THE DEMS who are ruining the nation. These so-called "liberals" wear thick partisan blinders. They are also many of the same people who are all "rah, rah" for their lord and saviour Bush-enabler Obama.
-------------> Nader/Gonzalez 2008, if there is an "election."
Liberals don't favor war, but aren't pacifists, liberals are not anti-American and don't hate their country, liberals have empathy for the poor but recognize just handing them a few dollars won't help, liberals are not usually idealogues, they are never Marxists though there are cetainly some socialist policies they favor, they are not communists.
And yes you are right, there are a lot of people trying to call themselves liberals that are not.
I don't consider people like this woman, or Thomas More, through their adherence to American exceptionalism and militarism, in service to corporate power, to be genuinely left.
Edward Herman had a term for these "liberals" back in the Clinton-Yugoslavia days - he called them the "cruise-missile left".
The anti-imperialist tent is a big one - it includes socialists to capitalist-libertarians and even the old-right figures like Pat Buchanan and Paul Craig Roberts
"The anti-imperialist tent is a big one - it includes socialists to capitalist-libertarians..."
But within the anit-imperialist tent are those who connect imperialism with consumerism, racism, militarism, classism, cronyism and all of the other irresponsible, immoral, irrational, dangerous and destructive behavior.
And then we have the ones who do not make these connections for whatever reason. These ones might prefer that only American elites exploit the American people. Or that all races/genders should have equal access to the levers of expoitation. Or maybe we can have full equity and justice but only within segregated groups. Or maybe justice for people but to hell with the biosphere. The problematic thread running through all these is that still someone/something is being oppressed. These groups share something unacceptable with the far right: They all tolerate/accept oppression.
It reminds me of that old Phil Ochs song, love me, love me, love me I'm a liberal. Especially good in the Jello Biafra update version IMO:
"Phil Ochs/Jello Biafra/The Toadliquors)
I cried when they shot John Lennon
Tears ran down my spine
And I cried when I saw "JFK"
As though I'd lost a father of mine
But Malcolm X and Ice-T had it coming
They got what they asked for this time
CHORUS
So love me, love me, love me
I'm a liberal
I go to pro-choice rallies
Recycle my cans and jars
I'll honk if you love the Dead
Hope those funny grunge bands become stars
But don't talk about revolution
That's going a little bit too far
CHORUS
I cheered when Clinton was chosen
My faith in the system reborn
I'll do anything to save our schools
If my taxes ain't too much more
And I love blacks and gays and Latinos
As long as they don't move next door
CHORUS
Rush Limbaugh and the L.A.P.D.
Should all hang their heads in shame
I can't understand where they're at
Arsenio should set them straight
But if Neigborhood Watch doesn't know you
I hope the cops take your name
CHORUS
Yeh, I read the New Republic(an)
Rolling Stone and Mother Jones too
If I vote it's a Democrat
With a sensible economy view
But when it comes to terrorist Arabs
There's no one more red, white and blue
CHORUS
Once I was young and had an attitude
Stickers covered the car I drove in
Even went on some direct actions
When there weren't rent-a-cops to be seen
Ah, but now I've grown older and wiser
And that's why I'm turning you in"
http://www.lyricsdownload.com/jello-biafra-love-me-i-m-a-liberal-lyrics.html
Cute.
The original Phil Ochs version was anything but cute but rather a powerful call to revolution during the turbulent 60s.
absolutely! and I still play all of his LPs (yep, vinyl) on a regular basis. man, how I miss him!
"no gods, no masters" --m. sanger
And remember where that "revolution" went....exactly nowhere. The people like King and Johnson, Rosa Parks and United States District Judge Frank M. Johnson, the compromisers changed things. The terroists simply muddied the waters with their cry for revolution.
It was Dr. King who used direct action in the south and warned against the "tranquilizing drug of gradualism." He also called the U.S. govt. "the greatest purveyor of violence today." Please don't link him with war pig President Johnson, OK? Thanks!
Remember it was Johnston that got all that legislation passed. He and King were on the same side in that arena. Doesn't matter if they disagreed on the war.
And I'd remind that Dr. King never, never advocated violence in any way, or revolution. Never. A great man in his time. Wish we had some like him now. We've got pygmies by comparison.
You got that right. I'm a liberal. I have no particular use for the Marxist left and I don't care for the communist theology. If you do, thats fine, doesn't bother me.
I personally don't know how you ever inferred any service to Corporate power or "militarism"? Where in the world did you pull that from? If you were anywhere near as anti-war as I am I'd be quite surprised.
I'd say the Marxist left may cost us this election, is a pawn of Corporate America...just see their stance on illegal immigration last year...so if thats the left you are referring to....I'm proud to say you are right. I'm a proud American liberal.
I consider myself a liberal, yet I too find antiwar.com to be a fabulous resource.
Rachel, you do say the things I want to say to Pat Buchanan and others. I especially appreciate you saying that the Emperor (the Republican Base) at the RNC had no clothes, i.e. was awash in lies. If that word doesn't get out there, then we truly are headed for 8 years, not to mention perhaps a century more of administrations that do not work for the people, but for the rich elite. Keep up the great work.
Although I do enjoy you and Keith a lot, I propose that MSNBC make more effort at getting a Chicano or two (chicana?) as political commentator/analysts, because there are quite a few very well-educated interesting voices out there that we haven't heard about. There is a husband and wife team of journalist/professors, as a matter of fact, that would add (dare I say it?) color to the proceedings. (see Pacifica Radio)
See you tonight on MSNBC.
Does someone who represents the interests of the urban poor and people of color have to be themselves a person of color? Remember from a lefty perspective Alberto Gonzales was probably the worst attorney general EVER. IMO identity politics is a trap that allows the right to divide and conquer us. Of course you can feel free to disregard my opinion because I am a (working poor lefty/Green) middle aged white male. But if you do so I think you are frankly missing the point of equality and fair access to housing, food, health care, transportation and resources for self development and grass roots participation for ALL. Who represents your needs better in the long run Condi Rice, or Ralph Nader? Serious question, BTW.
The answer to your first question is obviously not.
"Remember from a lefty perspective Alberto Gonzales was probably the worst attorney general EVER"
From any perspective, Alberto Gonzales was undoubtably the worst Attorney General ever and a traitor to his country by his opinions.
My own personal opinion is that if I had to choose one it would be Nader though I don't want either to represent me. Condi Rice is a Gonzales clone as to performance and culpability.
IMO Buchanan gets a bit unfairly maligned by us lefties, while I think his position on things like abortion, gay rights, immigration, etc are atrocious with his small republic approach to governance he has unambiguously opposed war and empire. He is far more anti war than Obama who many of us here are thinking of voting for. He has resisted the neo-con demonization of Russia, etc. Something to think about and I say that as someone in many ways to left of the Green party in that I would like to see the CIA and FBI ended completely and co-ops everywhere NOW and I'm a big fan of William Blum and Noam Chomsky. OTH I think we need to end the damn wars and American empire and I wonder sometimes if paleo-cons in our local communities are better friends in that regard than Democrats? In the long run I think it's all about the grassroots and revitalizing local communities as in the excellent article on grassroots bike shops and vacant lot gardening. I find paleo-cons with their natural suspicion of concentrated Federal power are often more oriented to local solutions than the power mongering Democrats. Someone like Wendell Berry I think can for example appeal to both Greens and paleo-cons. Yes there would be a lot to work out on cultural issues but in the long run in a post fossil fuel peak future I think it would be more fruitful than courting corporate backed centralist Democrats. YMMV of course but live from the Pepsi center sponsored by AT & T now featuring 50% less Bill of Rights is not helpful IMO.
auntEm
I agree with you, hootowl. I think if I could pick the kind of neighbor I could count on in a national crisis where it's a question of survival, I would choose someone like Pat Buchanan, someone with good common sense who realizes what is going on.
" allows her to catch trout near her Northampton area home" How did obama let her slip through the cracks for VP?
Intelligence, education, a sense of humor, patriotism......and she fishes (so she'd appeal to the Palin voters) any chance we might get her to run for president in 2012?
On second thought, she says here she doesn't sell out..... scratch that!
Congradulations to one sharp lady.
Olbermann, and Matthews were just dumped from election coverage!