Some Thoughts For Rachel Maddow
Although I do not always agree with her I do enjoy watching Rachel Maddow on MSNBC from time to time. I find her clever and often entertaining but sometimes I think she goes a bit over edge in her criticism of those she disagrees with and since she likes to call people when they step over the line I see no reason to not do the same with her.
On some of her recent shows she has had a couple of central themes, the first being that she is unhappy over the fact that Republicans seem reluctant to come on her show, the second being a condemnation of the GOP for whatever mistake she says they have made that particular day. At the risk of pointing out the obvious I would suggest that perhaps the two items are connected, though that is not the real purpose of this posting.
About a week or so ago she was interviewing Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty about the stimulus package and the fact that many in the GOP had opposed the package as passed by Congress. She questioned the Governor about whether or not he should accept money from a package he opposed.
Mr. Pawlenty responded with a couple of points, both quite accurate in my opinion. The first was that while he was troubled by the version of the stimulus passed by Congress this did not mean he opposed the concept of stimulus in general. He simply felt that it should have been structured differently and had it been smaller and more targeted he would have supported it.
He also pointed out that taxpayers in Minnesota send billions of dollars to Washington in taxes so it only seemed reasonable for them to get something back in exchange. Like many states (including my own California), Minnesota sends more money out that it gets back so he felt it was proper for him to take the money.
Ms. Maddow did not seem to be convinced and continued to press the governor for some sort of concession, which was not forthcoming, much to her disappointment. However her speculation that opposition to a proposal meant that you could not benefit from that proposal got me to thinking about some of the things Rachel Maddow has opposed over recent months and years.
Like most on the liberal side of the fence she was opposed to the ‘Bush Tax Cuts’ and to the tax cut portions of the current stimulus package. By the argument she proposed to Governor Pawlenty, should she not be unable to avail herself of any recent tax reductions ? Indeed if she is opposed to tax cuts in general, or at least tax cuts for those at her current income level, then should she not send extra money to Washington to pay ‘her fair share’ ?
Needless to say I do not expect her to adopt this position, nor do I think that she should be taking this position. I think that it is perfectly reasonable for someone to take principled stands on topics and to then accept whatever the law is as passed by Congress and to act accordingly. But it might be interesting for someone to make this suggestion to her.
And as far as finding Republicans to come on her show, we may not be politicians or celebrities, but I think we might have a few at least nominal Republicans around TMV who would be willing to take her up on an invitation.
7 Responses to “Some Thoughts For Rachel Maddow”
Good post, Patrick
I like Rachel Maddow, too. And I watched that particular exchange with Gov. Pawlenty , too. And, I agree that Rachel was a little bit too aggressive (albeit a Governor should be able to handle that…which the Gov. did).
But comparing the Governor of a state's position on ” whether or not he should accept money from a [stimulus] package he opposed” to Rachel Maddow's personal choice to avail herself or not of any recent tax reductions , is really comparing apples to oranges.
Rachel's decisionsonly affect Rachel. Pawlenti's decisions affect an entire state.
This brings me to some of the GOP governors' decisions not to accept parts of the stimulus bill's funds to help the unemployed, etc., because they oppose the package or particular parts of the package.
Come on, Givernors, you have made your national points–you have stated your political principles. Now get back to the business of governing your state, your people, which includes the unemployed, the poor…..
Don't use them to continue to grandstand
I just listened to this interview again, and I don't see the concession request that you do. Maddow is a wonk of the first water, and she invariably attempts to examine the underlying elements of an interviewee's position. This is a very different style than the usual soft balls or hit jobs that now pass for TV interviews. Had the political positions been reversed, O'Reilly would have demanded to know if this stimulus would not have saved the people who died with the bridge collapse…
If Maddow was trying to get anything from the governor, it may have been specifics to the Republican talking point that the stimulus could have been better. How it could have been better is never quite spelled out, but Republicans consistently rely upon the criticism. That is the real discussion she's wanting to have with anybody from the other side of the aisle. If any Republican is willing to detail the alternate plan, I'm sure she would be happy to talk to them.
HemmD- several Democrats pointed out how the stimulus bill could have been better. Alice Rivlin pointed out that the various goals needed to be broken up into multiple bills so that the initial focus would really be on the immediate stuff, while the medium and long term priorities should have been handled separately without the firedrill approach. And Blue Dog Minnick put together just such an alternative bill which was much smaller and more focused, but the Blue Dogs are unfortunately all being muzzled right now.
But comparing the Governor of a state's position on ” whether or not he should accept money from a [stimulus] package he opposed” to Rachel Maddow's personal choice to avail herself or not of any recent tax reductions, is–in my opinion– really comparing apples to oranges.
Rachel's decisions only affect Rachel. Pawlenti's decisions affect an entire state.
That's actually even more reason why Pawlenty's position makes sense, D.E. You have the right and responsibility to take a personal stand on principle if you are the only one personally affected by that decision, while it's different when your decision affects others.
So the Republican alternate stimulus plan is the Blue Dog Democrat plan? At least Minnick put together a plan that actually can be analyzed.
I was responding to the assertion that Maddow was somehow was too aggressive or disappointed that she did not get Pawlenty to concede a point. That's wasn't her point, or is it mine.
Republicans consistently have failed to show a detailed plan that addresses the economic issues, yet they never fail to state it should have been done differently. As a party, be specific or be open to the charge of meaningless rhetoric.
CStanley – I'm not talking about you in this sense, I'm talking about a national party without a cogent plan.
No, Hemm, of course the GOP shouldn't be given a pass when they don't have alternative plans, but the fact is that they did, and those plans were not that far off from what Minnick put out there (and for that matter, similar to what Obama had initially expressed support for.) My point is that that smaller, more targeted concept would have been the bipartisan solution but it was rejected out of hand when Obama apparently decided to give all the power to Pelosi.
And having not seen the Maddow interview, I'm not expressing opinion one way or another on whether she was too aggressive with Pawlenty. I do think it's worth noting that governors and Congress have much different roles; it's not really Pawlenty's role to propose an alternative piece of federal legislation.
“That's actually even more reason why Pawlenty's position makes sense, D.E. You have the right and responsibility to take a personal stand on principle if you are the only one personally affected by that decision, while it's different when your decision affects others.”
Agreed. And I gave the Guv credit: “(albeit a Governor should be able to handle that…which the Gov. did).”
But it still comparing apples to oranges. We'll just have to disagree on this.