Did anybody else see this last night? Maddow’s guest was Dan Stein, president of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) which wrote most of the controversial Arizona bill.
Maddow brings up the fact the group was founded by John Tanton, who in private correspondence donated to the U. of Michigan questions the educability of Hispanics (his terms) and made such comments as
Tanton calls for more whites to breed because
She also calls upon FAIR’s sponsorship of Protect Arizona Now, an organization with an outspoken white separatist, Virginia Abernathy, on its board. There are other associations with virulently anti-Hispanic racists as well, not just in the membership (for what 250,000 member group wouldn’t have some real assholes among its members) but in people who have served in positions of authority either at FAIR or in groups they’ve chosen to affiliate with.
Stein, the president of FAIR since 1988 (Tanton is still on their board of directors), appeared on the show and was furious. However, he spent far less time denying allegations of racism than denouncing the Southern Poverty Law Center for a smear campaignagainst FAIR.
So, while I realize this will break down among partisan lines I’ll still ask: who do you think won this exchange? (And I’ll say freely I think Stein is Maddow’s bitch today.)
I honestly couldn’t watch it. “So, you’re just not going to answer the question,” I’d say to myself (ok, outloud with an emphasis on the loud) and then change the channel.
But I’m glad you started this thread because I wanted to ask the Dope if the SPLC really is discredited. Really? Discredited???
It was tough and I think Stein failed to answer many hard questions. She was very correct in calling him out when he tried to attack SPLC instead of answering. ‘I’m Rachel Maddow. I’m asking you questions’
At the same time Maddow only seemed prepared to ask questions of FAIR’s past and present membership. She failed to make the case that FAIR’s advocacy itself is racist. Making the argument FAIR has a undeniable history and present with racist individuals could have easily been done without an interview.
If she was going to have Dan Stein on she should have been able to ask more in depth questions about his organizations activities.
I think she could have done better. I hope for a second interview.
She invited him on a second time and he accepted, so there probably will be.
They are to people they’ve called racists.
I live in the same city as the SPLC and the main criticism of them/controversies around them are financial. Their founder, Morris Dees, is a master of fundraising and they have a S-H-I-T-E-LOAD of money- as in they could probably never get another donation and yet exist into perpetuity- yet they’re always raising funds. (They got into some trouble a few years ago for not spending enough of their cash reserves.) Their HQ’s nickname is “The Poverty Palace” because it’s opulent and on prime downtown real estate.
I’ve not heard any credible discrediting of their work however, only their finances.
For those not familiar with the story, Morris Dees and his best friend in law school friend, Millard Fuller, were both millionaires by the time they got their law degrees from their mail order businesses. They split up professionally and amicably many years ago; Dees used his fortune to start SPLC and Fuller started Habitat for Humanity.
I gotta say, I think it’s hilarious that after decades of conservatives decrying the “politics of victimhood” among minorities and advocating a “colorblind mentality” of race-neutral egalitarianism, whaddya know, as soon as conservatives like this dude are confronted with a realistic prospect of whites becoming a minority, they start screaming how they’re being oppressed.
So, what happened to this great ideal of racial equality? For decades, this guy and his ilk scoffed at the complaints of racial minorities that racism and demographics were depriving them of “power and control over their lives”. Now that the demographics are tilting so that the former majority is poised to become a minority themselves, all of a sudden the issue of minority access to “power and control over their lives” is perceived as a legitimate concern. How convenient.
I caught the last 5 minutes or so, and by that point they were just talking past each other. I can’t comment on the earlier exchanges, but I couldn’t help but become frustrated with Maddow from what I saw. Every question was "[insert name] was a member of FAIR, and they said [in a letter or something unrelated to FAIR], “[something racist]”, or [insert name] quoted you as saying “[something racist]”, and then asking him to defend the quote. The answers were predictably “that wasn’t me or FAIR saying that” or “I didn’t say that”.
As much as I enjoy her show, I find that she does have a tendency to put words into people’s mouths when their direct quotes really don’t say what she wants to criticize.
In this case she was deliberately repeating the question because he wouldn’t answer it. It was about John Tanton, the openly racist founder of and current board member of FAIR.
I was disappointed in Maddow. I don’t think she got the results she might have. She should have asked whether he thought the prior public statements of their current board and staff were known toFAIR, and they would have been hired had it been known. She should have gotten a chear response from Stein about whether or not he found all those statements repulsive. Mostly he dodged that by saying things like “Nobody from FAIR has said that or would say that”, which sounds like he’s repudiating the statements, but it’s really not.
And she should have done more research about FAIR’s staff and board, rather then 1 or 2 individuals. For instance, what if more that half of their board are involved with white supremicist organizations? I have no idea whether that’s true, but if she was trying to find some pattern among the FAIR people that demonstrates they share a background of working for discrimination, she failed.
SUPPOSE that the situation were reverse, and the director of Planned Parenthood were on Bill O’Reilly’s show discussing, oh, a bill regarding parental notification of teenagers’ abortions.
Suppose, too, that O’Reilly spent 30 minutes reading offensive, disgusting, racist and pro-eugenics things Margaret Sanger used to say, and ignored the issue at hand completely.
Would you say “O’Reilly made her his bitch”? Or would you think he wasted everybody’s time, avoiding the present issue and concentrating solely on ugly comments by previous leaders of the organization?
Margaret Sanger died in 1966 after years of inactivity due to senility and age related health problems.
IF she were still alive, well and on the board of directors of PLANNED PARENTHOOD, however, as John Tanton is with FAIR, I would see it as [no pun intended] fair game.
I saw the whole thing. I think Rachel was caught off guard and flustered by the ferocity of Stein’s asshole-ishness. He was yelling at her from the first word out of his mouth, kept interrupting, insisted that FAIR was being misrepresented, kept yelling about SPLC, etc.
Rachel repeatedly tried to get him to state a single fact that he claimed was wrong, but he never did. The bottom line excuse I got from his diatribe is that "just because our board members are racists, and we hire racists to represent us, that doesn’t mean the organization itself is racist. "
Stein came across as an absolute, grade-A racist asshole, but Rachel took some damage since he managed to fluster her so thoroughly.
Stein’s tactic seemed to be to talk and talk, keeping Rachel from talking. As long has he was talking, he controlled what ppl were hearing. I suspect it’s not an uncommon strategy. In the second segment, she interrupted more and things got more heated.
Stein did not come out looking good in my opinion, but I suspect this interview will act rather like a Rorschach test, and ppl will see what the want to see.
I agree with this. She didn’t really nail him down on anything, and he essentially complained her criticisms were about old, irrelevant issues anyway. And while I personally think he came off as a disengenuous prick, his claim will be that he was defending himself from a liberal media attack dog.
If you look, Rachel’s neck and chest were flushed bright red. She wasn’t flustered, she was furious. And that’s a bad sign. The first words out of Stein’s mouth were combative, and that was the harbinger of doom. He was there to state his piece, not answer questions, which is the wrong way to come into an interview. The Rachel Maddow Show is not a Dan Stein press conference, and he should’ve known that she wasn’t going to let him try to turn it into one.
I caught the end of the show (or maybe this was a different show) where it was just RM talking. And this is what I can’t take about her show… she sits there lecturing us, repeating the same thing over and over with that little smirk on her face, like everyone else is just a big joke. It’s not something that pulls the listener in unless, I guess, you’re a die-hard fan. It’s a style not unlike what Glen Beck uses (although I’ve probably only seen about 15 minutes of him, total).
Well, John, here’s the thing: on the one hand, you got Rachel pretty much telling the truth. but repetitiously and with a “smirk” you find distasteful. On the other hand, you have “Mad Dog” Glen shrieking bald faced lies at the top of his lungs.
Now, I suppose, to one who is relentlessly and mercilessly non-partisan, they are rather much the same: smirky truth, rabid lies. Those of us who’s reason is addled with partisanship see them as very, very different. Do forgive us, won’t you?
It wasn’t much of an interview at all, really, and I lay that more at Stein’s feet, given that he clearly seemed to think he could simply talk over any questions asked he didn’t happen to like (and I reckon he didn’t much like any of 'em). OTOH, I would have preferred that Maddow concentrate a bit more on FAIR’s current makeup and policies rather than on events of 20-odd years ago.
As for Mr. Stein, “grade A asshole” pretty much fits the bill, imo, with a side order of “smarmy prick”. Complete fail.
I have no clue what the bit concerning SPLC being discredited was about.
I tend to agree with this; for me, it’s not the politics, it’s the mode of editorializing.
I probably agree with most of Rachel Maddow’s politics, and i think she’s smart and witty and often incisive. But i just can’t stand the sort of face-to-camera didacticism that is part and parcel of shows like this. If i want a full-blown editorial or opinion piece about something, i prefer to read it, not be lectured at. And if i’m watching TV, i’d prefer to watch a good interview or a solid news story than a talking head holding forth directly to the camera.
I can live with the direct-to-camera stuff when its satire or humor like Colbert or Stewart. Not only is the style different, but they tend to cut back and forth to clips and images and other stuff, which breaks up the delivery. But when i watch someone like Maddow or Olberman just lecturing straight at me like they do, i just get annoyed.
