Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Maddow Fails to Question Huckabee On His Recent Anti-Gay Statements. Update: Maddow Responds

Posted by Ali Frick, Think Progress at 10:01 AM on November 21, 2008.


When contacted by ThinkProgress, Rachel Maddow explained her reasons for avoiding the subject of gay rights with Huckabee.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get Media and Technology in your
mailbox!

 

Since Prop. 8's passage in California, which revoked same-sex couples' right to marry, MSNBC host Rachel Maddow has been a powerful outspoken advocate of the rights of gay citizens. "The amendment does not just prohibit gay rights. It takes away rights previously enjoyed," she said. She has also called the vote a "rebuke to the incumbent rights of gay couples." Watch a mashup:

However, last night, Maddow was notably silent on the issue of gay rights when interviewing former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee. On Tuesday, Huckabee had insisted that gay rights and civil rights were totally different because gay rights activists' "skulls" weren't getting "cracked." On Wednesday morning, Huckabee claimed that Prop. 8 "did not prohibit" gay marriage; it "simply affirmed that which already has and forever has existed," he said.

During the seven-minute interview last night, however, Maddow never forced Huckabee to defend these claims. Instead, Maddow repeatedly asked him about his future presidential plans and speculated about the influence of the Christian Right in the GOP. Watch it:

Huckabee has equated homosexuality with bestiality and necrophilia, said that people have the "choice" to act gay, and actively pushed to criminalize sodomy, ban gay couples from adopting, and exclude gay partners from spousal survival benefits. Huckabee's views on gay rights are extreme, and deserve to be questioned.

Update: When contacted by ThinkProgress, Rachel Maddow explained her reasons for avoiding the subject of gay rights with Huckabee:
I weighed whether or not to ask him about his anti-gay views, but I really don't care about them very much. Huckabee is a doctrinaire anti-gay theocratic social conservative whose views are well-known and heartfelt. I also probably wouldn't bother asking Sarah Palin about her anti-gay views if I had the opportunity to interview her -- it's just not the most interesting or newsworthy (or ridiculous) thing about either of them.

Digg!

Tagged as: msnbc, maddow, huckabee, palin, presidential bid

Ali Frick is a Research Associate for The Progress Report and ThinkProgress.org at the Center for American Progress Action Fund.


Absurd: Joe 'the Plumber' to Become War Correspondent
Samuel "Joe" Wurzelbacher is heading to Israel as a war correspondent for a conservative website called pjtv.com.
Post by Isaac Fitzgerald. January 7, 2009.
The GOP and Technology = Water and Oil
It's just awkward (and funny) to listen to Republican leaders talk about how hip they are to the tools the kids are using on the tubes.
Post by Steve Benen. January 6, 2009.
Fox News Claims 'Magic Negro' Text Was 'Inadvertently Cleared for Air'
Fox New has a history of allowing racially-charged language aimed at Obama and his family to make it on air and then claiming it was simply a mistake
Post by Matt Corley. January 3, 2009.
Advertisement
Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
This is because Rachel . . .
Posted by: Scientz on Nov 21, 2008 10:18 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
. . . unlike most partisans, has A) a brain, and B) the good sense to use it.

Seriously, she gets applause for this one. I'm tired of partisan posturing that no one cares about.

"So, Tiger Woods, do you like golf?"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: This is because Rachel . . . Posted by: herronsmith
Huckabee
Posted by: Frank J. Burris on Nov 21, 2008 10:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I didn't get to see the whole interview on The View, but didn't Huckabee say that gays should have the right to employment discrimination protection? I think that's exceptionally progressive for a Republican. And what is his view on civil unions? If he supports those, that puts him on par with mainstream Democrats, at least in regard to this isue.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Huckabee Posted by: nrobyar
» RE: Huckabee Posted by: Quannah
» RE: SHuckabee Posted by: gazooks
» RE: SHuckabee Posted by: gazooks
Also...
Posted by: Xynyx on Nov 21, 2008 10:50 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why give him yet another opportunity to air such views?

Sure, to those of us who oppose him, he sounds ridiculous and hateful when he spouts such crap, but maybe that's not the effect such talk has on the majority. Don't give the man a husting for such rhetoric.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Why? I'll TELL you "why"! Posted by: rickiey
» RE:That's not why. Posted by: Longdream
Trailer trash
Posted by: cwilsondrum on Nov 21, 2008 11:48 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
he isn't worth an interview,why do people keep talking to him?
he must have a good agent.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The point of the interview
Posted by: kerastes on Nov 21, 2008 2:06 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The point of the interview was to ask Huckabee about his 2012 plans and where he thinks the Republican Party should go. She got answers, more about the latter than the former. So Huckabee wants the Republicans to embrace their base. Fine with me! I'd love to see their support shrink to 20%.

The gay rights issue, though very important to us, would have been a distraction to the interview. Even if Maddow made him look like a fool over his views, neither he nor the 20% of our contrymen are going to change their theocracy loving minds.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Rachel, in your response, you are wrong
Posted by: rickiey on Nov 21, 2008 2:07 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
it's just not the most interesting or newsworthy (or ridiculous) thing about either of them.

Yes, it IS the most ridiculous thing about him.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Rhymes with....
Posted by: Longdream on Nov 21, 2008 4:58 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Huckabee is as slippery as buttered peas. There is no one on the American scene who can voice his bigotry while sounding so sweet, reasonable and matter-of-fact. He's an expert semanticist, knows how to say things without saying them, and have his base hear one thing while he ostensibly says another.

There's no percentage in giving someone like him free rein, or trying to wrestle his bunny-rabbit-with-fangs=and-a-grin character. Rachel avoided that, and also avoided a confrontation in which it would have been said that she had a personal interest, perhaps a conflict.

Huckabee was probably thrown a bit off his game by not being asked his views on exactly how the words "civil" and "rights" don't apply to gay people, exactly what he means by his strange criterion of "not being knocked over the head", about whether he's heard the words "gay" and "bashing" being used together in a sentence, and if he has, did he take it to mean people throwing parties exclusively for gays.....all those up-to-the-minute things we've gotta know, or our journalist isn't doing her job.

Fuck that.

Nice work, Rachel.

If you'd done the predictable thing, we wouldn't be talking about Huckabee and his strange little world right now.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Huckabee has visionary solutions to problems with USA
Posted by: nrobyar on Nov 21, 2008 9:03 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I realize that it is very hard to find something negative on Huckabee so liberals choose to bash him for his views on marriage being a union of one man and one woman. He believes gays should have all civil rights but, let's look at facts. This issue was on the ballot in 30 states and in all 30 states the voters said NO to same sex marriage. I don't know what all the fuss is about. Why don't gays just get their own name for their unions and stop making an issue where there really is none.
Majority voted Obama as president and I wanted Huckabee. But I got Obama and I accept that. Accept the fact that majority said no to same sex marriage.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Huck...
Posted by: adp3d on Nov 22, 2008 3:20 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...is just another Republican lightweight whose constituency is so out of mainstream. I do think that Rachel should have called him out on his remarks.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Rachel had a problem...
Posted by: djnoll on Nov 22, 2008 9:14 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
because if she had asked Huckabee about this issue, she would have opened a line of attack against herself from this loathsome man. The Republican party and its bigoted base would love nothing better than to attack and discredit this intelligent woman journalist for her sexuality. She did not play into their hands by asking this question because it was not relevant to her line of questioning about a party that has relegated itself to regional politics in the South, and has lost much of its clout with the American people. Their views on gay marriage are going to be soon overturned in either the courts or at the polls, so it is irrelevant to what this man or any Republican has to say on the subject at this time.

Good for you, Rachel, in staying on the attack and getting answers that are relevant to issues that are important today, not questions about something that is personal between two people who love each other. Showing up bigotry and hypocrisy is often best left to those we do not take as seriously as journalists, and hard questions on issues affecting a free democracy are sometimes more important in the moment than one man's stupidity on an issue that is so close to you and those you love.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Exactly. Posted by: Longdream
waynep
Posted by: waynep on Nov 23, 2008 9:55 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I would like to make two points:
1.) The government needs to completely get out of the marriage business. It is a religious ceremony in which they have no legitimate input. Two adult human beings can go to the government, and document that they are now a partnership. If these two people find it important to have the churches blessing, they find a minister who will marry them. If they cannot find one, they do not get married, but it does not change anything in the eyes of the government.
2.) The argument that if the majority of voters do not approve of gay marriage, whatever we call it, then those rights should be denied holds no water in a responsible democracy. Democracy must be more than two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner. The only thing more dangerous to a democracy than a to powerful minority, is a to powerful majority. I can think of NO civil right that has ever been won in this country that would have received a majority vote of the eligible voters.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: waynep Posted by: phatkhat