Pawlenty Does Maddow. Heh.
By Brian Lambert
Sorry, the hed was too easy.
(Oh, and before I bury the lead, yours truly and Sarah Janecek will be filling in/auditioning Wednesday and Thursday on WCCO-AM from noon to 3 p.m. Think of it as Modulated Shades of KTLK. We are committed to something less fraught with risk of bodily harm and scarring than we did in '06 . . . but just as compelling. Feel free to offer abundant criticism.)
But yes, breaking from a grand tradition of Republican politicians hiding from MSNBC's ferocious liberals—Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow—Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty popped up in a brief segment on Maddow's show last night to reconcile his, um, principled, disapproval of the $787 billion stimulus bill, signed into law by President Obama earlier in the day, with his eagerness to get his paws on our share of the cash now that it's, you know, a done deal.
Maddow made emphatic note of Pawlenty's willingness to appear and subject himself to something other than a fellow traveler licking him for standing up to "socialism." (Actually, Maddow just thanked him and told him how much she appreciated his time, I added the rest of that stuff.)
The barely four-minute interview didn't add up to much, with Maddow pressing pretty much one line of questioning—namely, "How can you in good conscience be opposed to the bill and still take the dough?"—and Pawlenty defending himself on the grounds that we Minnesotans only get back seventy-two cents for every dollar in federal taxes we ship to D.C. and how he was in favor of "a stimulus, just not this stimulus," a bill cobbled together with so little bipartisanship.
(Oh, and while you're at it Governor, why don't we stop there and remind our viewer/constituents how much more rock-ribbed Red States take back per capita than they give in to the common fund . . . and yet still whine about the big, bad old federal government forever wasting their money?)
Frankly, rather than just play cute with Pawlenty, trying to tease him into saying, "Oh, OK, you got me there, Rachel, I'm a hypocrite when it comes to free money," it would have been a lot more fun if Maddow got Pawlenty—or any Republican—to demonstrate the depth of their thinking on this economic disaster and the specifics of the, uh, "plan," they were so united in, uh, "presenting" to the public.
Pawlenty's deft dodge on the stimulus was, of course, that there were "better ways" to achieve more impact with less. Really? Now that grabs my attention, Governor. I am all ears. Don't let me interrupt you. Do you mind if I take notes?
Just please tell me you've got something other than tax cuts for Tom Petters, et al.
But all that aside, I have to give Pawlenty props for doing something John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, and even this new rat terrier, Eric Cantor, haven't been able to do . . . namely, man up and match wits with someone other than the guys trimming the crust off their toast.
I am not one of those chumps who is either incapable of noticing or afraid of saying that there is a stunning difference in qualitative factuality (if that's a phrase) between the partisans on FoxNews and those on MSNBC. The respective reporting correspondents aren't even in the same league. While MSNBC is tapping The Washington Post, Newsweek, The New York Times, etc., FoxNews is tapping . . . well, FoxNews, Karl Rove, John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, and Cantor the Rat Terrier.
Sure, sure, Olbermann goes off like a bad Vegas Ed Murrow impersonator from time to time. But if the specific facts used to support your argument mean anything--(here's a hint, they should)--MSNBC prime time is a natural evolution of actual journalism while FoxNews is forever a marketing gimmick.
Ms. Maddow has brought a very appealing quality to MSNBC's apparently intimidating lineup of GOP-munchers . . . she asks short questions then shuts up long enough for her guests to answer. (If only they could inject a little of her into Chris Matthews.) You don't watch her show and cringe at the sight of the guy trying way too hard to be the biggest swinging, uh, shtick, in town.
Maddow appeared a bit too excited to have an actual breathing Republican in her lair Tuesday night (and perhaps underestimated Pawlenty's guileless affect), but she clearly recognized the value in even a small crack in the partisan barrier. (I've said before that what Olbermann's show lacks is him testing his footwork against the likes of Rove. But that does require Rove agreeing to come to the dance.)
As for Pawlenty . . . well, being a member of a party that thinks only some combination (or spawn) of Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin holds the lamp to guide them out of the forest . . . the ambitious politician in him, craving more time on the national stage, has to know that demonstrating courage enough to take a couple zingers from the new gay chick in town is almost like looking "bipartisan."
(Oh, and before I bury the lead, yours truly and Sarah Janecek will be filling in/auditioning Wednesday and Thursday on WCCO-AM from noon to 3 p.m. Think of it as Modulated Shades of KTLK. We are committed to something less fraught with risk of bodily harm and scarring than we did in '06 . . . but just as compelling. Feel free to offer abundant criticism.)
But yes, breaking from a grand tradition of Republican politicians hiding from MSNBC's ferocious liberals—Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow—Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty popped up in a brief segment on Maddow's show last night to reconcile his, um, principled, disapproval of the $787 billion stimulus bill, signed into law by President Obama earlier in the day, with his eagerness to get his paws on our share of the cash now that it's, you know, a done deal.
Maddow made emphatic note of Pawlenty's willingness to appear and subject himself to something other than a fellow traveler licking him for standing up to "socialism." (Actually, Maddow just thanked him and told him how much she appreciated his time, I added the rest of that stuff.)
The barely four-minute interview didn't add up to much, with Maddow pressing pretty much one line of questioning—namely, "How can you in good conscience be opposed to the bill and still take the dough?"—and Pawlenty defending himself on the grounds that we Minnesotans only get back seventy-two cents for every dollar in federal taxes we ship to D.C. and how he was in favor of "a stimulus, just not this stimulus," a bill cobbled together with so little bipartisanship.
(Oh, and while you're at it Governor, why don't we stop there and remind our viewer/constituents how much more rock-ribbed Red States take back per capita than they give in to the common fund . . . and yet still whine about the big, bad old federal government forever wasting their money?)
Frankly, rather than just play cute with Pawlenty, trying to tease him into saying, "Oh, OK, you got me there, Rachel, I'm a hypocrite when it comes to free money," it would have been a lot more fun if Maddow got Pawlenty—or any Republican—to demonstrate the depth of their thinking on this economic disaster and the specifics of the, uh, "plan," they were so united in, uh, "presenting" to the public.
Pawlenty's deft dodge on the stimulus was, of course, that there were "better ways" to achieve more impact with less. Really? Now that grabs my attention, Governor. I am all ears. Don't let me interrupt you. Do you mind if I take notes?
Just please tell me you've got something other than tax cuts for Tom Petters, et al.
But all that aside, I have to give Pawlenty props for doing something John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, and even this new rat terrier, Eric Cantor, haven't been able to do . . . namely, man up and match wits with someone other than the guys trimming the crust off their toast.
I am not one of those chumps who is either incapable of noticing or afraid of saying that there is a stunning difference in qualitative factuality (if that's a phrase) between the partisans on FoxNews and those on MSNBC. The respective reporting correspondents aren't even in the same league. While MSNBC is tapping The Washington Post, Newsweek, The New York Times, etc., FoxNews is tapping . . . well, FoxNews, Karl Rove, John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, and Cantor the Rat Terrier.
Sure, sure, Olbermann goes off like a bad Vegas Ed Murrow impersonator from time to time. But if the specific facts used to support your argument mean anything--(here's a hint, they should)--MSNBC prime time is a natural evolution of actual journalism while FoxNews is forever a marketing gimmick.
Ms. Maddow has brought a very appealing quality to MSNBC's apparently intimidating lineup of GOP-munchers . . . she asks short questions then shuts up long enough for her guests to answer. (If only they could inject a little of her into Chris Matthews.) You don't watch her show and cringe at the sight of the guy trying way too hard to be the biggest swinging, uh, shtick, in town.
Maddow appeared a bit too excited to have an actual breathing Republican in her lair Tuesday night (and perhaps underestimated Pawlenty's guileless affect), but she clearly recognized the value in even a small crack in the partisan barrier. (I've said before that what Olbermann's show lacks is him testing his footwork against the likes of Rove. But that does require Rove agreeing to come to the dance.)
As for Pawlenty . . . well, being a member of a party that thinks only some combination (or spawn) of Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin holds the lamp to guide them out of the forest . . . the ambitious politician in him, craving more time on the national stage, has to know that demonstrating courage enough to take a couple zingers from the new gay chick in town is almost like looking "bipartisan."
© 2008 MSP Communications, Inc. All rights reserved
You know this non-partisan rant is b*llsh%t of course. Obama bent over backwards to try and placate a underwhelming voice of a massive minority Republican caucus -- inviting them to the White House, changing the scope of the economic stimulus package to accomodate their "cut taxes" more and more and there can never be enough tax cuts philosophy and then at the end of the day, after Rush Limbaugh announced he wanted Obama to fail and the economic bloodletting to continue, the GOP bailed on bipartisanship and promptly announced it was Obama's fault.
These kinds of actions make it abundantly clear the Republicans are never to be trusted. And furthermore, their crass political spin and manipulations are the cause of a huge mistrust not only in government but on Wall Street and in the Banks. The Republicans created a culture of mistrust through the manipulation of truth for the last 8 years and we a citizens should tell them in no uncertain terms: we've had enough of you dishonest CRAP!
LAMBERT: Steady. Steady. The bastards are down. Maybe not out, but seriously down.
Posted by: Richard on February 18, 2009 at 9:44 AM
So if Minnesota received back more than we sent, he would turn down the stim? Oh, sure.
LAMBERT: It is to laugh.
Posted by: momkat on February 18, 2009 at 10:26 AM
"MSNBC prime time is a natural evolution of actual journalism "
I guess that depend on who you ask. Spinning news, name calling, emotional manipulation is ok as long as it comes from an MSNBC sports anchor turned "jounralist". All the talk that has been done on this blog on acting like adults - the annoited hero openly calls people he disagrees with childish names. How many times as Rolland Burris been listed as the worst person in the world? Blago? Jefferson from Louisiana? The competing program which I am sure is inferior to Olberman's (while still rated higher) brilliance also brings on journalists from Newsweek, major city newspapers, and politicans from both sides of the aisle. I think it is not so much of the guests courage to come on Olberman's program, but his inability to debate an opposting point of view tactfully. Sounds like qualifications for a Democrat nomination to the Senate.
LAMBERT: I'll have to do a "reporter" check on MSNBC and FoxNews sometime soon.
Posted by: Namzso on February 18, 2009 at 10:48 AM
The interview was interesting, and before the break Maddow did give the run-up about Pawlenty having the guile/guts to come on the show.
Your take on the factuality is spot on. Seriously, Shep Smith reports the news, and I like him. But there's ALWAYS a blurring between news and opinion, and no doubt its driven by the opinion guys over there - witness Hannity for MONTHS going on about Ayers and "connections" trying so hard to make it a "news" item, regardless what the facts are (to say nothing about actual polls (and don't you love Hannity's 8 minutes long set-up "questions"?).
I'll take a Rhodes Scholar over the mouth breathers on Fox. Seriously, does Fred Barnes or Kristol have ANY credibility on anything anymore? Barnes especially can be downright delusional.
It was under-reported but how great was it for Fox to take a GOP press release verbatim (with spelling mistakes) and use it on the air. Verbatim. Got to love Fox. They report...whatever they want to, damn the facts or opposing points of view!
LAMBERT: It's a long stretch to say there is any comparison at all. But when you're playing the "on the one hand this and the other hand that" game, and avoiding maqking any qualitative judgments, it's better to play blind and deaf.
Posted by: essar1 on February 18, 2009 at 11:48 AM
Lambert,
Been reading for a while but this is my first time to comment. I appreciate the spirit of this post, but I find the letter of it rather off-putting. The phrases in question include, most notably, "Pawlenty Does Maddow" and, at your conclusion, describing Maddow as "the new gay chick in town".
I agree wholeheartedly with your observations of "qualitative factuality"--hell yeah, that should be a phrase!--but your rather cliche and cavalier treatment of Maddow inflects this post with a tone bordering on petty.
I call to attention, in particular, your last line, in which you refer to Maddow as "the new gay chick in town". I can see how you could describe her as "new", as I understand you've been a member of the media much longer than she has. However, she was also a Rhodes scholar and has a PhD in political science from Oxford. (Not great journalism credentials, to be sure, but pretty decent credentials in general, no?)
Also, I take a bit of offense to sidelining her as a "gay" "chick". She is a queer advocate and one of the few publicly outspoken gay people that turn up on a national level. For many in the gay community, her rise to prominence has been nothing short of uplifting; when was the last time we saw someone who liked like her garner such accolades?
Also, your rather casual-seeming reference to her as a "chick" indicates not only your blindness to the importance of non-gender-conforming women on national TV but also your dismissiveness of Maddow, who (polls suggest) happens to be a very important force in forming the new liberal public opinion.
Keep writing, Lambert but don't let your vocabulary mark you obsolete before your time.
Regards,
KC
St. Paul
LAMBERT: It's always a problem when you have to diagram a joke, but what I was trying to get across was that Pawlenty, seeking to establish himself in "bi-partisan" territory not only goes on MSNBC, but accepts an invitation to talk to the "gay chick", which is getting about as far out there with bi-partisanship as any family values base Republican can imagine.
Posted by: KC on February 18, 2009 at 1:02 PM
I genuinely miss the Lambert and Janacek Show (or whatever the hell you called it) from KTLK.
When it comes to "red states" being more likely to get more from the federal government than they give, I say that's great. That's more money that's more likely to be better spent by a more local, "red-state" government (you know, while we're in the business of generalizing).
If you and Sarah get a new gig comparable to the old KTLK digs, I'll glady trim the crust from your toast.
LAMBERT: Thanks. Easy on the butter, please.
Posted by: Mike Keliher on February 18, 2009 at 1:03 PM
Seen this?
http://mygovischeatingonme.com/quiz.html
LAMBERT: Ha!
It reads:
Do the headlines have you wondering? Here are the surprising signs your Guv is being unfaithful.
Instructions: Answer "Yes" or "No" to each of the questions below. Add up the number of "Yes" answers as you go.
1. Is your Gov a favorite guest of numerous Sunday morning talk shows and referred to as “possible presidential candidate” when introduced?
2. Has your Gov cut funding for programs of the people most in need – in order to impress right-wing conservatives like Grover Norquist?
3. Do you find your Gov is constantly jet setting – like to stump for losing presidential candidates – instead of staying at home and dealing with the state’s largest economic crisis in decades?
4. Is your Gov reluctant to talk to you about the future – or is making accounting shifts to push your state’s debt burden down the road a couple of years instead of dealing with it now?
5. Did your Gov refuse to stick up for your state in lobbying to get more projects in the national economic recovery package proposed by President Obama?
6. Is your Gov constantly talking about programs and policies that don't work – like JOBZ and QCOMP?
7. Does your Gov not tell you – or the media – where he’s going (even though he’s paid with taxpayer dollars)?
If you answered yes...
1-2 times: Congratulations! Your Guv is a keeper!
3-5 times: Be wary, your Guv might be looking around. Click here for 7 signs he's planning on moving on.
6-7 times: WARNING! Your Governor is looking around for sure. Consider writing a letter to let him know how you feel.
Posted by: Susan Berkson on February 18, 2009 at 5:35 PM
Congrats on the radio tryout, and if there's any justice, it should turn into a long-term gig.
And as far as Fox News/MSNBC comparisons go, try watching an hour of the new "Hannity" show. He apparently hopes to inject some sort of sardonic Olbermann-like humor into his show. But it comes off as some really bad SNL spoof of a conservative TV talker.
I might be a liberal, but I wouldn't mind seeing a decent conservative equivalent to Olbermann. But Hannity isn't it. I listened to Rush early in his career, and he was pretty darn entertaining. Until he crossed that line from being self-assured to simply being a tone deaf blowhard.
LAMBERT: I am forever stunned at the corny, semi-hysterical shtick that programmers obviously believe conservative talk audiences respond to.
Posted by: Rick Ellis on February 18, 2009 at 10:48 PM
Likely you know this, since your contacts are more deeply embedded than mine. But just learned that the Strib is pole-axing Nick Coleman in favor of fresh new voices or some such waffle-talk.
LAMBERT: And they have yet to say anything about it.
Posted by: barbara on February 19, 2009 at 5:29 PM
KTLK? Wasn't that where Bachmann just drooled on the furniture? Don't go back there without a hazmat suit. Dumb may be catching, as there seems to be a awful lot of afflicted Republicans.
I love Rachel Maddow; it's the first time I've ever knowingly had a crush on a lesbian. What doesn't get noticed about her is that she works very hard. She is a policy wonk who masters the fields she discusses. She often says she doesn't know anything about x or y, but that's relative to the real experts; compared the wankers on the networks, there is no comparison. What an astonishing idea: know something before you shoot off your mouth.
LAMBERT: I appreciate that qualifier about "knowingly". I think I've been there, too. But damn would I pay good money to see a debate between her and Sean Hannity ...
Posted by: john sherman on February 19, 2009 at 10:37 PM
What do you think would happen if Bill Moyers found out Rachel Maddow is gay?
LAMBERT: He'd do a public affairs documentary on "The Lesbian Ethic".
Posted by: 108 on February 20, 2009 at 7:16 AM