If only the problem were that he is simply an idiot. The problem is that his ilk know perfectly well what they are doing, what they are saying, and they evidently have some broad plan to influence local and national policies about racial issues while hiding behind an appealing veneer of legitimacy and benevolence.

I know other commentators such as Chris Matthews have eschewed talking about the Arizona issue and other matters by making analogies to the racist policies of Nazism; however, there are cases in which the analogy seems quite rational.

What Matthews seems to forget is that the Nazis, before making war on Europe, made a sort of war on German citizens who happened to be of some "undesirable" race -- e.g. Jews, Gypsies -- or people who held "unnacceptable" beliefs -- e.g. democratic socialists, Freemasons, Jehovah's Witnesses.

Prior to unleashing violence and placing these and like groups in the camps, they waged a war of legislature, changing the laws, re-defining who was "undesirable" and "subhuman" (i.e. non-Aryan, non-white) and what was an "unacceptable idea" (e.g. liberal democratic beliefs, pacifism). One need only read the Nuremburg Laws to see how far they went in legislating their racism to provide the pretense for direct action.

These things start somewhere, almost shyly, apologetically, with spokespeople willing to tell the populace that they really intend no harm and have the best interests of society at heart. And I think Ms. Maddow has done a fine job in showing this group FAIR has enough connections to eugenicists, Social Darwinians, neo-Nazis, groups like the National Alliance and other white supremacist/seperatist movements, that it is a fair thing to rationally wonder in whose image FAIR wishes to remold the country.

With all due deference to Mr. Matthews, I do not think it is irrational to wonder if FAIR and its operatives are not in league with neo-Nazi or Nazi-esque movements, whatever names they go by.

After all, it is not what a person calls herself that matters when we attempt to define her allegiences -- it is what she does and and what she upholds in her ideals. And these people smell to high heaven of racist-fascism no matter how much Mr. Stein waves his hands and smirks and denies -- and, evidently, misleads and lies.

This gentleman was rude, patronizing, and arrogant. Rachel put him on defense immediately with facts and Mr. Stein didn't like that. Too bad, Dan. Bullying and talking over Rachel? Absolutely necessary when trying to justify and minimize a long-standing history of racism. By the way, the 85392 in my name is a Phoenix-area ZIP code. Thanks for all you do, Rachel and Staff!

how was he rude? Just because I disagree with pretty much everything he stands for - how does that make him rude. This was not a good interview for Rachel. Mr. Stein was polite and brought up legitimate concerns with her tactics. I was embarrassed for her.

I guess there always has to be one person that sees things a little differently.

Your disagreement with everything he stands for isn't what makes him rude, Texas Democrat. He was rude by continually talking over the interviewer, never allowing her to finish her question, and by suggesting that the research she did was not in fact hers, but that she was just taking talking points by some other group which he claims is a smear group with no credibility. Go to 6:30 and watch. He insulted her within 30 seconds from the time he started speaking, and Rachel remained remarkably calm throughout. THAT's what makes him rude.

Embarassed for her? SERIOUSLY?! I've never been so proud of an actual journalist that wasn't afraid to ask tough questions (which he NEVER answered btw.) Instead he tried to bully Rachel and she held her ground and then some! Dan Stein was OWNED in that interview and he knew it! You could tell the minute he started getting nasty--which was from practically from the VERY get go!

So THANK YOU Rachel! This Democrat, as always, was extremely impressed with your research and poise especially considering the circumstance! You were magnificent!!!!

Rachel wanted to paint FAIR as racist but there is a black professional on the board of directors, uncharacteristic of a white supremist group. What appears to be the case is a genuine concern for the effect of illegals on real Americans abilities to get jobs and there effects ongovernment expenditures for social programs. We are hemoraging red ink. They are all legitimate issues. Rachel was a dissappointment and needs to come out of her ivory tower to understand the economic effects on America.

Rachel....! U NaziKiller. :D

Gotta say that I'm in the camp that doesn't categorize this interview as one of Rachel's best. Aside from Stein's interrupting Rachel's questions he did a pretty good job of spinning the interview as Rachel doing a "guilt by association" attack (though he would have made a stronger point if he'd alluded to similar tactics used by Obama's opponents to link Obama to Bill Ayers and the Weathermen).

Disappointing...

I'm gonna have to go with you on this one, too. For instance, when he was making a valid point about that one person's presence on a panel held by a particular group and then the jump to what that group has said publicly. The point of presenting on a panel is usually to compare and contrast views. By definition that will have people who don't agree in the same room. They could have shown that picture of Rachel with the Birch guys and said she agreed with them. Rachel should have given him that one. This would have given more strength to her other points. I hope he comes on again. We're after the truth here, aren't we?

Rachel is right to point to FAIR's associations because 'you can tell a man by his friends' is a motto i live by and everyone should.

I also thought it was interesting to see this guy mouth off, a couple times i think, about the Democratic party and their policies caused the problem when....

1) nothing can be further from truth, reform has been discussed and debated for years and the Reps did nothing simply to protect big business interests wanting the cheap labor to come across the border. REPUBLICANS WANT ILLEGAL ALIENS!! That should be a topic on Rachels show. and...

2) I thought FAIR was a moderate voice for the media to use. apparently they have a political agenda againt the anti-racist party. I hope Rachel highlights that point too.

I believe Rachel is supposed to be Rhode scholar? What does it say about Rachel's credentials that she has not addressed the economics of illegal? Rachel has cultivated a public personna of being fair. How can you profess that attribute when you ignore the human costs to real americans as a result of illegals? How can you profess to be balance and in command of the facts when you function as a detractor and cheerleader without any presentation of economic data from illegals impact.

If this is an example of a Rhode scholar she is detracting from that reputation.

I must be old fashioned. It was my understanding latinos typically mark the box under caucasion when question on race. I though latinos were an association of nationalities. If that is the case then is the racist label appropriate from any notion? I realize that label is used profusely when you want to enflame, but I thought Rachel demonized Fox for the same tactics.

Illegals are creating real economic hardship in America from jobs taken to social program overload. Where is Rachel's data on that impact? Reagan amnestied 3 to 4 million illegals and twenty years later it is estimated another 20 million are here. Rachel start presenting facts instead of adding to America's economic burden.

Stein's comment 'You're wasting your time,' though aptly and amicably rebutted by Rachel was especially telling, and true in at least two senses.

First, Mr. Stein demonstrated both by demeanor and his statements that he had no intention of dealing directly with Rachel's questions or responding to the charge that his organization is founded and populated by activists of a white supremacist or segregationist bent. It is certainly relevant to assess the character of an organization through its founders, directors, and employees, information Rachel has publicized for her viewers; analogous assessments of character by witnesses are admissible in court, because it is simply not the case that our actions in relative privacy - letters, memos, meetings - have no relation to our motivations and public actions. Mr Stein was disingenuous and in difficulty to deny this, and resorted to ad hominem accusations against his hostess and her research to draw attention from the charges he could not defend without straightforwardly lying (which he seems to have done regarding PAN's funding despite this effort).

Second, Rachel was wasting her time in the interview, for three reasons. First, she did not corner Mr. Stein into making a positive claim about his organization's mission, or obtain a specific disavowal of any positions that have been considered racist. By focusing too much on a long list of FAIR's web of allegedly supremacist allies, Mr. Stein was able to wriggle free from addressing any issue of overtly racist influence on the organization through it's founder, etc.

Second, discussing the bill itself would have allowed Rachel to link the racial component of the bill, the impossibility of identifying an illegal immigrant without discriminatory considerations of racial background, peaceable assembly (e.g. in a work line), and other protected characteristics and behaviors. Since not even the governor who signed the bill has been able to explain how it can be implemented without recourse to racial profiling, a group with racist connections should be confronted with this issue in a bill it has 'written.'

Third, the fundamental question has still not been tackled by any media I have seen; that is, how our culture can reconcile it's ideals of openness and non-discrimination with the empirical trends that individuals from different backgrounds (Spanish speaking immigrants, muslim citizens and travelers, whatever) correlate strongly to behaviors in our society that need regulation. No one has offered a strong solution to this problem, or even addressed it head-on. Can a society remain open to all the benefits of cultural and still reduce its exposure to illegal immigration and vulnerable to attack? The solutions offered from the right certainly overuse the correlation of race and background with certain activities, while the methods of the left result in absurdities and waste like the intensified security screening of grandmothers at airports. Government and the citizen body must find a balance between using compelling data about social groups and remaining unobtrusive in the lives of innocent individuals of every background. I hope our society can reconcile its ideals with its facts, and I hope Rachel can contribute to this discussion urgently.

Thanks for all you do already, Rachel; you are an inspiration to this gay scholar.

a devoted but critical viewer

This man is neither an animal, nor and idiot.

He is concerned and has been for thirty years that there is an huge price to pay for importing cheap labor to continue to build our country. We're still paying the price for slavery, and this, sadly is another unfortunate chapter in the Empire.

The fact that there are racial and cultural aspects to this new wage slavery makes it an extremely sensitive and delicate discussion.

It is unfortunate, that our unemployment is high, thanks in no small part to the selfishly criminal geniuses on Wall Street, and yes, we want those jobs back, possibly. Sadly, there was a similar condition in pre-war Germany, and it's a mistake on Maddow's part to fan the flames of bigotry by association and her McCarthyistic media endightment of FAIR.

Dan is right, they didn't talk one bit about the issue or about F.A.I.R., only past associations with others.

Perfectly said!

The best Rachel Maddow is my hero wow !!!!!

The good doctor and her staff and researchers were in top form tonight. Best interview I've seen in... forever. Wow.

Rachel deserves a Pulitzer if anyone does for taking guys like this slime on and pulling no punches.

go watch the McCarthy hearings with Mr. Welch. It's amazing how much Rachel sounded like Senator McCarthy. Amazing and sad.

You honestly could have replaced Senator McCarthy with Jack Black in your complaint because it just doesn't make sense or it's really subjective.

Come on Texas Democrat stop trying to make us infer what you're trying to say. Spit it out.

The definition of mccarthyism, Texas Democrat!, refers to *unsubstantiated charges* and *slander*. Facts are by definition neither unsubstantiated nor slander (truth, no matter how unpleasant, is not slander). The things people connected with FAIR have written are *facts*. The racist things FAIR has funded are *facts*. The *fact* is FAIR repeatedly hired *proven* racists and has them on its Board of Directors. Mr. Stein's apparent argument that one cannot judge FAIR on the basis of who it hires or who runs it is patently asinine, as was his claim of mccarthyism on Rachel's part. That he assumed people were stupid enough to let him get away with the claim is the sad part.

Very Well Said! He, like his ilk, only lie. The Democrat from Texas is just that, "From Texas!" Most people from Texas ar Bushlike anyway!

Could be be a FAIR troll?

I see many possible FAIR comments on this story.

wow, tarnishing me because I am from Texas. - I was and am a proud supporter (financial and otherwise) of Barack Obama and the Democratic Party. My neighbors, many of whom are my friends, know my political beliefs well from the signs I posted in my yard and from many friendly discussions we have had. But if you choose to hate me because I am from Texas - actually a transplant from Pennsylvania - then you are no better than those who hate for other silly, superficial reasons.

Regarding the definition of McCarthyism, guilt by association was a major tool of his and Ms. Maddow used this extensively in her interview last night.

Bottom line, the bill is a horrible one and it would have been nice to see her debate its merits with the guy who wrote it. I'm pretty sure she would have won since she is smart - and she would have been right about the bill's flaws.

If you think my comparison with McCarthy doesn't make sense or is really subjective, go watch the Army-McCarthy hearing with Joseph Welch and Joe McCarthy. Then review Rachel's interview. I'm thinking she didn't need to use the grainy 25-year-old newspaper photo showing that a member of FAIR was once on a panel of an organization that had something racist as one of their beliefs. Does the racism trouble me? - absolutely. But does it mean that the FAIR member and therefore FAIR should be tarred with the same brush as that organization? That's more questionable. But once again, there is plenty wrong with the bill itself. Even the Republican party is split on whether to support it. Rachel should have debated the bill last night.

You and me both. I was so incredibly pissed for her. It wasn't just that he was denying things proven to be facts. It was that he was beyond rude. Like i said on Twitter: Tonight, I love Rachel, if for no other reason, than that she stay so calm and collected during this interview.

Still...that girl is AMAZINGLY composed, & persistent. I would have thrown that pen at his Cisco broadcasted face & told him to go @!$%# himself 30 seconds in! Brava!

I don't think it was her best but it had it's moments for sure. Guilt by association is perfectly legitimate, especially in this Arizona case. Why? Let's give Mr. Stein (is he a Jew?) the benefit of the doubt and say he and his organization is not racist. FAIR's founders needed money, numbers, and other help to gat a voice and they sold themselves out to those types of organizations to help them be viable. Being a racist, or just a whore to some is no difference. You can tell a man by his friends Mr. Stein and if you are what you claim, how's that herpes you got from your benefactors. This is why guilt by association matters, unfortunately herpes can't be cured. Unfortunately he wants to @!$%# everybody and everything he can without a condom so he can infect as many people as possible now with the help of the MSM giving him legitimacy, I hope Rachel goes after the MSM that helps this guy, even if NBC is guilty as well. C'mon Rachel, take the gloves off and fight these pricks every night.

It went badly because Stein tried to filibuster the interview, barely allowed Maddow to ask any questions and interrupted almost every question she was able to ask, attacked Maddow and the SPLC instead of addressing the content of those questions, and as we're seeing now, lied about the actions of his organisation. He deserved to have his microphone cut, and anyone but Maddow would have done it.

@Tony in Arizona-1786381 Seriously? "Didn't let the guest speak"?

Here's what liberals do: we check facts. So, let's have a look — just how much did Maddow not let him speak?

The interview starts at 5m45s and lasts until 19m30s. During those 13 minutes and 45 seconds, he was talking for 9 minutes 14 seconds (often over her attempts to ask a question).

I understand that racists, ultra-conservatives, and/or FAIR loyalists may not have enjoyed the interview. But saying that Rachel Maddow didn't let him speak is clearly, provably untrue, and the assertion that she was "belligerent" makes me wonder how on earth you would describe Stein's behavior.

Tony, I highly doubt you used to like Rachel's show. Mr Stein could not respond to any questions and was extremely hostile. I think he's defensive to having this information being publicized. This is supposed to be kept hush hush. Rachel, you must be on to something to get such a reaction.

So, Stein's "Nuh Uh" responses were to be taken as "Truth"?...Jeez this coward was back tracking from the outset. RMS researchers loaded both barrels and this blowhard wasn't prepared for that, so he pounded on the table...A losing tactic.

I don't believe you Tony

CNell is absolutely right. Watch the interview again and compare the amount of time Rachel speaks with that of her guest. It was he who was unnecessarily belligerent and wasted time by not addressing her questions in a calm reasonable fashion. He came across as a complete lout. Personally, I'm intrigued enough by her questions and his defensive snarky responses to do a little research on my own. I suggest you do the same.

Tony, what interview were you watching?

One of my favorite moments was when Rachel asked Mr. Stein, "What have I said was not factual?" His response was, "You failed to mention all the good things that F.A.I.R. has done."

On my planet, that was a comment on what Rachel didn't say, not a proper response to what he believed she said that was not factual.

I agree that this was a terrible interview. I watch
Rachel to hear intelligent discussion of the issues
on a subject, not just guilt by association. Illegal
immigration is a huge problem here in AZ, and across
the country. But in the current climate, anyone who
is against illegal immigration is automatically called
a racist. Instead of discussing racism, I would like to see
a real honest discussion about the causes, and effects of illegal
immigration.
We are in the middle of a huge economic downturn. Millions
of americans are out of work. Our state and local goverments
are going bankrupt. Through all of this, the proponents
of open borders believe that the illegal immigrants are above the
law.
Arizona is seeing crime going through the roof, and a lot of it
is being conducted by illegals. From murders, to kidnapping,
to human smuggling, to drug smuggling, to forgery of documents,
to identity theft, to driving unlicensed, and uninsured, these are
all happening almost every day here.
So what are we supposed to do? Do we ignore the problem because
almost all illegal immigrants in AZ are hispanic and we might
be accused of racism?
We are a nation of laws, and the people breaking the law need
to be held accountable. The people here illegally need to leave
or face the law.

Sorry, but this one goes to Mr Stein. He went toe to toe with Rachel Maddow, made her research on the subject look trivial and of questionable veracity. Most of all, he was not the least bit intimidated and it showed, especially at the end when he said "I thought we were going to talk about the bill," then "You're wasting peoples' time." Touche', Ms. Maddow. You lost that round.

The whole point of this interview was NOT to talk about the bill. It was to determine whether the evidence, which seemed to prove that FAIR had many racist connections, was true. First of all Rachel and MSNBC gave FAIR a fair shake by even inviting this guy on to defend the group. Only once did he actually respond to any of the accusations and it turns out he lied!

This is a bill that is widely found to be racist(by both democrats AND republicans, even the Tea Party star Marco Rubio!), and possibly unconstitutional. FAIR wrote the bill and if they are determined to have as many racist connections as it seems it is going to look horrible for Arizona and in the long run America.

We went through the civil rights movement 50 years ago. I am baffled by the fact that a bill like this was even passed, even though it's Arizona. I find it sad there are still people on capitol hill that are supporting this. They should be embarrassed and I hope that the November vote shows them where Americans stand. Against racism, against police states, against bigotry, For equality, for fairness, and for national unity!

I also live in Arizona, and I don't believe Tony used to like Rachel either. He's obviously one of the people in our state who agree with Brewer's poor planning and totally unsurprising results.

Stein is quite a piece of work -- just another member of the good-ol'-boy network (another real jerk of an interview was Richard Berman) who think that if they just start swinging at Rachel instead of answering her perfectly reasonable questions, they're going to come out on top. It's obvious to anyone who cares to LISTEN to what was being said, that Stein was indeed avoiding the questions and trying to re-direct things to make it look like he was a victim. What a guy.

I have to hand it to Rachel for keeping her cool as much as she did instead of just kicking that nut to the curb. She's a very intelligent woman who actually takes the time to do her homework before bringing up the questions she asks. The conservative good-ol'-boys obviously just can't deal with that, and it shows. She's be better off not wasting her time by giving these jerks the opportunity to enter into an intelligent discussion -- they just keep proving they don't deserve to be given the benefit of the doubt.

Ohhh! I feel like crying!

But "Viva! Viva! Reconquista!! Si, se puede!!!" Will Rachel address La Raza and the famous chant: "Por la raza, todo, Fuego la raza, nada?"

If you're gonna sic em, sic em all.

You people have got to be kidding. This was an excellent interview. STEIN EXPECTED LIBRARY ARCHIVED COMMUNICATION TO BE CONSIDERED PRIVATE?!!! Are you kidding me?

Rachel was informed. She was prepared. She wasn't going to sit there and let her show, which TRUE fans have a lot of respect for, be turned into a propaganda tool like FOX news.

Would you suggest she remain silent and smile like a FOX bobblehead while this fool lies, misrepresents his own history, and attempts to bully her?

THANK YOU RACHEL FOR RESPECTING MY TIME AND INTELLIGENCE BY STOPPING STEIN IN HIS TRACKS BEFORE HE COULD RUN LAPS OF CIRCULAR LOGIC AND AVOIDANCE AROUND REALITY!!!!

@LaurainAZ: I know you're concerned - many people are who listen to the useless mainstream news - but you might feel less worried about immigrants and crime, and gain a different perspective, if you saw the actual statistics rather than trust what politicians and the local media are saying. Here are a few general statements you made that can be refuted with some research:

"Illegal immigration is a huge problem here in AZ"

CNN fact check (http://edition.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/04/29/arizona.immigration.crime/): "Since a peak in 2000 of more than 600,000 illegal crossers apprehended, the number fell to 241,000 in 2009, Tucson Sector Public Affairs Officer Mario Escalante told CNN."

@LaurainAZ: "Arizona is seeing crime going through the roof, and a lot of it is being conducted by illegals. From murders, to kidnapping, to human smuggling, to drug smuggling, to forgery of documents, to identity theft, to driving unlicensed, and uninsured, these are all happening almost every day here."

CNN fact check (http://edition.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/04/29/arizona.immigration.crime/): "

from the U.S. Customs and Border Protection agency and the FBI indicate that both the number of illegal crossers and violent crime in general have actually decreased in the past several years.

According to FBI statistics, violent crimes reported in Arizona dropped by nearly 1,500 reported incidents between 2005 and 2008. Reported property crimes also fell, from about 287,000 reported incidents to 279,000 in the same period. These decreases are accentuated by the fact that Arizona's population grew by 600,000 between 2005 and 2008.

According to the nonpartisan Immigration Policy Institute, proponents of the bill "overlook two salient points: Crime rates have already been falling in Arizona for years despite the presence of unauthorized immigrants, and a century's worth of research has demonstrated that immigrants are less likely to commit crimes or be behind bars than the native-born."

The 2008 Arizona Crime Report is available online and comprehensively covers all crime types by age, gender and race. (You can find the PDF at this link: http://www.azdps.gov/About/Reports/docs/Crime_In_Arizona_Report_2008.pdf) In general, all crimes - murders, rapes, drug possession and sales, theft, etc. - were committed 80-90% of the time by WHITE people, with Hispanics accounting for approximately 30% of that 80-90%.

Thank you, Lisa Wines! Excellent post (and also saved me the time in having to do it :})!!!

I've also been curious why the fact Arizona's crime is going down isn't brought up unless certain people in Maricopa County want to take credit for being 'tough.' Granted crime is still high, but it is going down, and all without SB1070.

The same with the false claims about how many illegals are in the state and just what they cost Arizona. Whatever happened to Proposition 200 which passed in 2004 (Rachel brought it up last night, but there was no time to get into details)? That law makes it mandatory to show proof of citizenship to obtain any state funded benefits (e.g. welfare) or to vote in Arizona.

So if illegals are crossing the border to receive welfare and vote in our elections, then someone isn't doing his or her job, and why isn't that being looked into? Is it because it's easier to whip up hatred when one can just throw out made-up 'facts'? And why are these people allowed to do that without a challenge from the press?

BTW. yesterday the Arizona legislature rewrote sections of SB1070 to tighten up the vagueness. It's better, but still poorly written. Looks like the national outcry got their attention.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/election/azelections/articles/2010/04/29/20100429arizona-immigration-law-changes29-ON.html

Lisa and Haddie,

Please see page 63 of the report which Lisa cites. It shows the distribution

of arrests for each crime by Hispanic and non-Hispanic. Here are a few

highlights;

CRIME Hispanic Non-Hispanic

Murder 141 172

Rape 64 123

Robbery 859 1186

Agg Assault 2371 4371

burglary 1810 3297

theft 11592 22571

car theft 1247 1361

arson 79 183

Sub total 18163 33264

......many more crimes here

Grand total 21284 32975

So, it looks like around 40% of all crimes are being attributed

to Hispanics which make up, about 30% of the population.

As for the drop in crime over the last several years, one of the

most suspected reason is because Arizona's laws in these

years made it less attractive to illegals, as did the economy during

that timeframe.

The grand totals above should have been:

Total Hispanic non-Hispanic

106249 230746

#418

@LaurelinAz

I looked at the same pages you cited, and I don't think I'm looking at the same report you cited. You consider Hispanic vrs Nonhispanic, but in those same tables, the classifications are White, African Am, American Ind, Asian, Hispanic or Nonhispanic.

In those tables, the arrests under White are double to triple the arrests in any other catagoires, from rape, assault, drugs, murder, etc. I'm not exactly sure who the NonHispanics are, but them white folk got them all beat, whoever they are. Figures don't lie, but liars figure, chere.

Thanks, Lisa. I wish more people could see that all the hullabaloo about illegal immigration is noise meant to distract. Your jobs aren't being taken by illegal immigrants. Your jobs are being outsourced, and the economy is in the tank because of our fiscal and trade policy (not to mention our too regressive tax structure).

By the way, Bouldergeist, the quote is "Fuera de La Raza" which means "outside of the race" not "Fuego la Raza" which would mean "fire the race" if it were grammatically to mean anything at all. Try not to be an ignorant putz when attacking a group you know nothing about.

A FAIR troll!

Speaking of the website. I checked it out. Rachel could have gone with referencing what Fair was all about according to their buzzward: Amnesty! Obama was misrepresented as saying he wanted to pass a sweeping amnesty bill. There's the tie-in to the population thing. Also a good way (for them) to pump up fear of Immigration Reform -- which is what they're supposed to be for? They say we're for it, but present all serious attempts to do it as scary, lamnesty for illegal, bad, criminal. allien, job-stealing, fertile, etc. brown people.

Everyone and his brother knew that Rachel wasn't going to be fair. It would be like Olbermann interviewing Sarah Palin.

Keep this in mind: The Maricopa County Attorney’s Office has found that 22 percent of felonies in the county are committed by illegal immigrants. Illegal immigrants are estimated to be 9 percent of the county’s adult population. http://www.mcaodocuments.com/press/20081002_a-whitepaper.pdf

Immigration reform would be about our letting in the high-value people we want to let in, the same way other countries do it. No more of the Kennedy version of immigration.

And I nominate Bouldergeist to head the "Who gets in" committee. Come on.

As for worrying about what Olbermann would do, or like the others posting comments, what Chris Matthews would have done, or Fox News, etc, etc, etc--Rachel has her own style, like it or not. If this interview were instead a court hearing, with Rachel being a cross examiner and Mr. Stein on the witness stand, I could imagine the following taking place:

Mr. Stein: (red faced, ready to explode) Blah, blah, blah, unfair, blah, blah, blah, no I didn't, blah, blah, blah, and you, blah, blah, blah.

Dr. Maddow: Your honor, may I reserve the right to treat Mr. Stein as a hostile witness?

Judge: By all means. Please do.

And I nominate Bouldergeist to head the "Who gets in" committee. Come on.

Other countries do it. Why not us?

But "Viva! Viva! Reconquista!! Si, se puede!!!"

Interesting observation from the ConLaw Prof Blog:

Very good law. Everywhere around the World apply severe sanctions to illegal immigrants.
Why the United States have to be different?. What is the behaivor of Mexico with the cuban immigrants?; they apply hard hand over illegal cubans who are only looking for freedom, arrest them and send them back to Cuba, so, why they ask for a different behaivor?
The new Immigration Law S.B. 1070, is something good for our Country, to protect citizens against many delinquents and gangs, who are coming to U.S. to make our life in danger.
Good for the Arizona Governor, she have my support... and all states of USA have a good sample to apply the same law.

Posted by: Luis Regino Delgado

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/conlaw/2010/04/arizona-immigration-law.html

This is the elephant in the room the Aztlan crowd won't deal with. If we had Mexico's rules, we'd be throwing the whole lot of 'em into Joe Arpaio's tent cities. Why should we let these people in?

But "Viva! Viva! Reconquista!! Si, se puede!!!"

First, Maddow has covered the law extensively in previous shows. And second, donating $150,000 to Virginia Abernethy's organisation is a lot more than guilt by association. That's why Stein lied about it.

"I would much rather have heard about the law" - then visit the zillion other info spigots out there - all you're going to get is the same talking points. Make no mistake, Dan Stein probably spent the better part of the day being "media trained" and had everything covered - or so he thought. "guild by association" - hmmmmm. If it walks like a duck, ah you know the rest.

I am curious; at what point does one's background in racist ideologies or extremist associations not matter, especially when it comes to lobbying and the writing of legislation? The bill is directly related to racist ideologies about Anglo superiority, whether or not they were held by members of FAIR. Asking the question is necessary and valid. Rachel is just the only one, that I have seen thus far, that has dared to ask it. Motivation matters. Especially when it is for writing laws that are infringing on civil liberties.

Knowing the motivation could go a long way in answering the very questions you have about the bill. While hearing more about the details tonight may have been helpful, I strongly disagree with your claim that what she did tonight undercuts what she does or her credibility.

Gee Randy, you took the words right out of Mr. Stein's mouth. I think the point is that if you present yourself as a moderate organization, you need to be moderate and obviously FAIR isn't. You are the sum of your parts and if the major parts are right wing zealots, then you are hardly moderate. So many of these organizations use these acronyms that make them look "fair" or patriotic or grassroots when they are anything but what they purport themselves to be or to represent. Rachel was questioning the validity of them saying they weren't racist when obviously their founder and still board member, among others, in my opinion, is a racist. They are taking credit for writing what is clearly a racist bill while saying that it isn't racist. Their credibility was being questioned and rightly so, not Rachel's. I think Rachel did a great job as usual. Like many others have in the past, Mr. Stein tried to steer the conversation away from himself and his organization and when that didn't work, talked and shouted over Rachel, who beautifully, did not let him get away with it. She and her staff do impeccable research and if they are wrong, they'll say so on tomorrow's show. I wouldn't hold my breath.

At first, I have to agree (ashamed as I may be to admit) that I almost bought Stein's argument of guilt by association. But once Rachel kept bringing more..and More...and MORE people to light that had that "guilt by association"... if these are the people FAIR is employing, associating and aligning themselves with, it is obviously more than coincidental association. As Ms. Abernethy might be fond of saying, "Birds of a feather flock together." All Stein wanted to do was talk about what they put in their press releases that makes them look moderate and "warm and fuzzy". I agree with mabassca...you touched a nerve on something Rachel, and he was a wolverine backed into a corner. You go girl!

yeah, can your imagine the office parties?

I'm with Randy here. This was very much a Bill O'Reilly witch hunt style interview that I wasn't expecting to see on TRMS.

Randy, "guilt by association" is not complicity by contribution. Giving money to someone makes one an enabler of the action taken by the beneficiary. I don't give money to those with whom I disagree philosophically; I'm just not that altruistic.

So she should just interview the same people, liberals and sympathizers? I think it's a good thing when people are forced to defend their views and their organizations in the light of truth. Now, of course, most of these people would never dare to come on her show, which I will totally give credit to F.A.I.R. for doing.

But, his diatribe dominated 3/4 the talk time. And it was because she brought out uncomfortable FACTS about the people his organization employs.

And it's not like she googled their facebooks, this information was from places like public LIBRARIES.

you're exactly right. Fighting fire with fire is not always the right thing to do. Rachel could have had a civil discussion about a bad law and the important topics that surround it. Instead she searched the records to find every organizational connection these people have had in the last thirty years. Sure I disagree with him. Sure he might even be a jerk. But tell us what's wrong with the law - Tell him even! McCarthy tactics are wrong no matter who's using them.

She should interview on substance, as opposed to the McCarthy Rule. I generally love Rachel, but on this issue, she's jumped the shark. To me, it seems beyond conception that 70% of the Arizona people -- essentially, every non-Hispanic in the state -- is an inveterate racist.

Oops. Nasty diction shift.

So many of these organizations use these acronyms that make them look "fair" or patriotic or grassroots when they are anything but what they purport themselves to be

Exactly right. When a news organization has to repeatedly claim they are "fair and balanced" and when a group has to call themselves "Fair" the truth of the matter is they probably are not. People that are really fair, don't need to claim it or defend it all the time.

And as the Post Show Factcheck shows, Stein was clearly lying. Which is why he started talking over Rachel so much. He got caught. And the part about library items being "private papers" was just ridiculous. As were his repeated protest that the quotes being mentioned were 20 years old. What? Is there a statue of limitations on racism?

Funny how obvious the FAIR people came in to post today.

Let's use Rachel's Rule: Obama is a Marxist, having consorted with domestic terrorists like Bill Ayers. By her own logic, the Teabaggers are right!!!

no, not really. if you want to go by that rule, President Obama would have had to hire Bill Ayers, make him a cabinet member or some kind of czar. The people Rachel was questioning him about are EMPLOYEES and DIRECTORS of the organization! And she was not interviewing "Dan the man" to find out his individual beliefs, he was there to represent the ORGANIZATION, which includes all those employees and directors he'd rather not discuss!!

Obama might have done that, had it not been pointed out during the campaign. If Sen. Rachel McCarthy wants to play by House Un-American Affairs Committee rules, she should also play by them when they become inconvenient.

This interview failed, in my opinion, to address RM's initial premise: "Is FAIR a racist organization bent on keeping brown-black people out?" I find it sad that I must write the disclaimer I love RM's show and listen to it every night before bed to express an unfavorable opinion of the interview. I am a fan and will always be a fan of her show. In terms of how the interview represented FAIR, RM impuned the ideas of leaders and representitives motives and actions based on the company these leaders kept.

I was not a fan of how the right-wing portratyed Obama as an American hating race-monger durring the whole Rev Wright / Bill Ayers saga. The practice was disgusting and crude. Newscasters took papers written by Ayers, speaches by Wright and attributed Obama's ideas and actions to be in favor. Now as a liberal leaning person I find Ayers and Wright to be speaking to a generation they came from and I understand their writings and speeches whithin a certain context to be insightful and intelligent but I would never attribute Obama's ideas and actions to be in agreement or disagreement. I feel, as far as what was represented on television, that the interview was a lot of "see, your founder wrote this ergo your group believes it" statements. I feel that the president of FAIR could have avoided confrontation if he had outright told RM that the facts were wrong and answered "no" to very pointed questions, such as "Are you in agreement with your editorial director about the blah blah blah".

I do not speak ill of RM's researching techniques nor do I feel that she was wrong to bring up FAIR's past associations, former employees, rallies attended, or fund-raisers performed, after all it is the president's job to defend or distance himself and his organization from accusations, false or otherwise. But I must say I walked away from this interview unresolved. I still don't know for sure if FAIR is indeed a racist organization. If I were to base my opinion of FAIR on this interview alone, I would say that the group has evolved their positions over-time and could possibly be well meaning in their intentions to write the Arizona law.

Isn't the real story here that Arizona lawmakers need any outside organization to write laws for their state? Shouldn't the onus be on the Arizona legislature and not on the interest group that lobbied the bill? I feel this interview failed to answer those questions.

Keep, keeping on Miss Maddow. :D Better luck next time.

Rachel has done nothing, except to prove to all that, under her line of sophistic reasoning, Obama is a Marxist. Nice.

MayYouLiveInInterestingTimes

I think that Rachel did well to bring up the Eurentic (sp) of this group for the person Kris Korach (sp) helped write the bill and all others he has written in other states were all anti-brown/black people. This same person is running for Atty Gen of KS so he will have control of the vote rolls.

This is all about voting at the next election and republicans have historically removed blacks/browns from voting rolls. I beleive that is why Rachel brings up these facts about history of FAIR.

Also NeoNazi are associated with the group & for someone to say that there is a black person in FAIR as if that matters. We have historically seen blacks like Clarence Thomas do all of the dirty work of whites because it is to their own best interest. Remember Clarence Thomas is anti affirmative action but without it he would not have gone to college or gotten a great job as SCJudgist

Oh so well said and spoken....kudos and more...

Rachel was focused, serious and composed. It is just so stereotypical for women to be attacked for being emotional and your not going to get many to agree with you on that point. Perhaps you confuse a female that asks for respect and an answer to her question for belligerence and over wrought emotion.

Rachel Maddow specifically and repeatedly asked Stein at the beginning of the interview about whether she had her facts right, and he danced around the question. Just because Rachel Maddow is a woman does not mean she is emotional or does not deal with the facts like Keith Olbermann or Chris Matthews. And if you don't see Keith Olbermann as emotional, we are watching two different shows!

Seriously Steven????

I agree.

Also, Rachel claimed tonight that the Tea Party and small govt conservatives are not out there denouncing the AZ immigration law. That is not true. I am a small govt type and I am pro-immigration as are many Tea Party supporters.

See the following articles and posts from the Cato Institute:

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/20100427_U_S__needs_to_let_more_workers_in.html

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2010/04/27/misguided-fears-of-crime-fuel-arizona-immigration-law/

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2010/04/15/arizona-turns-immigrant-workers-into-criminals/

Yeah, I love Keith Olbermann to pieces, but he wouldn't have brought Stein onto his show at all, much less questioned him calmly. In fact, I won't be at all surprised if Keith calls Stein fifteen kinds of stupid on tomorrow's episode of Countdown. As for Chris Matthews, he talks over people and yells at them all the time. Are you sure it's MSNBC you're watching?

To be clear, I don't think that Rachel comes off as "shrill" - a real problem for how vehement women commentators and politicians can sound to many Americans. I have never seen Rachel as having that issue - she is actually a good role model in this regard for politicians like Nancy Pelosi and Sarah Palin, who both do sound shrill to me at times.

So good job Rachel - show women how to shout and debate without causing men to cringe. Now only if there were a good male role model to show Chris Matthews how to stop coming off as a misogynist.

Steven NYC, I think what you are watching here is real journalism -- i.e., asking tough questions that don't follow the talking points and digging deeper than sound bites. This is so rare in the media that it IS uncomfortable to watch sometimes. I've watched other interviews Rachel has done and have often felt the same way. But it's not Rachel Maddow being "abrasive" -- it's media-trained hacks thinking they can go on the teevee machine and have their talking points nodded to and um hummed and be patted on the back, thanks for coming who are the ones who are making the whole thing uncomfortable.

If this guy tonight had come prepared to talk about some of the good things his organization has supposedly done and explain why his associations with racists aren't relevant, he had every opportunity to do so. But he can't disassociate himself from those people so he started attacking Rachel for asking the questions. I agree with those who have said that relationships, backgrounds, and motivations matter. Either FAIR is with those people or they aren't, and this guy could not state for the record that they are not.

I believe the guy said on several occasions that the views Rachel quoted were not reflective of FAIR or himself. You may think he is a liar and a racist anyway - and that is certainly possible - but he did defend FAIR and make reasonable claims that Rachel had nothing of substance on why FAIR was guilty by being associated with people who said things like wanting to protect a white majority. I think people who want to protect a white majority, or who even think in those terms, will rapidly find themselves clinging to antiquated ideas in a multi-ethnic America. But those people are not the hopeless white supremacists that Rachel made them out to be.

That is where you are wrong. These are exactly the white supremacist s who are the most dangerous because they are hiding their real intent with benign seeming organizations and actively involved in writing legislation. Neo nazis are more like a mascot or caricature compared to people like this.

Ok, ok...pitchforks down...StevenNYC you've had enough!

I agree this interview got out of hand and RM admitted it saying "It was a shame this couldn't be more civil". RM is a journalist first! Women are more than capable of asking tough questions and getting to the heart of the matter. If they must use emotion to do it, all power to them. Consider emotion to be a very valuable weapon against tyranny. We all have our OPINIONS on how the fight went down. If you hated the guy from the start, you'll love that RM got in there and tore him to pieces...if you wanted to hear the guy respond to accusations...you saw a mauling. Either way I'm not comfortable comparing RM's interview to a fight, brawl, mauling, evisceration, or blood-bath...a civil debate on the issues was not had and I blame both parties involved. Steve is right.

It's obvious that some guys (and women, for that matter) really have a hard time with Rachel when they don't think she's being "ladylike" by backing off and letting the man do the talking.

I say she did her best to try to keep an evasive weasel from overtaking the interview with his dismissive, patronizing attitude and constantly avoiding answering the questions he was asked.

Rachel did okay -- and Stein did a great job of showing how much he and his ilk really do not want to play above board with any of this.

When you interviewed people from C street or people who fund the Tea Party movement for their own purposes, you are strident and abrasive when if you just asked fair and factual questions in a way like Keith Olbermann or Chris Matthews.

Um, what? Rachel is "strident and abrasive" but Keith and Chris Matthews aren't? I'm a huge Olbermann fan (Matthews not so much), but you're lost in space on this one. Rachel did her best to be respectful of a guest who was more interested in sermonizing and talking over her questions than engaging in an actual interview. I didn't expect much from Mr. Stein, but he managed to come off looking like an even bigger jerk than I thought he would.

Well put, lunarmagpie, and my thoughts exactly.

Rachel had her facts in order, and Stein did not address them, choosing instead to shout her down. The tea party "town hall memo" tactic.

Stein's behavior says much more about him and FAIR than he intended to convey about anything else.

Another Fair...its funny how they all love you except for this interview. I guess Stein is trying to spin it from his office and friends.

McCain never learned that it doesn't work that way...why would this Stein tool learn it?

That's how it works on Faux, sorry, FOX News . . . you go on, get fawned over by the host who agrees with you, and get sent on your merry way (or get talked over and allowed to speak for 30 seconds of the 45 minute "interview" by the host who disagrees with you).

Anyway, nice interview, much more substantive than Mr. Stein believes. He definitely needs a bit of a lesson in basic logical analysis and reasoning . . . like "if it looks like a cow, moos like a cow, and smells like a cow, it probably is a cow."

Wow, I know how birthers feel now.

Nothing this guy can say or do can convince you he does not hate blacks, browns and pokedots, eh? Perhaps if he showed you his love for black people by vonlunteering at black schools and did photo-ops with immigrant workers in Florida picking oranges...perhaps that will convince you....no?

Look he isn't Obama, I get it...bigger deal accusing the president of not being a citizen...but are we not doing what we accuse others of doing? Isn't that hypocritical on our part?

Rachel had a mountain of evidence against this guy. I am not sure your logic makes any sense. From this point forward this guy can join the NAACP and he would not be credible. Look at the people he hangs around with. Hasn't that been the argument on the side of Rebubs when it comes to Mr. Obama?

The "Bill O'Reilly Interview." It is what I despise in FAUX News. How can I excuse it on the other side of the fence?

Both parties have their crazy aunts in the attic. The Right has Sarah Palin, who is more qualified to be a porn star than a politician. The left has Al Sharpton. Sure, you are going to have undesirables in every tent. But what about the substance of the problem?

Who on earth said this guy was a republican? Are we going to generalize that he speaks for ALL republicans now?

You're right, we did jump to the conclusion that he's a Republican. Maybe it was the disdainful way he spit out the words, "a Democrat bill" that gave him away?

"Democrat good. Republican bad." It is the mirror image of the FAUX News fan.

George Washington was right. Faction is dangerous.

What are you talking about? The racist pig who founded the organization is still on the board of directors. She had more then enough fact about people directly working for the organization that was damning. There wasn't anything loosely affiliated about those vile people who have worked with FAIR. You sound like one of their shills. If this was a fist fight that guy would have had to have been air lifted to the hospital. Rachel went after him with facts and his main argument seemed to be was that he didn't like the facts.

It's called a pattern of behavior and I think Rachel laid it out perfectly. Yes, the man who founded the organization did so a long time ago, but he still is a board member and I'm sure if his views had changed Mr. Stein would have said so tonight. And "extremists on the left"??? Seriously????

I personally have to agree with D1L2K3. How can we expect to claim the moral highground in a debate, when we stoop to the same mis leading tactics that Hannity and his ilk use. I can't count the number of times that he's "proven how 'radical' Barack Obama" is by pointing out people he associated with in the past, or who are one of many advisors on any number of issues.

Maybe this organization is full of racists, but I don't think Rachel proved it yet. Except for the founder, who is one of what I assume is several members of the Board of Directors, there are no long term personel links to radicals. From the interview it sounds like most of the people worked for FAIR for a short time, or worked for them years ago. I would like to know how many people in policy positions currently hold similar p.o.v.'s to the people mentioned tonight.

If there are a signifcant number of people on the Board or in policy positons with these views then I will be the first to admit she was right, but so far I'm not convinced.

Does anyone else notice that all the posts complaining about Rachel being 'confrontational' and 'attacking' all read almost identical? As if there's some sort of script they're following?

I mean, they all start off saying they 'watched TRMS from the beginning' but all seem to have never seen an interview before- let alone this interview....

Yep, Jess, I noticed that too. Could be wrong, and it might not be all of them, but I have no doubt that FAIR rallied the troops for this one.

you know what... I agree. This interview was really horrible. Actually, it seemed like the interview never really got started. Dan Stein kept waiting and waiting to debate about the new law, and why Arizona needs it soo badly in this time of crisis. But Rachel kept attacking him about FAIR being a racist org. It seemed like she did her research, and found a couple of racist people who used to be on FAIR's board, but she just was not going anywhere with the info she had. Just when it looked like the debate was about to begin, she ended the interview. What the... ???? I was laughing my butt off, when Dan said.. "That's it?? Don't you want to talk about Arizona's new Law???" LOL.. I was really hoping there would have been a good debate about the illegal alien issue in AZ and all the problems it's been causing there, which lead to this law being passed. but it never happen...

Agreed, but I doubt that message will get through the "Rachel is teh Aw3som3" noise. Not saying that she doesn't read the blog, just saying it's 100 vrs 1 Mil out here. Please, for the sake of all of us...have the guy back on and actually discuss issues....not the group.

Jess, I'm new to the site, but I'm not a FAIR shill. Since you are hearing the same thing out of the critics, let me perhaps offer something different. I was disappointed in this interview, and I compare it to her discussion with that Burman guy. Think that's his name - the one who creates all the phony grassroots organizations. When she interviewed him, she was calm and methodical. And she eviscerated him. That interview had much more punch because of her approach.

I don't know much about FAIR. I'll trust Rachel that they are bad folk, but I wish she'd spent more time on their direct bad history, rather than the associations of their employees. More "donated to Abernethy" and less "talked to people who wrote nasty things in a journal", please.

BethanyAnne, the guy would not give her a chance. he was the one who attacked her from the outset and was practically screaming at her.

also she was building her case to ask about the current bill of AZ by giving the background of the group. That is that way you build your case of why you think a certain way. After building the case than you would ask why is it that Kris Korupt (SP) who is running for Atty Gen in KS wrote the bill for AZ & left loophole that allowed ppl to sue if police not do their jobs, he also will be the one to 'train' police on how to spot an illegal; etc

This same Kris is also in cohoots with NeoNazi groups, was part of the Pres Bush Jr legal team don't know if he took part of Wo's Torture bill

Rachael, grow up by toning down the emotions and turning up the facts.

Her name is handily spelled for you right at the top of your computer screen. Talk about facts? Also, she cited facts for every question she asked -- but you might have missed that under Mr Stein's emotional yelling.

There is so much else wrong with your comment that I can't even begin to address it. (Seriously? Fair and factual questions like CHRIS MATTHEWS???)

hey, the name is spelled wrong but the message is essentially correct. Let's beat them with facts. It's easy to do.