Web exclusive! Web Exclusive! Everyone loves a web exclusive! Especially when it involves Rachel in Alaska having a fascinating and enlightening conversation with Joe Miller supporters about why they support their candidate. We played a short clip of this on the show last night, but we thought you might be interested in the longer cut we unfortunately didn't have time for. One Miller supporter, who we are sure is a very lovely woman, is convinced that the New Black Panther Party-- two guys who the Bush Justice Department investigated and decided to ignore, are relevant in the election this year and they are not being prosecuted because they're black.
Transcript after the jump.
Woman: Make sure you know that Lisa [Murkowski] confirmed Eric Holder and we disagree with that
Rachel Maddow: She what?
Woman: She voted to confirm Eric Holder
RM: and why are you against that?
Woman: because we're --
Man: --the most anti-gun attorney general this country has ever had.
RM: What's he done against guns?
Man: Well what hasn't he done against guns, let's ask that question, let's look at what his voting record beforehand --
RM: Eric Holder wasn't an elected official.
Man: Well - hey - you know all I'm asking is look at his record with Obama then, look at --
RM: What's he done on guns that you're upset about though, just so I --
Man: I don't know enough about that to answer that truthfully, Rachel
RM: Can i just ask what you are upset about Eric Holder?
Woman: because he's anti gun
RM: What has he done that's anti gun/
Woman: I don't have all the facts but i know that he is anti gun
RM: There's no specific thing that he's done that's anti gun?
Man: Just look at his press releases, that's all i say just look at his press releases, look where he's coming from
Woman -- yeah look at his press releases --
RM: I will but what press release -- about what?.
man: anything - just type into google Eric Holder 2nd amendment or Eric Holder and firearms, and you'll find plenty of ammo to go
RM: There's no specific thing he's done that you're upset about?
Woman #2: Yes there is
RM: What is it?
Woman #2: The voter intimidation and the black panthers
RM: That's -
Woman#2: That's what I'm upset about Eric Holder for, and Lisa Murkowski supported him. when they had those people out there in their military uniforms and nightsticks, and he refused to prosecute em because they were black? and that's what's happening in our judicial system right now? there's an investigation on it, how many people don't know about this
RM: You think in the lower 48 the New Black Panthers are making a difference.
Man: You won't have them up here.
RM: How come:
Man: It just, the way how the country, this state is set up. It's not conducive for what they're trying to do.
RM: Do you think the New Black Panthers are active in a lot of the lower 48?
Man: Uh, major cities. I'll just say major cities because I doubt they all have the support in the suburbs and in the, uh, counties outlying the cities.
RM: So do you know, I mean, what you are talking about is one specific precinct that you are saying they made a difference, but you think they have a broader influence.
Woman#2: You know what I am a busy mother and a busy American. I don't have time to follow every issue.
RM: I'm just trying to understand your concerns because you expressed them to me, so…
Woman#2: And who are you?
RM: My name's Rachel!
Woman#2: Are you Rachel Ma-? Oh! MSNBC. I've watched you very little.
RM: Oh thank you! Don't tell anybody! This is going to ruin your reputation.
Leave a Comment:
I love you Rachel.
But that wasn't the full clip *pouts*
Good grief, where do these people come from. Their stupidity is only out done by their paranoia. Classic example of low or no information voters.
Contrary to all indications, they came from the same country and educational system we did. They're just mentally wired as if they came from Bizarro America.
Reading this just makes me want to give up. There's no way our boring reality can compete with the vibrant fictions of these paranoid minds. Nothing anyone can say to these people, nothing they can show them, will open their eyes and alleviate their fears. They seem genuinely terrified to take that first step into the real world, and the only time they feel safe is when some talking head tells them they're safe.
I'd say it's sad, but at this point, it's just disgusting.
Take that guy who called Holder the most 'anti-gun' AG ever and offered his voting record as proof. When Rachel pointed out that he hadn't been an elected official, which pretty much exploded his case, without missing a beat he switched to a vague reference to press releases. And when lightly pushed to name something specific, he admitted he couldn't. But I very much doubt he came away from the encounter with his faith in the proposition that Eric Holder 'anti-gun' shaken at all, even though he had to admit he had nothing. In his fact-free mentality, that's probably not going to bother him. And it wouldn't surprise me at all if he went away from that encounter mentally revising the incident so that he got the better of Rachel.
But I have to argue a bit with your statement that "the only time they feel safe is when some talking head tells them they're safe." They will never feel safe because their leaders would never tell them that they are; if the followers lose their fear, the leaders lose their hold.
Exactly! These two were completely stupid. First of all the 2 New Black Panthers are half of the entire group and second the place where they claimed they stood with clubs was actually a housing project in a neighborhood in Philly that is I believe 65% African American. It was one of the poll places where people could vote. I saw a clip once and not only were there no complaints filed back in 2008 when this happened but, I don't think I saw one White person going in to vote during the clip. Now, I'm only making this point because I find it had to believe that those two dolts Rachel spoke to give a damn about any African Americans, let alone those who live in the projects. And the guy who suggested that Rachel google this stuff should probably have done that himself since he couldn't prove what he was saying. Pure morons! They didn't seem to get that Bush didn't prosecute because there were no complaints.
Um, that woman... "And who are you?"
lolwhut.
ahhhh the reach of the Fox News propaganda machine is shockingly far... and north!
Actually I think the guy talking about google was giving a moment of honesty that he didn't realize he was giving. When he said just google the term Eric Holder and 2nd Amendment, or google Eric Holder and Gun Rights I think he was admitting that's where he gets his information from. He was talking about the "press releases" Eric Holder has, had under such google phrases. As Maddowblog showed earlier (and as you can research yourself), when you actually google those terms you get a bunch of websites talking about how Holder is against guns or going to restrict gun rights. Many of the first websites that pop up are conspiracy theorist sites or radical right-wing sites. Many more are right-wing blog sites. Many, many more are articles released from news organizations that you'd assume to be reputable at first glance- such as Fox News- but once you actually read the article you see very clearly that the author is against Holder (or Obama, or both). Now before anyone says anything, I honest to God don't believe people realize Fox News is conservatively biased. I think half of the people who watch it and are conservatives do know it's biased (and watch for that reason) and the other half are Independents or undecided voters who hand-over-heart believe what they are hearing is news (truth). I honestly believe this is the inherent danger from right wing (or by that same extension, left wing) slanted news broadcasts. People don't realize they are watching something that's factually skewed. So someone watches Fox, for example, and hears Glenn Beck say "Holder and Obama want to take your guns away." They then go to the googles and type in Obama+guns or Holder+guns and get a right wing blog site that says "Holder and Obama want to take your guns away." They then scroll down and find the Wall Street Journal (something they'd otherwise see as reputable) say "Holder and Obama want to take your guns away." Andvoila- you have someone vehemently believing his or her gun rights are in danger without really knowing exactly why or how. As the one woman says, she works and has a family. None of these individuals have time to go dismantle thousands and thousands of pages worth of case law and gun policies. They expect and trust the media to do so and inform them when something is afoot. If the media took it's role serious as Watchdog of the people you wouldn't have someone like Miller ever getting near electoral potential (at least without coming towards the middle). Because he doesn't have to inform the media, because the media will make it's own garbage up, and because it will then get parroted back out on TV to the voter- see what I'm getting at? To reiterate Noodlehead- "I'd say it's sad, but at this point, it's just disgusting."
And that, my children, is why they call it the right-wing echo chamber.
Thats the difference between the Dems and the reich wing. We use facts in our arguments, all they have is fixed news force fed rhetoric.
This is the same kind of stuff that I see when I watch "man on the street" video shot at ANY and ALL "Tea Party" rallies. Just shockingly uninformed. Well, not uninformed, just clearly mis-informed and lied too by FOX.
"Look at Holder's voting record"
"Look at his press releases"
"Black Panthers are active in major cities"
I wish they had included the reaction when they were told it was the Bush DOJ that dropped charges.
There are people that will believe anything that is told to them by someone who says they are christian and believe in God. NO matter the thruth of it, this person or this news station that spout God and religious nonsense will believe, no matter the evidence shown to them, because a person of faith would never tell a lie! Why do you think the repubs do as well in elections as they do? The population is played, by thier belief in religion, every election.
That also explains why so many Catholic priests got away with molesting children for so long. No one wanted to believe that a "man of God" would do such a thing, or lie to cover it up - so IF the children told anyone, they were branded as liars and the priests were protected.
We all need to remember that Christians are just as liable to lie as politicians (which is not surprising, since so many politicians ARE Christians, lol).
Unfortunately, we are dealing with a majority of Americans who are, like that woman said, so busy just trying to hold things together for their families that they do not have the time to investigate - and their ability to think critically about the information they do get has been worn away by years of having to choose expediency. These are folks who decide on where to cast their vote based on a minimum of real information, and often on no more than who their own parents voted for (because, of course, our parents are the foundation of all wisdom, no matter how much evidence there may be to the contrary), or who their neighbors are voting for, etc. Or, like a female relative of mine, based on the names they recognized from the yard signs in the neighborhood (yes, she actually told me that was how she decided who to vote for - when she got to the polls, she looked for names she recognized and voted for them, without knowing ANYTHING about them or what they stood for).
It's really scary. Ignorance will be the downfall of this nation, and it's an ignorance that has been fostered and even encouraged by the GOP, conservative news organizations, and - perhaps saddest of all - the churches as well.
One of many reasons I'm Agnostic. That and the whole lack of proof thing! I don't believe in god but, I do believe in science!
The NRA calls all their members and tells them who not to vote for. I don't think many look it up beyond that.
My neighbor is actually quite smart, although he can't read. My partner goes over and helps him sort his bills. But he has the whole history of the town memorized. He knows everyone. He knows how to barter and who to contact to fix what. He also hunts specifically for food...not sport. So, you know, his guns are a matter of survival to him. My partner was over there when he received one of these NRA calls, and she could tell they were telling him some candidate wanted to take away his guns.
There are people in this country who do lack access to information. Perhaps they're not technologically savvy, or don't have Internet Access in their area beyond dialup. MSNBC is not in every cable package everywhere whereas Fox News is. Some folks don't have cable, so all they receive is a couple of local affiliates and PBS.
People are not stupid, they lack access to accurate information. This is why things like the digital divide, infrastructure in rural areas, the death of newspapers, public education, libraries and community radio are important.
There have been times in my life where my only source of information was the local newspaper and the local radio stations. Seriously. Thank you NPR. I've also lived in places where every radio station was conservative and/or Christian or just Clear Channel.
Conservatives have NPR and PBS in their cross-hairs again. Take it seriously. The Internet is not a replacement for traditional media.
Sometimes I wonder if the whole point behind raising the retirement age and increasing working hours has to do with limiting information more. The same with denying the expansion of broadband to rural communities. In theory, the more free time a person has the more recreational activities a person can partake in. I realize that doesn't necessarily reflect reality 100% (for instance, when you're unemployed), but when we're talking about our advancement as a species and our special history- as we gained more stability and gained self-sufficiency we moved towards art and towards philosophy. Societies that had to be mobile (such as with nomad societies) didn't engage much in "politics" or "philosophy." The same is true of the general masses when people had to work as indentured servants or slaves (long hours means less free time means less time to think and discuss ideas). It's conspiratorial I know, but I'm curious as to what you think.
I would definitely agree with that, MM. In fact, it's quite similar to what I posted above as well. And I don't think it's paranoid to believe that it's an engineered phenomenon.
Those with little time and less information are easily manipulated to believe whatever you want them to think. That is also why education funding is often one of the first budget items to be cut whenever belt-tightening is needed, especially when the GOP is in control. Ignorance is the friend of the conservative movement, because it allows them to convince average Americans to vote against their own interests and for the interests of the monied and big corporations that keep the GOP in power.
It's not paranoia - it's observed fact.
I don't see evidence that conservatives are conspiring to limit free time. A high unemployment rate would be their enemy if that was the case. Less free time is a product of keeping wages low, and I'm sure it factors in. But if people have time to go to rallies, protests, townhalls and absorb conservative media, then they have time for NPR.
My Mom used to be just like that woman in the video. I'd try to talk to her about politics and she'd just get defensive and say she didn't have time. She was a Republican and was only concerned with cutting taxes. She wouldn't look into it beyond that, and yet she watched Glenn Beck on CNN Headline News. Finally, after years and years of being a Republican, she expressed interest in my view and asked me if there was something else to watch...and I said, yeah, Keith Olbermann. That was all it took, and it's not like Olbermann is harder to understand than Beck.
Conservative radio stations are unabashedly biased--even when it's not news media--while pointing the finger at "liberal media." They characterize liberal media as being elite, meaning people think you need a college degree to understand it. So they don't go looking for it. People don't like feeling dumb and they're not going to watch, listen or read stuff that makes them feel dumb.
There may not be a conspiracy to limit free time, but Americans have less free time than other 'advanced' countries. And since America hasn't institutionalized (much less recognized) the concept of a right to work, we're pretty much kept to the level of a struggle for survival. I'm going to assume you are familiar with Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Right-wingers aren't great thinkers, but I don't think it's that much of a coincidence that their ideology and policies keep (or attempt to keep) people at the bottom two levels. When people have the opportunity to achieve the higher levels, right-wing ideology is dead. There doesn't need to be a conspiracy. I think they just instinctively know that.
You know, I really, REALLY want to Unleash the Snarkhounds on these people, but … well, I can't.
And the reason is simple: This type of willful ignorance is destroying our nation.
I know that sounds hyperbolic, and maybe I'm just too depressed about the thought of extremists taking over Congress, but think about it: Here we have people who have made a conscious decision to not know the truth. They have instead made up their mind about a very serious and important topic, and have no apparent desire to let reality intrude.
Sure, the Obama team has allowed guns to be carried in federal parks and has done absolutely nothing in terms of strengthening gun control laws. But to these people, Obama and all his liberal allies like Holder are thisclose to taking away every gun—heck, anything having to do with guns—from all these true American patriots. And all simply because Beck/Limbaugh/Hannity/Savage/the NRA/Some other conservative told them so, because that's good enough for them.
Again, this type of ignorance is destructive to any democracy, but even more so for one in the middle of several severe crises. It simply engenders too much fear in people willing to believe anything, and allows for the unhinged to be manipulated in murderous ways (see: Tiller, Dr. George, murder of).
I hope spots like these will get at least some of these people to think for themselves and do some basic digging into what they think are "facts." Even if just one of the people Rachel interviewed starts to have doubts—even if that person will never see the show—we've taken a step in the correct direction.
Dumb and dumber! Ug somebody shoot me! I can't believe we are all the same species!
It is mind numbing how uneducated on the issues these people are. Ugh.
Good job, Rachel.
Hey, Rachel, ummm Ms. Maddow, how does it feel to be taken down be Joe Miller? At least they didn't hand cuff you, or step on your head(oops sorry wrong candidate). That was quite a walk down don't you think?
Okay, so when is the interview with Rand Paul? My suggestion; wear a helmet!
Taken down? A display of arrogance does not a 'take down' make. And that interview with Rand Paul happened months ago. Where were you? Swimming in a hydrocarbon lake on Titan?
I was Metaphorically speaking, but if I have to explain then it just is not any fun. Ya know?
When the man said he couldn't name anything specific and told Rachel to "google it", I think her next question should have been to ask him if he has "googled it' himself, and if so, what results he got. Then ask him if he's tried any other search engines other than Google (there are others, you know), and if he investigated the sources for the links he got to find out if they had a political agenda that motivated their claims about Eric Holder, etc. ( I can pretty much guarantee you that his answers would be no re other search engines, and no again re investigating the sources and motives behind the results he got from his search - IF he even bothered to do it himself).
Then I'd ask him if he's a Christian, and if he said yes, I'd ask him why he's a Christian. I guarantee his answer would, sooner or later, include the fact that his parents are Christians, and so that's how he was raised. That is how most people become Christians - they are indoctrinated into it from birth, long before they have the wit or ability to evaluate their religious choices in any kind of objective way.
Quite often, the same is true of political views. If you're raised by Republican parents, your thinking is going to be colored by the views they expressed through all the years you are growing up. It's impossible to avoid, quite frankly.
The thing is, when we grow up, we are supposed to be able to look at that early influence more objectively, and decide for ourselves if we actually agree with those views or not. Unfortunately, most people never do - not about their political or religious views.
I appreciate what you're saying but I'm not sure I agree that "most people" don't decide for themselves whether they agree with their parents, because it doesn't square with my own experience. Most of the people I know disagree with their parents' conservative views. Then again, most of the people I choose to associate with are people who know how to think for themselves. As for me, my views do resemble those of my parents, in that my parents taught me to critically examine the evidence and draw my own conclusions. For that I am eternally grateful.
Rachel, you are one classy woman!
That clip is disturbing on several levels.
I can't help thinking that if Rachel spent another 15 minutes talking to these people, she would have convinced them to actually question if what they were saying is true. When faced with an intelligent and rational person, they were open to discussion. Pretty amazing job, Ms. Maddow!
You can talk to these folks, show the facts in black and white and do your best to convince them to at least look at another view of the facts, weigh the different opptions, to no avail, they will not waste the time, because they know that thier information is correct and every other view is wrong. If you have ever tried to talk to these people you know the mind is closed and they are unwilling to look at the world in any way other than thier own limited view. They believe that thier God will take care,and provide for all who worship Him. In all honesty that is one of the few, of many, things that scare the hell out of me, especially when thier God, thier branch of religion is the only correct one.
Just for the record, because it hasn't been said often enough: the New Black Panther Party wasn't trying to stop people from voting. They were afraid white people were going to prevent black people (the majority of those at the polling place they were "protecting") from electing America's first black president.
I'm from Philly and it was seen as a big joke here when it actually happened. Everyone had sympathy for their ideas and thought their tactics were majorly boneheaded.
I think it's true that, given another 15 minutes, Rachel could've persuaded these people to another point of view, but the problem is that she didn't have another 15 minutes. There are just not enough Rachels to go around and there never will be because, God bless her, she is unique.
If you read Harry Potter--and I'm proud to say I do--you'll remember Dumbledore's Army. What we need is Rachel's Army. We'd be an impressive crew because we're learning at the feet of a master.
But life is, alas, not art. Too bad for our Democracy that we can't move in and out once in a while.
Is there not one rational democratic figure that can take on this role? Someone with the guts and respectfulness to do exactly what Rachel was doing? She was so disarming and polite in her approach.
Most people just want to be heard. She listened. Asked questions. Politely made them think for themselves for the first time in months. And even wished them good luck in the end. Simple.
Maybe Rachel should run for office. I'd vote for her in a heartbeat!
Her interview with these people would be funny if it were not so sad.