Maddow v Frum
Wow, if you have not seen it, you must watch Rachel hold her own in a civil, but unyielding, discussion with David Frum, Frum on Maddow.
My guess it that Frum believed he could throw out the random, 'yeah we
are bad, but so are you' and then move on to his other talking points.
Rachel, bless her heart, did not let it pass unchallenged!
The real irony, Mr. Frum did not seem to grasp that, in order to engage in sarcasm & wit, you must needs actually have a grasp of the substantive issues.
The real irony, Mr. Frum did not seem to grasp that, in order to engage in sarcasm & wit, you must needs actually have a grasp of the substantive issues.
Advertisement
I did see it and I think that the guy is at different level of development and did not genuinely understand her perspective... His understanding is too narrow, perhaps.
October 14, 2008 2:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
It was an epic beatdown.
October 14, 2008 7:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
I’m an avid watcher of Rachel's show and I saw it. Rachel handled it deftly. BUT here's the scoop:
Frum frumps not at Rachel, but at life. Feeling besieged and beset upon by friends on the right (see his diary entry on his NRO Corner webpage--his buddies are angry and nasty), he rails angrily and frumpily.
We laud him for his honesty/wisdom/judgment in jumping off the Palin train, but hope he finds a lighter touch and a WHOLE lot more grace. He'd learn a lot by watching Rachel more often.
October 14, 2008 8:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Frum was in deep despair last night. I savored every second. The only thing that could have made it better is if he had run off the set in tears blubbering about his Permanent Republican Majority.
October 14, 2008 9:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
I thought Frum seemed awfully maudlin, bordering on miserable. He didn't have the trademarked Republican cocky attitude. I think we are seeing the conservative intellectuals (an oxymoron?)realizing what the Republican party has mutated in to - a cretinous and angry lynch-mob. George Will, Buckley Jr., Frum, and others.
Nixon and Reagan set them, inexorably, on this course, Bush is just finishing what those two started. A massive electoral and ideological crack-up is only days away, and the GOP intellectuals know it. Thanks, for that background info on Frum.
October 14, 2008 9:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I thought he was a classic ASS! But then he was talking down to my Rachel, so my opinion might be just a tad colored by that.
October 14, 2008 8:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
I cannot give Frum credit for leaving McCain. My impression is akin to reading Kathleen Parker's disavowal of Palin. Their real complaint is that the Repubs are not winning. There is no recognition that they, themselves, had a hand in creating this vile mess. An honest self-analysis might suggest culpability or the need for a different direction. Rather than that, Frum just uses the 'yeah, but you are worse' justification.
October 14, 2008 9:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
I love Rachel. I hope she has him on again, and cleans his clock again. It was so refreshing to see a talk show host disagree with someone politely. You know Olbermann would've raised his voice and talked over him. (I'm a KO fan but getting a little sick of him lately.) O'Reilly would've told the guy to shut up and then cut his mike.
October 14, 2008 9:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have pretty much foresworn all Cable-TV political yak, but I did happen to see most of that exchange, as I skipped momentarily from the baseball game during a pitching change.
Compared to 90+% of what I am used to seeing in that format, I thought it had the virtue of being comparatively honest, and aiming (at least) at an adult audience. I think Ms. Maddow was genuinely suprised by Frum's critique, and a little hurt by it. More power to her for that - that's a normal, decent human reaction, not canned 'Cable' at all.
As to the general sense of Frum's complaint, I must reluctantly agree with it: It's the main reason I have pretty much abandoned Cable-chatter. Ms. Maddow is far from the worst, but I generally find nearly ALL these commentators on ALL 'sides' to be what used to be accurately called (in a gentler time)"boors". They pollute the discussion of political matters, rather than illuminate it. They are childish, and play to equally childish minds. As far as I am personally concerned, we'd we better-off if they ALL disappeared from TV. Barring that, I've simply made my own personal decision to spend my time in more constructive ways.
October 14, 2008 10:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is why I like Maddow. Now, I'll grant she is opinionated and pretty silly, and she does cater to (1) the like-minded and (2) the novices, just like your other talking heads, O'Reilly, etc.
What's different about Maddow is that she doesn't take herself so damned seriously.
When she has somebody like Krugman on, she doesn't pretend to be an economics expert. She's just as much a dummy about that stuff as I am, but she approaches it with skepticism as well as a willingness to learn.
And when she mocks something that happens in the news, it's always with a please-tell-me-it's-not-this-bad tone. She's not glad that Bush is an idiot, any more than any of us are. She responds with intelligence and sympathy, rather than with ready-made interpretive frames like you find even in speechwriter-eschelon pundits like Frum.
So I think Maddow is actually making the world a better place, personally.
(As for timewasting, I think I know what you mean. I can't bring myself to watch this stuff on TV; I stick to the podcasts on my commute.)
October 14, 2008 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Watching Frum quoting the old Ghandian chestnut, "Be the change you want to see" was some absurdist humor at its finest.
October 14, 2008 11:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
I like that Frum exposed her for what she is. She is all puff and not alot of substance. She's almost a "shock-jock". Her show should be on Comedy Central or HBO.
I agree with Frum that she's overly sarcastic and very high level. Never digs into the issues. Also very rarely has on guests that disagree with her. Frum was put on there because he was critical of McCain's campaign. But then he threw her a curveball that she could barely handle.
October 14, 2008 11:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not to feed the trolls, but this is irresistable.
"She's almost a 'shock-jock.'"
Like, who, Howard Stern? How? Normally she just plays the straight man to the wacky news. Isn't that the opposite of a shock-jock?
"Never digs into the issues."
I'm starting to believe you've never listened to the show.
"Also very rarely has on guests that disagree with her."
Like culture warrior Pat Buchanan? Oh, wait, never mind...
October 14, 2008 11:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
I bet Frum will be back on too. She doesn't shy away from having conversations with people who disagree with her.
October 14, 2008 1:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do you call everyone that doesn't agree with you a "troll"??
October 14, 2008 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry--I assumed you were just trying to get a rise out of other posters. I should have given you the benefit of the doubt, and I'm genuinely sorry.
October 14, 2008 5:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe I did get a rise out of others. But I honestly can't stand Ms. Maddow. I think she's terrible. But if that means I'm a troll then I'll be a troll
October 14, 2008 7:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
What really bugged me about this guy was his rambling insistence that the world is a dangerous place and that we liberals are a naive pack, ready to let the wolves destroy us all in our pacifist slumber. Like there is this great evil worm, undulating under the Earth, waiting for us to put our guns away for a sec.
Why are these people so scared of life and our Earth?
I say, screw these bozos. They are out of ideas.
October 14, 2008 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I really enjoyed tristero's analysis
October 14, 2008 3:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Funny video, poor Rachel. No doubt she was quite gleeful to have a republican on her show that had just taken the republicans and McCain to task for running a campaign focused on Ayers and that was what she planned to talk about. She specifically wanted to focus on the word "fury" that Frum used in his article. Instead of Frum simply repeating and elaborating on his article he took Rachel to task for what he sees as the same sort of negativity. Leaving Rachel to spend the interview time defending herself and her show.
One may believe the characterization of Rachel's show specious or not. One may believe she defended her show effectively or not. But as she said, it wasn't what she intended to talk about. So whether you believe Rachel won or not, it was Frum who controlled the agenda. He's a very clever man.
October 14, 2008 6:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sneaky is more like it. Understand that hosts and guests go over topics in a rehearsal. Frum then jettisoned the rehearsal once the show was on. Rude, to say the least.
I can understand MiddleClassBill's issues with Rachel Maddow, but I do think she shifted gears remarkably fast and indicated that she is a whole lot better discussing issues as the intellectual she really is than the comedian she trained herself to be.
October 15, 2008 1:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree he controlled the agenda but he came out looking like a fool. On Tuesday night, Olbermann named him one of the Worst People in the World. Not for his little stunt but for lying about it afterwards.
He claims he thought he was there to talk about Afghanistan. But as Olbermann pointed out, he did a pre-interview before the show started where it was made very clear Afghanistan was not on the agenda and he agreed to the topics that would be discussed. He's just embarrassed that she called him on his BS.
http://frum.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NWFjMzcxMzczNTRjZmFlZTZjZDRlZDFjZTgxY2IzMWU=
October 15, 2008 2:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Also: Because of his stunt, his previous negative comments about McCain got more publicity that they would have otherwise.
But maybe that was his goal. Maybe he's an attention whore like everyone else.
October 15, 2008 2:12 AM | Reply | Permalink