Tuesday, May 01, 2012

Rachel Maddow revisits her contentious debate with Alex Castellanos on MTP over the disparity in wage earning between men and women. Spoiler alert: Rachel was right!

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

I feel a little vindicated that I was right about how Rachel was feeling about the fact that the two Republicans refused to accept the facts about the wage disparity.

Somebody with her respect for facts, is simply STUNNED when somebody refuses to accept well researched data.  I still think she did a brilliant job of standing up for herself, and for women everywhere, in the face of this purposeful obfuscation by the GOP.

I also have to say that I was pretty pleased that for at least a short time, my post was linked on Alex Castellano's Wikipedia page as you can see below.

(If you cannot enlarge it sufficiently here is what it says: Claims there is no "War on Women," while simultaneously beating up on a woman, Rachel Maddow. http://theimmoralminority.blogspot.com/2012/04/rachel-maddow-ambushed-on-meet-press.html.)

I had nothing to do with the placement of this link but I was nonetheless pleased that for at least a little while my blog was helping to revel the truth about this Castellanos douchebag.

(BTW I also showed it to my daughter, since she was the inspiration for that part of my post, and she was pretty pleased with herself as well. Oh and she wants me to say that she believes Rachel Maddow should run for President in 2016. What can I say? My kid's a dreamer.)

50 comments:

  1. Randall8:24 AM

    I wish more Democrats/Progressives would do what Rachel does so well:

    list the facts.

    Too often we see them get drawn into the noise machine and side-tracked into distractions - when all they (we) need to do is simply LIST THE FACTS.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous8:32 AM

    Rachel Maddow as our leader? A fabulous idea.

    Unfortunately, the odds against it are tremendous.
    On the other hand -- who knows?

    She's certainly 80 pts. higher on the IQ scale than the last female on a national ticket.

    And she's so darned smart, she'd run the place like a well-oiled machine, and demolish any republican who got in her way.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous10:07 AM

      She wouldn't appeal to enough people. Face it, gay is acceptable these days but it's not going to be acceptable in the context of it being the controlling factor that makes up a candidate's agenda. Barney Frank easily rises above that but Rachel wouldn't. And that is why you will never see Rachel Maddow get herself in a popularity contest that depends on the majority of the people for support.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous11:35 AM

      11:07 I couldn't disagree with you more. We are raising a majority of children today that don't have an issue with others being gay, black, pink or yellow! The world is changing except for many of the older folks - white - in the Republican party! Eventually, the issues of today will go away is my thought!

      Delete
    3. Anonymous1:09 PM

      You are so correct! Who would have thought a black man could be President? I know my Dad--WWII era--would have never supported a black man. Times are a-changin and a SMART GAY WOMAN who is QUALIFIED to hold office gets my vote any day!!

      Delete
    4. Anita Winecooler7:51 PM

      11:07 "Gay" is such a small part of who Rachael Maddow (or any other gay person) is and what she can accomplish. I think she'd make a great leader. She's smart, she researches things completely before reporting or acting on them, and in the rare instance she's wrong, she'll be the first to apologize.

      Compare President Obama with Mitt Romeny. The brilliance of one doesn't diminish the hypocritical stupidity of Mitt, and yet there he is, front and center, the nominee for the Republican party.

      Delete
    5. Anonymous8:56 PM

      I agree that Rachel could run for President. It only takes one generation to see big changes. I see how different I think about social issues compared to my mom and her sisters. She is only in her 30's, let's say she runs 20 years from now. I want to have hope that we will be past a lot of this nonsense by then.

      Delete
  3. Anonymous8:50 AM

    I watched the interveiw and the Repub (as usual) was uneducated as to the FACTS and horribly condescending to Rachel.

    Thank God we have someone like Rachel Maddow in our world. She's well spoken, actually does research on matters to prove her points and is well educated - having earned her doctorate! I recently purchased and read her #1 best seller - "Drift" and suggest all of you do the same.

    We need to get the Republicans out of office on all levels of government as they are not doing American citizens one damned bit of good. They divide and have a history of doing in the middle class and poor. Hope everyoe is paying attention and getting the word out there to reelected President Obama and VP Joe Biden this coming November.

    I see Rachel Maddow in politics down the road and think her a wonderful asset to our country.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous8:57 AM

    Alex Castellanos is a condescending jerk – and I was glad to see Rachel call him out on that to his face during the MTP segment. Also loved the part where she pointed out to the female Romney surrogate that she voted AGAINST the Fair Pay Act. Republicans and facts are like oil and water.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anonymous8:58 AM

    And what has Alex Castellanos had to say since being proved wrong on the FACTS? Crickets......

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anonymous8:58 AM

    I was eager to see what Rachel would say on her show, too. She did great. I re-watched the MTP fiasco, and I think she did great there too: shocked at his view, able to identify where they differ, presented the real data. Any woman, I bet, knows this data by heart, knows Rachel and her guest are right, and is also all-too-familiar with the out-of-left-field loony incorrect restatement of basic facts, and in a hugely condescending way on top of it. Women who threaten men get this all the time. Or, more often, we DON'T get it but we know that view is there. (I suppose that's who big Alex resonates with.)) Either one is VERY discouraging and saddening. Nothing to be surprised by here, It is our everyday reality.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous11:32 AM

      Did you notice how he kept touching her hand when he was trying to interrupt her? I'd have slapped him and told him to stop touching me! He is your typical Republican asshole!!!

      Delete
    2. Anonymous3:14 PM

      Patting her on the head

      Would have been

      Too obvious.

      Delete
  7. Anonymous9:03 AM

    Duh! Of Course Rachel was right!

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anonymous9:06 AM

    I agree with everything that Rachael said, except one issue. She kept repeating that Republicans don't believe that women make less. They believe, they know it, and they understand it. They, however, think you are too stupid to understand the real facts. They know the facts, but don't give a shit about women.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous11:06 AM

      This thought crossed my mind as well.

      It is difficult to believe that they are misinformed on a point like this; on the other hand, it is also difficult to believe that men who have wives, daughters, sisters, and granddaughters would be willfully ignoring facts in order to continue to oppress working women in this country.

      So which are they: ignorant or malicious? I'd like to think ignorant but, again, it's hard to fathom that these very clear facts were not available to them prior to the Ledbetter vote . . . .

      Delete
    2. Anonymous1:53 PM

      Which is it, ignorant or malicious???

      Ignorant and insisting on their "right" to be superior to begin with, then malicious when they learn the facts and don't let them get in the way of demanding to be the superior white man.

      Delete
  9. Anonymous9:07 AM

    Maddow blew the GOP’s war on women solution out of the water, “Republicans think that you solve the war on women perception problem by having your presidential candidate be seen with women. Right? That’s Mr. Romney on the campaign trail today with Republican Sen. Kelly Ayotte. She won Judd Gregg’s senate seat after he retired from the Senate. Two days after President Obama was inaugurated, Judd Gregg was one of those Republicans who voted no on the Fair Pay Act. Because there is no fair pay problem, right? When they got in trouble on this issue earlier, they put out Kathy McMorris Rogers as Mr. Romney’s female surrogate to shore up the way people felt about this issue. She voted no on the Fair Pay Act. Mr. Romney himself will not say whether he would have signed the Fair Pay Act that President Obama signed. Republican Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin, who Mitt Romney has been praising as a hero, he just repealed the state level version in Wisconsin of the Fair Pay Act.”

    http://www.politicususa.com/rachel-maddow-intellectually-destroys-the-republican-war-on-women.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous1:30 PM

      Rachel Maddow won't tolerate ignorant bullshit and spin. I respect her intellect, her honesty, and her courage. She won't take any shit from the right wing hate mongers, which is why they fear her so much. I wish that our elected officials displayed these same qualities more often. Instead we are bogged down in crony partisanship, regardless of who suffers, just for the sake of winning. Rachel calls them all out on this.

      Yes, and for all of you homophobes out there, she is sexy as hell, smart as hell, and does not give a damn about what you think of her. So in closing as a husband and a father of two daughters, Alex Castellano, you can kiss our ass.

      Delete
  10. Anonymous9:12 AM

    But Women Are Paid Less In The United States Than Men

    U.S. Census: "In 2010, The Female-To-Male Earnings Ratio Was 0.77." From a September 2010 Census report titled "Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2010":

    Changes between 2009 and 2010 in the real median earnings of men and women, aged 15 and older who worked full time, year round, were not statistically significant. In 2010, the female-to-male earnings ratio was 0.77, not statistically different from the 2009 ratio

    [...]

    Neither men nor women who worked full time, year round experienced a change in real median earnings between 2009 and 2010. In 2010, the median earnings for men was $47,715 and for women $36,931. In 2010, the female-to-male earnings ratio of full-time, year-round workers was 0.77, not statistically different from the 2009 ratio.

    http://mediamatters.org/research/201204300011

    ReplyDelete
  11. Anonymous9:19 AM

    People always say things like so and so should run for POTUS because they speak the truth.

    Problem is that once you become POTUS, you no longer have the luxury of always telling it like it is.

    Let Rachel stay where she is and continue speaking truth to power.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Anonymous9:20 AM

    Actually Jesse you did have a bit to do with it in that it was one of your fans, I am certain, who posted it. I first found the link to it on the comments to your first article. And they said better link before it's removed! Good going!

    ReplyDelete
  13. No offense to your daughter, but I think Rachel is pretty well placed where she is! And as far as 2016 goes, I have a theory - why is Bill Clinton stumping so hard for Obama this time around, and even hitting up the big Clinton donors for cash? I think when Hillary runs for POTUS, not only will Obama return the favor and be her best surrogate, but he'll also mobilize OFA - Organizing for America - an army of volunteers all over the country of which I'm proud to be a part here in AZ, that's right, AZ! You wouldn't believe what a strong group we have, and when 2016 rolls around, we'll be there for Hillary, too. Can you imagine what an advantage she'll have with a ground army already in place?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous11:30 AM

      It would be so neat to have President Obama reelected and then Hillary running in 2016!!! Heaven, heaven there is no doubt!

      Delete
  14. telah9:36 AM

    OT, but media related: UK Parliament Finds Rupert Murdoch Not "Fit" to Run Broadcasting Company

    http://crooksandliars.com/nicole-belle/uk-parliament-finds-rupert-murdoch-no

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous11:28 AM

      Wouldn't it be neat if this would be a problem for FOX in the USA? Many, many of us would be delighted!

      Delete
  15. FUCK YOU MCCAIN!!!!!!9:43 AM

    Now *THAT*

    is fucking cool!

    ReplyDelete
  16. Anonymous9:46 AM

    Hey Gryph -- Just wanted to say that you and your daughter are all kinds of awesome. Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I do believe there was a young lad that dreamed of what he would do if he became President,in spite of the fact that no man of color had ever been.Luckily,his dream became our reality.I'm on board with your daughters dream(except for the 2016 part.I'm rooting for Hilary for that win).How about Rachel for 2024,after Hilary has her eight years?

    ReplyDelete
  18. Anonymous10:00 AM

    Castellanos made some points that were right too. But what was most interesting is that your audience knew that he got some across and then tried to blame Gregory for not moderating fairly. That failed miserably. Gregory was completely fair. And so goes the politics of the US gong show. It has become all about promoting the 'war on women' political gambit but it has very little to do with a real concern for women.

    Ms. Maddow does a good job but she's starting to sound a bit over the top and hysterical now. She needs to pull in her horns a bit and consider that reaching the 'other' side is more important than just preaching to the choir.
    luv from Canada.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Concern troll is concerned.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous12:33 PM

      1) It's Doctor Maddow.
      2) You're an ass.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous2:45 PM

      Dr Maddow sounded just right to me.

      Delete
    4. Anonymous4:06 PM

      Get lost TROLL!!

      Delete
    5. Anita Winecooler8:15 PM

      Feck off, eh?

      Delete
  19. Anonymous10:37 AM

    Ot

    She said: 'I didn't want the campaign to explode and for it to be my fault. I decided to live with a lie'
    Wife breaks down as she tells how she agreed to pregnancy cover up.

    http://tinyurl.com/82dumj8

    ReplyDelete
  20. Anonymous11:11 AM

    Castellanos couldn't have better illustrated the bullshit women put up with in the workplace if he'd tried. What a condescending, arrogant, ignorant ass.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Gasman11:14 AM

    I'm not sure whether Castellanos believes what he says or whether he is just cynically pandering to his ignorant base who will eagerly lap up whatever fetid swill is placed in their trough, without questioning it's factual content.

    The present state of conservatism is dependent upon the false equivalency; the false equivalency of claiming that taxes are higher under President Obama than they were under GWB, the false equivalency of claiming that President Obama made the economic crisis worse, and the false equivalency of claiming that women make plenty of money and the GOP is not waging war on them.

    I suspect that Castellanos and all the other on air GOP stooges know damn well they are shoveling shit, they just don't care. The GOP places winning above all. They don't give a fat rat's ass about lying to the American public to regain the White House.

    The GOP is a mean spirited, arrogant, mendacious pack of bullying thugs that doesn't give a fuck about anything except regaining and maintaining power. Castellanos is a hired thug to promote that agenda. It doesn't really matter if he believes what he says or not, he is cog in that GOP machine.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous9:12 PM

      I agree with everything you said! I absolutely abhor them.

      -Alicat

      Delete
  22. I am really glad that Rachel followed up with this on her segment. CNN fact-checked the statement and showed that she was right. And, one thing I have found to be true with Rachel Maddow, whether you agree with her or not, she will make sure her facts are correct and she will back it up with reliable sources.

    I was furious when Alex said, “I love how passionate you are, I wish you were as right about what you’re saying as you are passionate about it. I really do.” It was patronizing, condescending, and he all but tried to pat her head. I think that showed in a nutshell the GOP's actual attitude toward women.

    To show the disparity between the right and the left, even just over this segment, we have this from the conservative blog, NewsBusters.

    There is a transcript, in which the author narrates as it goes along, then it lists statistic meant to show that women work less than men and that makes up the whole difference. The whole article can be summed up with the last few sentences:

    As you can see, contrary to what Maddow said, this really is a simple mathematical equation: for the most part, men that make more than women do so because they work more hours.

    At the numerous companies I've managed at the past three decades that was certainly the case.

    But don't expect liberals like Maddow to ever agree with that regardless of its arithmetic simplicity.


    http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2012/04/29/gop-strategist-smacks-down-maddow-i-wish-you-are-right-about-what-you#ixzz1teIPHH4X

    What I also found to be interesting in that article was that the author refers to a "fabulous" piece written by Manhattan Institute's Kay Hymowitz for the Wall Street Journal. Author of, get ready for it,..."Manning Up: How the Rise of Women Has Turned Men Into Boys,"

    File this under the category, 'You Can't Make This Shit Up'.

    But apparently, the GOP can.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous12:36 PM

      Oh for fuck's sake. I was salaried at my last two jobs and I MADE LESS than the men in similar positions. Doesn't matter how many hours one works when one is SALARIED.

      Stupid fuckers.

      Delete
    2. Gasman10:08 PM

      I'm pretty sure that Dr. Rachel Maddow, Rhodes Scholar, Ph.D. from Oxford University is smart enough to distinguish between salaried and hourly employees. Are you deluded enough to you think you just somehow shot down Maddow's well reasoned and factually supported argument?

      Delete
  23. Elizabeth Cady Stanton2:29 PM

    Griffin,

    I check your blog at least once a day, I'm incredibly grateful for all your hard work, and especially for continuing to pursue the truth about Sarah Palin's unending misdeeds ...

    But I have 2 minor quibbles (actually, 3 if you count the slow page loads): the lack of proof-reading and the need to carp about being "right" -- especially in this case.

    Rachel was NOT "ambushed" nor was her appearance on MTP an example of "beating up" on a woman.

    Yes, Castellanos was insultingly rude and condescending but Axelrod stepped in twice, succeeding on his second try in giving Maddow the floor again.

    More importantly, while Maddow appeared momentarily taken aback by Castellanos' astonishing misstatements, she responded swiftly, deftly, and even amazingly diplomatically by citing his refutation of established facts as yet another reason for focusing the discussion on the policies of Republicans vs. Democrats regarding gender inequality.

    Even more telling is that NOWHERE in the nearly-20-minute segment you've posted did she say anything about being "ambushed," "attacked" or mistreated in any way.

    She didn't even call Castellanos a "liar" (as he clearly was, and as Bill O'Reilly would have shouted), nor did she point out the obvious fact that Republican policy toward women is SO mired in sexism and misogyny that they must feign denial of statistics supported by THREE different government organizations.

    I believe that you mean well with your insistence that Maddow was somehow "attacked," but to many of us that infers victimhood. How many times have we seen a man in an equally uncomfortable position, yet felt no need to brand it an "ambush" ?

    I hope you'll please consider that Maddow alone should be the one to decide if any "attack" took place and so far, she's made no such claim -- unlike a certain ex-Governor of Alaska we all know and loathe, who employs that defense like Van Helsing flashed crucifixes at Dracula.

    I love Maddow too, but I think she's proven herself MORE than equal to today's rough-and-tumble political discourse and needs no protection from ANYone's rude, sexist behavior.

    (No insult to you intended -- EVER -- and I hope none taken.)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous7:35 PM

      Dear Elizabeth Cady Stanton,

      First off, what a pretty name! :)

      Secondly, I didn't get a sense to react to Gryphen's use of words or had a single thought towards any inference to "victimhood" when I read this post. I took it strictly as his opinion. He placed the link to the video and allowed me the opportunity to view it in its entirety for myself (which I TOTALLY appreciate). Based on how he feels about his daughter and his mother, and based upon his colorful and artfully illustrated vocabulary, the description of the interview falls in line with how he consistently describes EVERYTHING...from his perspective.

      Lastly, I personally appreciate how you beautifully laid out your thoughts in such a respectful and lady-like manner without the name calling and foul language. I miss having the delight of pure intellect and proper discussion this blog post used to offer on a consistent and daily basis. Kudos to you, my fellow IMer.

      So, in my honest opinion of your opinion about Gryphen's opinion, it's an unnecessary call....even with the mention of the typos. Perhaps an extremely valid point of view from your perspective (which I do not discount)...just perhaps unnecessary to call out.

      Have a great day Elizabeth Cady Stanton!

      IM Superfan from Atlanta, GA

      Delete
    2. Gasman9:19 PM

      Because Maddow did not specifically use the word "attack" in her rebuttal does not disprove Gryphen's post. I watched the exchange and I thought "attack" was precisely the right term. Though Castellanos was generally more polite, his performance reminded me very much of George Bush I's ambush of Dan Rather. Castellanos was definitely trying to blindside Maddow and was hoping that catching her off guard would mean she wouldn't be loaded with facts to rebut him with.

      The cheap shot is seemingly all the GOP hatchet goons can employ. That is the only arrow in the quiver of Coulter, Beck, Bolton, and most of the on air clowns on FauxNews. It is political kabuki for their unthinking, uncritical idiot base.

      Castellanos was just playing to type. I thought his performance most definitely came off like a calculated cheap shot attack that was very much intended for the goobers in the GOP.

      Delete
    3. I called it an "ambush" because that's what it was.

      Castellanos had his talking points all ready for Rachel and the MINUTE she started talking he pounced. That was clearly planned in my opinion.

      Yes she did well, but it was STILL a fucking set up and it pissed me off that Gregory let that jackass get away with it.

      That was the point of my wording.

      Delete
  24. Anonymous2:29 PM

    I have a girl crush on Rachel, and yes, when you are salaried you don't get overtime, so that's a big fat pile of bullshit. My last job, I earned $48,000 a year and worked my ass off--easily 45-50 hours a week--and my lazy spoiled good ole boy son of a mayor of 12 years boss made $115,000 and couldn't find his ass from a hole in the ground.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Anonymous3:06 PM

    Anon 1:36: Right: many higher-paid jobs are salaried, and hours don't count, only results. For hourly folks, women work the unpaid (unrecorded) hours, while men work the authorized overtime hours. Just my experience, too. Then women go home to their 2nd and 3rd jobs: housekeeper and Mom (and the keep-up-your-looks job), while Dad pops open a Bud. Right: not everyone. But too many.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Anita Winecooler7:55 PM

    I loved this particular show. She put Castellano's in his condescending, abysmally stupid and void of facts corner.

    BTW I'm with your daughter. Rachael would make an excellent leader.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Hello Friends.........

    Great information.Thanks for sharing this useful information with all of us.Keep sharing more in the future.

    Have a nice time ahead.

    Thanks
    Placement Services

    ReplyDelete

Don't feed the trolls!
It just goes directly to their thighs.