The Christian Civic League of Maine's Mike Hein calls Pam's House Blend: "a leading source of radical homosexual propaganda, anti-Christian bigotry, and radical transgender advocacy."
He is "praying that Pam Spaulding will "turn away from her wicked and sinful promotion of homosexual behavior."
(CCLM's web site, 10/15/07)
Ex-gay "Christian" activist James Hartline on Pam:
"I have been mocked over and over again by ungodly and unprincipled anti-christian lesbians."
(from "Six Years In Sodom: From The Journal Of James Hartline," 9/4/2006, written from the "homosexual stronghold" of Hillcrest in San Diego).
"Pam is a 'twisted lesbian sister' and an 'embittered lesbian' of the 'self-imposed gutteral experiences of the gay ghetto.'" -- 9/5/2008
Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth Against Homosexuality heartily endorses the Blend, calling Pam:
A "vicious anti-Christian lesbian activist." (Concerned Women for America's radio show [9:15], 1/25/07)
"A nutty lesbian blogger." (MassResistance radio show [16:25], 2/3/07)
Pam's House Blend always seems to find these sick f*cks. The area of the country she is in? The home state of her wife? I know, they are everywhere. Pam just does such a great job of bringing them out into the light.
--Impeach Bush
who monitors yours Bevis ?? Just thought I would drop you a line,so the rest of your life is not wasted.
Just got the confirmation from HQ; the rumor has been going around for an hour...
Jesse's segment, being taped live at No On 1 HQ in Portland, will start at 9:10pm SHARP.
No idea how long this will be, but this should be exciting! As well as alot of fun; Jesse is just SUCH a great guy and I am very much looking forward to this interview...
Please retweet and let's spread the word! :)
@maddow to host @NoOn1Maine campaign manager Jesse Connolly tonight. Tune in at 9 pm EST/6 pm PST! #marryme #lgbt #noon1
Marriage equality became the law of the land in Massachusetts in 2004. We've all heard the naysayers predict the resulting destruction of marriage, the family, the universe, etc. etc.
"[Marriage equality] is a social weapon of mass destruction," said Rev. Lou Sheldon. ... "It would destroy civilization as we know it," Sheldon said.
Well, a new CDC report shows that the divorce rate in Massachusetts, the state were it all started, well, I'll let Rachel give you the good news:
Oh but first, a warning. If you're an anti-equality bigot, this may hurt. You may want to plug your ears.
Five years ago, Massachusetts became the first state to legalize same-sex marriage. And despite all the dire warnings, the sky did not fall down on the day a man was allowed to marry a man and a woman was allowed to marry a woman in the bay state.
In fact, the institution of marriage is alive and well and thriving in Massachusetts. New provisional government statistics show that, in 2008, Massachusetts had the lowest divorce rate in the country. Ta-da!
The rate of divorces in Massachusetts was 2.2 per thousand when gay people started getting married in Massachusetts. The rate of divorces per thousand is now down even further to 2.0 per thousand. That's the lowest divorce rate in the country. In fact, Massachusetts divorce rates are now down to pre World War 2 levels. 1940.
So, awkwardly, turns out gay marriage is a defense of marriage act.
As one lesbain, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) identified, disabled, Persian Gulf War veteran, I find this interview of Rep. Alcee Hastings by Rachel Maddow to be incredibly disturbing.
Rep. Alcee Hastings: ...[T]he time is now to eliminate this bigoted law, once and for all.
Rachel Maddow: When you are hearing that the time isn't right, when your hearing from fellow Democrats -- even from fellow opponents of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" --- that the time's not right for your amendment, that this ought to be delayed, that there's a more strategic way to do it -- are you also hearing that there is a White House endorsed strategy for when to get rid of it, or is it being put off indefinitely?
Rep. Alcee Hastings: Very good question. I have not heard anything other than the rhetoric. I wrote to the White House on June 22nd, and had 76 other members of Congress to join me in a letter to the president explaining what the President can do right now. And that's what I was attempting to do with the amendment -- and that's saying to the Secretary of Defense "Stop it. Just don't put anyone else out of the service." ...
So, this is a continuation of the story we've read Tuesday (July 28, 2009) and yesterday (July 29, 2009) about this story here at The Blend. And again, as an LGBT identified, disabled, Persian Gulf War veteran, I find this interview of Rep. Alcee Hastings by Rachel Maddow to be incredibly disturbing. What this says to me about the Obama Administration's to lesbian, gay, and bisexual soldiers, sailors, and veterans is not something I find reasonable or acceptable.
I don't know how many of my readers surf around the general progressive blogosphere regularly, but you can get a taste of the blowback the LGBT community is receiving for deigning to ask why the Obama administration has been silent regarding his self-proclaimed "fierce advocate" role.
Check out this diary by Clarknt67 at the big progressive orange, Daily Kos, "Rachel Maddow examines Candidate Obama vs. President Obama on GBLT." Clark features the video from Rachel's show the other day (I blogged it here), where she took on the disingenous behavior by the White House regarding DADT and had on Rep. Rush Holt (D) to discuss how the country is ready for repeal and that there would be little political capital expended to stop the discrimination.
Clark issues this simple statement:
With seventy plus public approval on repealing don't ask, don't tell, I kinda don't get why Obama doesn't just rip that bandage off swiftly and make these complaints go away.
Oh sure, we'd still want ENDA, we'd still want DOMA gone, we'd still want Uniting American Families Act, we'd still want Matthew Shepard Act. But I think the perception that something, anything was moving forward for the GBLT community during this supposed great period change, would be a huge PR win with most people.
Well, you should see the litany of criticism in the comments, many lodged against Rachel Maddow and the LGBT community for calling President Obama on the DADT, and the alternate silence and evasion on the executive order issue.
My outline of the predictable reaction is below the fold.
Kudos to Rachel Maddow for continuing to place the President on the defensive re: DADT. She recounted the numerous statements candidate Obama made about repeal that are coming back to haunt him now, like this infamous one from November 29, 2007:
I will work [for]...a full repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"... that work should have started long ago. I will start when I take office. America is ready to get rid of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. All that is required is leadership.
Ahem.
Rachel had on Rep Rush Holt (D) on the show. He discussed the polls supporting repeal (it's up to 69% for crying out loud) and said that President Obama can and should stop the discharges through executive order, and Holt believes those who say it would expend precious political capital or there would be a significant political cost to the admin are wrong.
Rachel also wryly noted "I wonder what his [Obama's] record would be like so far if he weren't a fierce advocate for gay rights." Ouch.
It's pretty sad when I'm so far behind on email that otheroutlets have already reported on this award I'm going to receive on June 17. The company I'm in is mind-blowing. It's definitely a we're-not-worthy moment. (Women's Media Center):
The Women's Media Center Announces First Annual Media Awards
Honorees Include Rebecca Traister, Bonnie Erbe, Rachel Maddow, Abigail Disney, Pam Spaulding, Gini Reticker, Candy Crowley & More
The Women's Media Center (WMC) today announces the slate of honorees for its first annual WMC Media Awards. Honorees include Tina Fey, Helene Cooper, Rachel Maddow, Dolly Parton, Christiane Amanpour and more; complete list below. The awards will take place at an evening cocktail party hosted by WMC co-founder Gloria Steinem.
"The Women's Media Center has been working for the last four years to make women more visible and powerful in the media," said WMC president Carol Jenkins. "Now, with our first awards ceremony, we have a wonderful opportunity to acknowledge some of the women who are making a difference in media - and to offer our criticism for some of the year's most shameful media moments."
In addition to the honorees, the WMC Media Awards will also note some of the year's most sexist media moments, including the Presidential debate commission's decision not to have women as moderators of the recent Presidential debates; media executives for failing to create a diverse White House press corps, and the networks for the lack of diversity among the hosts of the Sunday morning pundit shows.
The Women's Media Center was founded in 2005 by Gloria Steinem, Jane Fonda and Robin Morgan. The WMC promotes women in the media in four ways: through our media advocacy initiatives, original media, top-notch media training program, and through SheSource.org, our online database of 500+ women experts, used by hundreds of journalists every day.
The roster of honorees includes:
Print and Broadcast Journalists: Christiane Amanpour (CNN) Helene Cooper (New York Times) Candy Crowley (CNN)
Online Journalists: Pam Spaulding (Pam’s House Blend) Rebecca Traister (Salon.com)
Broadcast Hosts: Bonnie Erbe (To The Contrary) Rachel Maddow (The Rachel Maddow Show)
Documentary Film: Abigail Disney & Gini Reticker (Pray The Devil Back To Hell)
Theatre: Lynn Nottage (Ruined) Dolly Parton (9-5, the musical)
Entertainment: Tina Fey (30 Rock)
The WMC's first annual Media Awards will be held at 6:30 p.m. at the Sackler Foundation in NYC on June 17th.
It goes without saying that the baristas (notably Autumn, who did a great job in Greeley during the Zapata murder trial), and the Blenders all deserve a round of applause for your outstanding contributions that make the Blend a good place to stop for a cup of java.
Here's the video of Lt. Dan Choi's appearance on Rachel's show last night (I blogged about it here). Choi, who was dismissed from the U.S. Army National Guard after declaring on the show that he is gay, appeared with Rep. Joe Sestak, (D-PA) to discuss when President Obama can be expected to keep his promise to repeal DADT.
You know most of these swamp dwellers are sitting on their posteriors, Cheetos-stained fingers on the keyboard, shouting in their echo chamber about who's patriotic and who's not.
I want a pink helmet and a pink rifle because i am gay.
The homo violated a policy.. if I violate policies at work I will also be fired. I wonder what makes homos think they can violate military policy and not be discharged?
And it is absolutely idiotic to behave in a way that will get you discharged. The military is not on a witch hunt to find gays, but this guy went out of his way to disobey rules for political reasons.
ANARCHY in the Military is coming!!! Thanks, Liberals!!
The whole "Don't ask, don't tell policy" crap is equal to the predatory gangster "don't snitch" crap. Everyone who is not sexually deviant or a violent criminal knows it is wrong/bad/evil. But "We" are not supposed to say we care, lest we be called bad names, by various sexual deviants and violent criminals. So... are nonviolent, heterosexual, law abiding citizens the minority, or are we the majority?
I had a soldier that was a turd and really wanted to get out of the Army. First he smoked dope and came up hot on a UA. The while in front of the battalion commander, I was in the room with him he told the BC he was gay. The BC asked, " Are you really gay?" The troop said, "Sir, I will suck your_____ right now." Needless to say,he was gone like a freight train.
UPDATE 9:15 PM: Choi was on for such a short time, but I bumped this back up so folks watching can comment. One of the items they discussed is a letter sent by the President to another service member who was discharged under DADT and Obama indicated that he wanted to repeal the law. Dan Choi will also a 8:40 AM tomorrow
on CNN's "American Morning Show."
Rep Joe Sestak (D-PA) was also on to support the repeal of DADT. Rachel also asked him whether he was going to run against Arlen Specter. He said he hasn't decided yet.
Dan Choi will also a 8:40 AM tomorrow on CNN's "American Morning Show."
Question for everyone - has the dam broken on this one? How can the President ignore the fact that his policy (and it's his decision not to press Congress to do anything) is hurting our military readiness - and he cannot hide now that the media spotlight is shining brightly on it?
***
If you caught Rachel Maddow last night, she discussed the situation of out gay service member Dan Choi, who publicly came out of the closet last year, but wasn't given the boot by U.S. Army until now; he has received his official letter of discharge. He will be on her show tonight to discuss the issue.
Choi also movingly speaks about the failed, discriminatory policy of DADT on the West Point LGBT Alumni Group KnightsOut's web site:
My name is Dan Choi. I am a West Point graduate. I am a Lieutenant in the United States Army.
I am gay.
I serve my country. I serve my country because I heard a leader say: "ASK NOT what your country can do for you... ASK what you can do for your country." But when I step up to serve our country, to put my life on the line to protect my community, to protect my neighbors, to protect my family, to protect America, I am ordered... DON'T ASK. I am ordered... DON'T TELL.
I serve with 65,000 selfless gay and lesbian Americans; we are ordered to deny who we are. We're ordered to HIDE. But I am not hiding anymore. I am not asking permission anymore. I am done ASKING. I am TELLING. I am gay.
The first time he appeared on Rachel's show, the audio mysteriously cut off as he speaking. They replayed a bit of that it on the March 20 show:
Richard "Bank Run" Burr, who has been getting a serious and justified posterior whipping for his ludicrous, loony, and self-serving behavior pointed out quite nicely by Rachel Maddow Keith Olbermann and others, is in bed with Big Pharma, Big Energy, Big Telco, the military industrial complex and a list of special interests that's almost laughably stereotypical of a winger trying to buy his way into re-election.
Political action committees representing a variety of business interests contributed nearly half of North Carolina U.S. Sen. Richard Burr's $700,000 campaign take in the first three months of this year.
Burr's Senate campaign received money from drug companies, health care companies, tobacco companies and energy companies. Telecommunications firms, financial services groups and defense manufacturers also sent money his way.
That leaves Burr, a Winston-Salem, N.C., Republican, with about $1.6 million in the bank toward his re-election bid next year, according to the federal campaign finance report he filed this week. Jennifer Duffy, senior editor of the Cook Political Report in Washington, said Burr's fund-raising was "perfectly acceptable." They might not fend off Democratic opposition, though.
The funny thing is that Burr's going to need a bigger take than this to offset the effects of the political self-immolation that's currently taking place.
Freshman Republican backbencher Richard "Bank Run" Burr has been a mostly silent Senator since he first won his seat back in 2004. However, in the last several weeks, he's gained notoriety for two big political blunders. First, he inexplicably blocked the appointment of Iraq veteran, double-amputee, veterans' advocate Tammy Duckworth to a position in the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. Then, he relayed the story of how, with the fiscal crisis about to hit hard last Fall, his weak-kneed response was to have his wife take out as much cash from their neighborhood bank as ATMs would allow. Not exactly the steady hand North Carolinians (or anyone) want managing our nation's fiscal affairs.
The person being talked up as the Dem challenger to Burr is state AG Roy Cooper.
While "Bank Run" Burr was doing all he could to keep his low approval ratings low, polls were coming out showing Democratic state Attorney General Roy Cooper leading Burr in hypothetical match-ups (Public Policy Polling in December, Civitas in March, Public Policy Polling in April). Attorney General Cooper indicated that he was interested in a 2010 Senate bid; and, WaPo's Chris Cillizza even reported that he had heard that AG Cooper would decide on a Senate bid "by the end of the month." The end of the month is now less than two weeks away.
Senate Guru also reports that the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (which engineered then-state senator Kay Hagan into the race after openly gay Jim Neal announced his bid to unseat Dole and Hagan had shown no interest in running), is already making it clear Cooper is its favored candidate. The above-mentioned polls -- the Public Policy Polling has Cooper leading Burr 41% to 37% (an incumbent under 50% is in trouble), and Civitas Institute showed Cooper ahead 41-38.
What did it take to unseat Dole, who blew away $19.6 million in her losing effort? Sen. Hagan raised $8.5 million, but the DSCC kicked in $13 million more.
The big question Blenders out there are probably asking right now is if Nash County-native and Sunday school teacher Cooper is the anointed one by the DSCC apparatus, is he a Blue Dog, and where does he stand on LGBT issues?
UPDATE: Clip from last night's take down has been added below the fold.
We tossed Liddy Dole out on her posterior last November, and now it appears the lower-profile, but equally onerous Richard Burr has felt the need to raise his profile and jackassery to new levels. He's up for re-election soon, but strangely, all Burr seems to be doing is making it clear that it's time to pack his bags and send a Dem to Washington to join Kay Hagan in representing North Carolina.
Rachel Maddow has been all over Burr's antics. Take this clip on my loser senator's "run on the banks" financial strategy:
MADDOW: We got word today that President Obama might be ready to let us all in on a big bank-related secret. The "New York Times" reporting that the Obama administration plans to release sensitive details from the stress tests of the country's 19 biggest banks.
The secrecy has been controversial because on the one hand, all that bailout cash came from us, so you could say we ought to know how it's doing over at the banks. On the other hand, releasing the results could essentially broadcast that there is trouble at certain banks, which could itself be a recipe for disaster.
Anyone who's seen "It's a Wonderful Life" knows what happens when people lose confidence in the banks, right? That's what you call "a run on the banks," which everyone agrees is a very bad thing, both for the bank that's being run on and for the people who are making the run on that bank.
Keep that in mind as you hear this story about the unfolding of the financial crisis last fall as it was first becoming clear to the U.S. Government, as it was related by a U.S. senator to a local chamber of commerce this week. Quote, "On Friday night, I called my wife and I said, 'Brooke, I'm not coming home this weekend. I will call you on Monday. Tonight, I want you to go to the ATM machine, and I want to you draw out everything that it will let you take, and I want to you go tomorrow, and I want to you go on Sunday.'"
OK. First of all, she can't just go in and talk to a teller.
Second of all, the FDIC insures your freaking deposit, senator genius. Third of all, you think it's worth making a "run on the bank" anyway because of what you've learned in Washington about what's going on in the financial sector but you don't tell your constituents. You instead just use that information you've got because of your position as a senator to protect your own family?
And fourth, what kind of a genius admits to having done this and suggesting a "run on the banks" in public? What kind of a genius? A genius named United States senator from North Carolina Richard Burr, that's who. If you've never heard of him, it's probably because he's vying with the likes of Senators Barrasso and Crapo to be the most anonymous member of the United States Senate.
It really has been quite a week, huh? Rick Warren caught with his pants on fire on Larry King, marriage equality blooming, fundies melting down at an unprecedented pace (and for Concerned Women for America, financial meltdown)...
If you search YouTube, you'll see tons of video rebuttals to the National Organization for Marriage's pitiful, lie-ridden ad that debuted this week. The fact-free fearmongering fell flat as NOM was ridiculed over and over, each of its points discredited. It was enough to make NOM's Brian Brown drop out of a Countdown Ed Schultz show appearance; I guess he knew he was going to get scorched on live TV and bailed.
What a way to flush $1.5 million down the crapper. Think of the many homeless shelters and food banks that could have used that money to actually help people in need. If NOM cares so deeply about family values, it wouldn't have wasted all that scratch to produce that flaming pile of crap.
Another parody...no comment...
And of course, Rachel's smackdown on NOM's incredibly tone-deaf, clearly unGoogled acronym for its effort.
Here are a few links so you can savor the week's freakout of the right wing bible beating set.
As Pam wrote, the original InterTubes video of the NOM auditions is down. However, Rachel Maddow's take on the auditions is now up -- and it includes what was put up on the InterTubes.
So, without any further comment -- this is an interesting news segment from last night's Rachel Maddow show (Update: The key section begins at the 2:07 minute mark into the video):
update: Btw, the part we want to watch now starts after the 2:00 minute mark -- two minutes into the video. We had change out the shorter video of from YouTube to the full video from MSNBC because on the Intertubes, NOM keeps making content/copyright claims of the auditions footage. :P
Rachel Maddow: We do not know how Human Rights Campaign got access to the audition tapes, but because they did we do know that pretending to be a straight person hurt by gay marriage, umm...is apparently very, VERY challenging.
And, just because I'm not commenting doesn't mean you can't. (You can pretty much guess what my comments would be just from the fact we found a way to get the audition videos back up, hee-hee!)
It's painful, people, just painful. First the takedown of Michael Steele by Dr. Ada Fisher, a member of the RNC, who was interviewed by Rachel Maddow the other night to discuss Fisher's call for Steele to step down. Rachel covers the full range of Steele's ineptitude as head of the RNC so far as well.
This morning, Steele was guest hosting blowhard gambling man Bill Bennett's conservative talk radio and gave this response to the whispers that he should step aside.
STEELE: It's been a good week, it's been an instructive week. That's really what I take away from a week like this. ... The instruction is particularly for republicans is that you need to stay focused, other wise you get scapegoated. [...]
CALLER: I hope that Paul Begala and Emanuel and Carville don't convince you to resign your position.
STEELE: Aww, trust me. Not me Baby! Nuh-uh. Not happening. No way, no how!
Yeah, baby, you be da man! What is the chatter in the swamps of Freeperville about Steele now? Take a look.
As I mentioned in my Rick Warren update post last night, Rachel Maddow took the gloves off during her show and covered the exploding issue in the direct manner that she excels at on so many other issues.
Apparently she found her voice tonight on this topic and spent a good amount of time on her soapbox to take a stand for progressive principles since those who believe in reproductive freedom and LGBTs, among others, have tire marks on our backs from this incident. Thank you, Rachel -- the effort didn't go unnoticed or unappreciated around here.
She handled the offensive decision to have Warren deliver the invocation at Obama's inauguration as a toss-off at the end of the program the night before, and my heart sank -- was this going to receive the "Huckabee treatment" (see here and here as well)? I was unsure whether she would give the matter of Barack Obama slapping the faces of LGBTs and state womb control opponents the attention and gravity that it deserved.
But she not only put the issue front and center on her show last night, she covered it in depth, she did it with passion. She relayed how incensed she was by the president-elect's decision, the reality of the "values" of Rick Warren, and discussed it with S.F. Mayor Gavin Newsom on the air.
UPDATE: Louise did a complete transcript of the segment in this diary - many thanks! And entertains while doing so. Jon Stewart asked serious questions any hard-hitting progressive journalist or political commentator with a talk show is perfectly capable of asking. He made Huckabee explain his positions on LGBT rights and connects it to the messages in his new book about the merits of social conservatism that he's hawking. That's on-point and newsworthy journalism -- and Stewart certainly found and made the topic interesting. Thank you, thank you, Jon.
"You write that marriage is the bedrock of society...Why would you not want more couples to buy into the stability of marriage. Why would you want to precluded for an entire [group] of people."
Huckabee responded with a series of standard points, including "Marriage still means one man, one woman, life relationship. I think people have a right to live any way they want to, but even anatomically -- let's face it -- the only way that we can create the next generation is through a male/female relationship."
In a point that Stewart would press him on later by suggesting that his history is a bit skewed, Huckabee asserted, "For 5000 years of recorded human history that's what marriage has meant."
Huckabee: "30 states have had it on the ballot, and in all 30 states, it's passed -- even in states like California, that nobody would suggest are social conservatives..."
Stewart: "30 states had Mike Huckabee on the ballot and they voted for John McCain. You can't trust those voters. The voters don't know."
Please watch the whole interview. It literally made me weep because Stewart gets it. This is a human rights issue and the bottom line is how can you NOT go after a national politician in 2008 who spews sh*t like:
"There's a big difference between being black and a person practicing a lifestyle"
or
"The only way to create the next generation is a man-woman relationship"
or
"The basic purpose of a marriage is not just to create the next generation but to train our replacements. And it's in the context of 23 male and 23 female chromosomes coming together to form a conception to create the next human life."
This man ran for president and intends to do so again. Journalists, particularly openly progressive ones, have an obligation to bore in on pols like Huckabee because their views are often wrapped up with a wink and a smile and sold as protecting family, children, the word "marriage", etc. as if this is all a benign act that hurts no citizens in this country.
One of many spot-on quotes from Stewart:
"I think it's a travesty that people have forced someone who is gay to have to 'make their case' that they deserve the same basic rights."
..."I'll tell you this: Religion is far more of a choice than homosexuality. And the protections that we have for religion? We protect religion -- and talk about a lifestyle choice -- that is absolutely a choice. Gay people don't choose to be gay. At what age did you choose not to be gay?"
BTW, if anyone has time to post the full transcript in the comments, it would be fabulous because this needs to go viral.
I've been out for several hours so I'm just getting back to this and see the thread about my appearance and Rachel Maddow's on The Mike Signorile Show is buzzing. As promised, I have the audio.
First, my interview with Mike, in a segment before he interviewed Rachel:
(UPDATE: 2:50 - I just wrapped up and basically I covered same ground covered in this post and in my original piece on the subject. Rachel will respond in the next hour. I'll have audio of both later.)
UPDATE 2 (4PM, I'm bumping this back up top for a while): Holy smoke - Rachel just prevaricated on the air. She told Mike that she's asked me to be on her show and not responded. I've never been asked, and in fact she's never emailed, called or in any way had contact with me before. I have no idea why she would say this. Wow. Why would I have turned down an opportunity to go on her show? FYI, Rachel:
Mike's interview was tough, but fair, IMHO. I have great respect for Rachel Maddow for going on the air to answer some difficult questions. I was disappointed to hear her defend her editorial decisions (she said MSNBC does not tell her what to report on, btw) by suggesting that Mike (or I) expect her to cover LGBT issues 24/7 or in a certain way because she is out of the closet. No one said that -- it's that she's progressive and has oddly given short shrift to the issues, in particular challenging Mike Huckabee, who showed up to hawk a book about the appeal of social conservatism after saying that gay rights movement hasn't had enough skulls cracked to earn civil rights on The View. To deem a potential 2012 presidential candidate who was the governor of a state that just banned same-sex couples from adopting "uninteresting" because everyone allegedly knows the depth of Huckabee's anti-gay issues is breathtaking.
UPDATE 3 (From Autumn): When Pam and I were at the Democratic National Convention this year, I specifially sent an email to MSNBC for either Pam, me, or both Pam and me to interview Rachel Maddow for The Blend (Sent: August 19, 2008, 4:15 PM PDT). The point of contact at MSNBC -- Gina Stikes -- was sent Pam's and my email addresses, as well as our cell phone numbers.
At that time, it had been announced that Maddow would have a new show on MSNBC, and that it would begin after the Democatic and Republican National Conventions. Since we all were going to be in Denver at the same time, I thought I'd ask on behalf of PHB for an interview -- I knew our audience here at The Blend would be interested in hearing directly from Maddow about her show. I didn't get a response back from my request directly, but I did get put on an email list with my public, changing[underscore]seasons[at]cox.net email address.
I've again emailed Pam a copy of that email to MSNBC's Gina Stikes requesting a Maddow interview.
So, at least at one point, the Rachel Maddow Show people at MSNBC had Pam's and my direct contact info.
UPDATE 4: I have the audio up - plus more information on the did she/didn't she invite me on her show matter.
I'm going to be on the Michelangelo Signorile Show today to discuss the former Arkansas Governor appearance on her show to pimp his latest tome, Do the Right Thing: Inside the Movement That's Bringing Common Sense Back to America. The book is the media-friendly Huckabee's launching pad for 2012 that seeks to rehabilitate social conservatism so that it isn't jettisoned from his party in the wake of Sarah Palin's batsh*ttery.
A talented and essential progressive voice on the air, Rachel Maddow's softball interview with Huckabee seemed oddly out of sorts, given he has been touring the country spewing fresh homophobia (see his appearance on The View, where he tried to peddle his bigotry and received more grilling than Maddow gave him), and that as a former governor of the state of Arkansas who supports discrimination against gays and lesbians, it would have been timely and relevant to ask him about the adoption measure that passed on Nov. 4 that bars same-sex couples from adopting.
It would have been good to hear what Mr. Huckabee feels should happen to children in the foster care system and group homes -- he must prefer that they languish there rather than in loving homes where the parents aren't married or are same-sex couples.
Some questions for Rachel that might shed light on several issues are below the fold.
I'm starting to think that Rachel Maddow has an issue or professional discomfort with taking on publicly anti-gay figures on her show. It's an oddity, given 1) she's out and has a high-profile; and 2) her fellow MSNBC host, Keith Olbermann, has been extremely forceful as an ally on the issue by comparison. She's spoken at length about the debacle of Prop 8, so one would assume that if given the opportunity, Maddow would address the issue with well-known homophobes.
The reticence to take on agents of intolerance surfaced in a recent interview with former GOP clown car occupant, rapist/murderer-releasing Baptist minister-without-a-theology-degree Mike Huckabee. (Think Progress):
Maddow was notably silent on the issue of gay rights when interviewing former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee. On Tuesday, Huckabee had insisted that gay rights and civil rights were totally different because gay rights activists' "skulls" weren't getting "cracked." On Wednesday morning, Huckabee claimed that Prop. 8 "did not prohibit" gay marriage; it "simply affirmed that which already has and forever has existed," he said.
During the seven-minute interview last night, however, Maddow never forced Huckabee to defend these claims. Instead, Maddow repeatedly asked him about his future presidential plans and speculated about the influence of the Christian Right in the GOP.
Huckabee has a long history of making statements that indicate an ignorant worldview when it comes to LGBTs -- as Think Progress noted, Huckabee has equated homosexuality with bestiality and necrophilia, said being gay is a choice, wants sodomy recriminalized, and would like to see gay couples banned from adopting, and prevent same-sex partners from receiving spousal survival benefits.
Now here comes the interesting part to discuss here in the coffeehouse. Maddow was contacted by ThinkProgress to ask why she avoided LGBT issues with Huck. Her response? See it after the jump.
Just got the confirmation from HQ; the rumor has been going around for an hour...
I don't know how many of my readers surf around the general progressive blogosphere regularly, but you can get a taste of the blowback the LGBT community is receiving for deigning to ask why the Obama administration has been silent regarding his self-proclaimed "fierce advocate" role.
Richard "Bank Run" Burr, who has been getting a serious and justified posterior whipping for his ludicrous, loony, and self-serving behavior pointed out quite nicely by 
(You can pretty much guess what my comments would be just from the fact we found a way to get the audition videos back up, hee-hee!)
As I mentioned in my Rick Warren update post 
