Rachel Maddow's Campaign Asylum: Hookers Hookers Everywhere!
By Logan Murphy Friday Aug 31, 2007 8:38am
Air America Radio talk show host Rachel Maddow's newest Campaign Asylum video covers the numerous Republican hooker scandals that have plagued the party over the past couple of years. After the massive Republican defeat in the 2006 elections, Karl Rove claimed that it wasn't Iraq, Katrina or any of the other failures of the Bush administration that brought down the Republicans, it was Mark Foley and other sex scandals that were to blame. As Dr. Maddow points out, if that truly was the reason for the Democratic sweep last year, the post-'06 Republican sex scandals, which are connected to a few GOP presidential campaigns, might pose a big problem for the Republican party in the 2008 elections. Another fine video from Rachel...
Login or Register to post comments.
Conyers!!
Rachel is a breath of fresh air. It seems that the perfect storm is building for 08--Dem House, Dem Senate, Dem President. Now if we can have enough Senators to shut down a filibuster we can start to reinstate all of the damage done over the last several years. Who else can we catch with their trousers down? Rudy? Fred(or would that just be lovable ol' Fred)? Lott? Perhaps Lindsey?
Nicely done! There are so many Republican sex scandals you start to lose track. Just don't think I would be getting my moral value lectures from Republicans. To me this whole Republican moral value campaign has been nothing more than a bait and switch. How else could you get so many decent middle American people to go along with a party that bends over backwords for big business; oil, healthcare, insurance, communications etc. at the expense of the middle class?
We can now hope religious leaders begin to realize the Republican Party had no intentions of delivering a promised American style Taliban government to them.
V D VITTER'S GOT TO GO!
.
a party that bends over backwords for big business; oil, healthcare, insurance, communications etc. at the expense of the middle class?
Their reps bend over forward and grab their ankles at for their boy patrners.
Kudos! This is one of Rachel's best Asylum videos. She's gotten really good at doing them. Check out her ouvre at YouTube and Alternet.com.
Having said all that, and being an almost obsessive listerner to her AAR show, my favorite Rachel viewing is on Olbermann's show. No "performance", no animal noises, just a smart woman being smart on TV.
boy patrners supposed to be boy partners - sorry
Hypocrite, thy name is Republican. David Vitter and Larry Craig both hypocrites. Then comes the RNC and they are even hypocritical of the hypocrites. Larry Craig has to go (Idaho has a Republican governor), but David Vitter stays(La. has a Dem. gov.). The height to which they can take hypocricy is simply astounding.
Haha, she's right!
And why is Vitter still around? Who do I blow to make Vitter resign?
In what looks like desperation the Republicans are eating their own.
I mean that in a metaphorical way, not as an actuality. :-P
She is really really good.
Where is Bill Bennett? Where is Alan Keys?
Where's the outrage?
Oh I get it now.
When it is a Democratic President, or Senator
we should be outraged, but when it is a good
"vote values" Republican hooking up in men's
room, it's the media.
It is hard to remember sometimes that the Republican
party has no perverts,who lack judgment among
their ranks.
How many times have we heard Bush say he doesn't pay attention to polls. Well Georgie Boy, hate to inform you, but it appears that the majority of U.S. voters do pay attention to certain kinds of polls, in specific GOP "pole smokers".
Rachel Maddow is just amazingly good. She is smart, articulate, funny, attractive and unflappable.
Someone remind me why she isn't on TV more.
Give her the spot currently occupied on MSNBC by Morning Joe.
pissed off patricia @ 15:
Oh hell yeah. Morning Joe is a waste of electrons.
All this finger-pointing at Republicans is a waste of time. Though I dread '4 more years', the Repugs will inevitably win the 2008 Presidency if Dems allow either Hilary or Obama to win. America is not ready for either a black or female President; whoever wins the Repug candidacy in opposition will win the Presidency by default. Dems should therefore stop blathering on about Republican woes and kick into overdrive by making demands that candidates like Roberts, Biden, Dodd, or Kucich, (or whoever) are covered in the media. Dems might still win Congress with a black man or a woman at the helm, but they will not win the Presidency and that is something they cannot afford to lose.
OK, can we make up our minds people? When the Dems do nothing but enable the Bush Regime in Congress, everyone that supports the Dems says they don't have the numbers to do anything about it. Yet, then it goes back to the "massive Republican defeat" in 2006. Well, which is it? It isn't/wasn't a massive defeat by the numbers, but it is? I am confused. Or is it just the Dems excuses just don't pass the smell test?
Before we start gloating ...
It's best to remember that this is the same American Public that:
(1) elected Bush president in 2004, and
(2) believed (over 70%) there was a connection between Hussein and September 11th.
This dumbed-down America is more than capable of electing Fred Thompson or
Mitt Romney president in 2008.
America is kind of stupid and dumbed-down these days.
Avenger @ 17:
Point well taken. Listen up Dems.
pissed off patricia @ 10:
*drum rimshot*
Rachel did great. The House seems to be a lock next year. I'm shooting for 60 to 65 seats in the Senate to make Lieberman more irrelevant.
The story in Chattanooga Tn linking the Rove folder trick when Bush visited notes Coptix as the agent for handling WH emails....several Chatt stories have identified this company as working with RNC....handling for some reason Ohio vote info....etc. Someond needs to chase this suggestion. I sent to RM at Air as well...
But, but, but...Mark Foley's a Democrat! I know this 'cause Fox News said so! You gay liberal commies are soooo stupid.
arroyo @ 19:
I messed that up a bit. Sorry all.
Before we get to carried away with republican elections woes, don't forget about the war drums along the Iranian border unitary presidency and its rarely mentioned sibling the continuity presidency concept put forth as a justification for suspending the "privilege" of elections in a time of national crisis.
ONLY a hardcore, rightwing, Bushlicker* would not see the sweet irony in this piece.
Rachel has a superb persona and sticks to the facts.
And of course, she is a liberal "gasp" lesbian. (Gasp applies to both "L" words.)
This video probes (sorry) the various GOP hooker scandals of late.
Ya know, the same folks who obsessed about Clinton's penis. Hmmmm
Ya know, the same folks who are obsessed with Fred Thompson's "virility." Hmmmmm
The same folks who are obsessed with the Father and the Son. Hm... Nahhhhh, the omission of female divinity can't be a sign of closeted homosexuality; everyone knows gays think Judy Garland is Divine.
Glad I'm a liberal.
* Yes, I did mean Anne Coulter.
Am I obligated to like Rachel Maddow just because she's smart and I agree with her? Sorry, but I find her annoying. If I have to listen to her, I'd much rather hear what she has to say without all the nerd "humor" and the exaggerated, affected dj voice. To each their own, I guess.
If I was 30 years younger and a lesbian I would want to marry Rachael Maddow. She is terrific and I love seeing her on Olberman and agree that she needs more television time.
I have to agree with the danger of putting Clinton or Obama on the top spot for Prez. This country is so dumbed down and so many bigots and fools will be energized to come out and vote against their own best interest once again. I'm still holding out hope that Al Gore will see our dilemma and step us for us.
Gotta love Rachel, she always hits the nail on the head so to speak
here is "the big list" for anyone that hasn't seen it yet. got this link off usenet years ago:
http://www.armchairsubversive.org/
looks like some updating needs done there.
It seems rather obvious that the more corrupt and/or perverse their party members are . . the more valuable they are to their party.
After all, holding their dirty secrets over their heads does result in a very valuable FORCED "yea" vote on chamber floors even on issues that would be vehemently opposed by that politician due to the fact he/she has a "file" at the RNC ready to be leaked as needed.
Let us not forget Rethug Poster Boy, Marine, gay porn film star and reputed gay escort, Mathew Sanchez. He became a star when claiming he was befouled at Columbia University by being called a "baby killer" for his military status and time in Iraq and Afghanistan as an embedded blogger. The right embraced him. He was supported by any number of wingnuts including Hanity and Colms, O'Reilly, Coulter, Malkin, Gingrich, etc. He received the Jeane Kirkpatrick Academic Freedom Award for his work fighting discrimination against military and veterans. Of course, no one could verify the discrimination incident that launched Sanchez into right wing fame. The bloom came off the rose when Sanchez's history came out.
J.C. @ 28:
And you know JC, I LOVE Rachel Maddow, but Keith Olberman drives me crazy. I like what he says but his intensity and affect really drive me nuts. Yes, to each our own. At least both of them are smart and have a public voice for the left.
Madow is very funny, but, in substance, I think I agree with arroyo that the gloating is premature. Rove happens to be smart about politics, and Democrats seem to be DUMB about politics. What Rove knows about his base is that 1) they are stupid and 2) they have no memory. Because they are stupid, the only deal-killer issue they have is queers. Because they have no memory, the gay sex scandal has to happen very close to the election. The Repugs ignore billion of years of this planet's existence. Do you think they can't ignore something that happens a year before the election? You see, once a few covert cocktails wash the taste of semen out of the Republican mouth, to them it's like the BJ never happened. The Democrats have to learn to save up these sex indiscretions until right at election time, or they will not register at all in the lizard-brained Repugs. They will be completely wasted scandals.
I also agree with Avenger. I have been looking at Biden all along. He's an inferior candidate to Kucinich, but we have an inferior crossover populace that craves inferior candidates. Biden just looks like a president. One problem with Biden and Kucinich, though, is that they do not have those winning southern accents. Edwards looks a little to young, though he does have that winning twang, and he is so obviously a trial lawyer, and--let's be frank--nobody likes their new-BMW-driving, fancy-restaurant-dining, $600 haircut having asses. Kucinich is awesome, but he is a vegetarian, and Republicans will hate him for it. They might, however, let his hot wife sway them. She is also about as white as they come. Seriously. I really think that is the way the Republican "brain" really works.
Good news for the Religious values GOP. Vitter is going to be really happy. Vitter went to Iraq for 10 hours for sex with prostitutes. Other GOP officials are perverts and who knows what they were doing. Look Craig has friends for the past 26 years who do the same thing he does. yes the GOP group pay prostitutes with taxpayers money yes there are still those who are child molesters like Fingers Foley. But this is the Republicans Christian values/morals policy that we are to follow. Now for those who just follow God's teachings and the bible well you can't be Republican so get over it and move on.
Avenger @ 17:
I do hate to agree with you. However I do agree with you and that is why I am voting for Chris Dodd. He is the only candidate that has stated in public that the very first thing he will do as president is restore the constitution. THAT is enough for me by itself. Never mind his common sense approach to renewable energy and willigness to take on the heath care lobby.
How come what Larry Craig did makes him unfit to serve in the U.S. Senate alongside the drunken killer Ted Kennedy?
[...] Here is Rachel Maddow’s take on the impact the rash of Republican sex scandal’s has had ... Share and Enjoy: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and [...]
@38: Chuck, you'll have to ask the Republicans who drove Craig out of office that question.
Heretic @ 35:
I don't think the point of Rachel's video was to gloat over how big she thinks Democrats are going to win in '08. I think it was born more out of the desire to poke fun at the avalanche of these sex scandals (and as she says on her show, she's "contractually obligated" to be a comprehensive source of all hooker news) and to point out what people like Rove are actually positing when they say that sex is what cost the Republicans the '06 election. I think she finds the theory ridiculous, and frankly, so do I. Sure Rove was eager to pin the blame for the loss of both houses of Congress onto Foley, but he's not forecasting now that all of the other sex scandals that have come to light since last fall will cause them to lose the next election too. And why not? I don't think it's just because we're still over a year away from the election, I think it's because he doesn't actually believe that Foley was the reason they lost. He was just the chosen scapegoat, because his scandal was one of the few things Rove could point to that wouldn't make it look like Bush was at least partly to blame for the losses his party suffered. I think Rachel was pointing out in her own way how ridiculous that claim was by applying that theory further.
I agree that we should be careful about proclaiming political victory 14 months ahead of the election based on the humiliating upsets on the other side, but I don't agree that we shouldn't give them any attention or that these scandals don't matter at all in the bigger picture. I think they do matter, even if they alone don't spell out eminent downfall of the GOP. They are still weights thrown upon the elephant's back, and as strong of a beast it is, its ability to weather burdens isn't infinite. When the animal collapses, it's due to the combined weight of all it carries, and sometimes even something that can seem insignificant can end up pushing things beyond the limits of endurance.
Anyway, great video Rachel! I look forward to seeing your next effort!
Login or Register to post comments.