On Thursday’s Countdown show, as MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann hosted fellow host Rachel Maddow to plug a segment on her show about pro-life Democratic Congressman Bart Stupak’s push to block any ObamaCare proposal that involves taxpayer funding of abortion, Maddow charged that Stupak was being "cowardly" in focusing his pro-life attention "targeting" poor women who "won’t fight back or can’t fight back because they don’t have the resources."
Maddow’s contention came as Olbermann – ignoring the political reality that not only does an individual Congressman have little if any influence in a President’s choice of Supreme Court nominees, but that even mustering a two-thirds vote to overturn Roe vs. Wade by constitutional amendment would be nearly impossible in any Congress, let alone an overwhelmingly Democratic one – tried to undermine Stupak’s moral authority on abortion by suggesting the Michigan Democrat was not willing to "fight that fight in the open."
Olbermann: "If he feels this way, why not introduce a constitutional amendment, draw up a federal law – gee, if maybe you could get more conservatives on the Supreme Court than you have now? Isn't a legal half-measure sideways, coming in sideways against abortion politically worse than a legal full measure?"
Maddow essentially accused Stupak of picking on defenseless women as she responded: "I'm sure he's delighted to be able to try to restrict abortion rights purely by going after women who he thinks won't fight back, by targeting women who are not well off enough to be able to pay for abortion services without insurance coverage for them."
After charging that Stupak’s efforts – like the Hyde Amendment – are a sign of not being "brave enough to make your argument on its face," she continued: "They're not really man enough to make the argument that it ought to just be gone. They'd rather just chip away from it from women they think won't fight back or can't fight back because they don't have the resources. It's cowardly, but it's the way they've been doing it for a generation."
Below is a transcript of the exchange from the Thursday, November 12, Countdown show on MSNBC:
KEITH OLBERMANN: One backdoor thing that’s evident in this – and it’s part of a big picture point that I don't really get – whatever you think of it, abortion is legal in this country. If this is Mr. Stupak's calling, if his conscience tells him you've got to stop this, why not fight that fight in the open? I mean, if he feels this way, why not introduce a constitutional amendment, draw up a federal law – gee, if maybe you could get more conservatives on the Supreme Court than you have now? Isn't a legal half-measure sideways, coming in sideways against abortion politically worse than a legal full measure?
RACHEL MADDOW: Well, I'm sure he's delighted to be able to try to restrict abortion rights purely by going after women who he thinks won't fight back, by targeting women who are not well off enough to be able to pay for abortion services without insurance coverage for them. You end up chipping away at abortion rights without ever having to be brave enough to make your argument on its face. And that's what led to the Hyde Amendment. That’s what’s led to so many of these other efforts to restrict access to abortion. They're not really man enough to make the argument that it ought to just be gone. They’d rather just chip away from it from women they think won’t fight back or can't fight back because they don't have the resources. It’s cowardly, but it’s the way they’ve been doing it for a generation.
—Brad Wilmouth is a news analyst at the Media Research Center.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
acorn
Fri, 11/13/2009 - 05:43 ET by FreemarketsaveslivesYou got to be kidding! Targeting poor women without the resources? What the hell is acorn? Billions in our tax dollars to help the poor and Obamas goons to screw you and me. Im so Effing sick of these jerks. Cant someone have notes, charts, video to challenge these idiot's? We now have to start giving those numb morons who tune into this junk no way to excuse these arguments. You need to expose their hate. If they play got ya questions, hit em with something like JFK tax speeches. They will think it's some right wing nut. Then tell em it's JFK. I know these folks and you have never seen so much hate. There is so much hate and stupidity on MSNBC. This is a culture war. They will lie, cheat and hate their way. We will crush them with facts and expose their hate. This is what we need to do NOW! Obama has his goons and she is as hot as a bag of "sqwashed" @s$holes.
Let me get this straight
Fri, 11/13/2009 - 05:59 ET by Vivaldi5Let's see if I understand this. Olby and Rachel, instead of actually, say, inviting someone who might actually disagree with them on this issue on one of their programs--in order to have, oh, I dunno, perchance a real debate--, decide to use the time to have each other on and high-five each other on their supposed co-brilliance against a pro-life congressman. And this somehow shows Bart Stupak is "cowardly."
The liberal "mind" is truly a fascinating thing, as this kind of approach would certainly not add up to any normal person. No wonder FOX News is eating their lunch day after day.
I see Cialis people
Fri, 11/13/2009 - 06:57 ET by CO2MakerA man and a woman, a sunset, two bathtubs...
Keith "I can't seem to make my pole numbers rise" the Sports Boy and Rachel "Don't look at me, I'm not Ron Reagan" Madcow join together to slam Bart Stupak's attempt to change Nancycare legislation.
" ... So you can be ready anytime for electile disfunction."
Hypocrisy much?
Fri, 11/13/2009 - 07:08 ET by Rukus"...won’t fight back or can't fight back..."
Kinda like those babies that are murdered every day before they even get a chance, huh Madcow. Go the hell away already!
Gary
Old media species: Moonbat-a-saurus-rex. Getting more endangered by the day.
"Some Debate"
Fri, 11/13/2009 - 07:09 ET by mad53PAThe hysterical rhetoric coming from the left is truely a site to behold.
Let's take away the politics, moral and religious convictions for a moment and look at what this "supposed" healthcare bill will accomplish.
If the intent is to bring costs down then logic would dictate that "elective procedures" should not be paid for with tax payer dollars.
Unless I have missed something, "abortion" unless the the life of the mother is at risk or in cases of rape or incest is an elective procedure.
To have it covered under "a public option" is an endorsement from the government no matter how you look at it.
Let pro choice believers be consistent on this: "private matter, private choice, private payment, period.
There's the exact reason
Fri, 11/13/2009 - 08:12 ET by ThatDudeThere's the exact reason why the lefties are being so ridiculous on this. This measure in no way prevents women from getting abortions. It does one small thing, and that is to prevent the taxpayers from paying for a procedure that really amounts to murder. In part, this is revealing in that saying the defunding of abortion in the public option makes it so women can't get one. If they were serious about allowing competition rather than forcing single payer on all Americans, then this would be a non-issue as women would have the choice to choose a plan with that included. Why is it so wrong for the government to listen to the people who consider abortion murder? I don't know how polling has been going regarding the health care bill and abortion, but a 50% split is enough for my argument. This government is absolutely tyrannical if they seek to force all Americans to give up their rights because half of them might choose to do so.
Speaking of rights, let me say that I am 100% pro-choice. If you don't want a baby, don't get pregnant. There's your choice. People need to stop thinking that murder is an option to take care of a bad choice they have made.
Abortions, tripwires, DEW lines
Fri, 11/13/2009 - 08:30 ET by CO2MakerAbortion is the sacredest of the sacredest of the sacred civil rights in this country, more sacred that free speech, which only applies to "nonhate" speech.
Protecting the sanctity of abortion [try saying that without getting disoriented] requires the most vigilantest of vigilantes. They have to man the sentry posts at all points on the perimeter, and they build DEW lines (distant early warning stations*) with over-the-top radar (and gaydar, too) to scan for any incoming threats to the sanctity of abortions, and they set up "trip-wire" defenses, small squadroons of expendable defenders who will be overrun when the big assault comes, thus dragging the main forces of NARAL, WaPoNYTs, and others into active defense of the sanctity of abortions. Partial-birth abortions are such a trip-wire.
How does this involve Hasan? I find it a bit more than a curious coincidence that Hasan style himself an SoA, which could mean "soldier of Allah" (as he says) . . . or "sanctity of abortions"!
*Extra credit: What does that term refer to? Hint: think BMEWS—it will bemuse you!
DEW Line---
Fri, 11/13/2009 - 16:09 ET by matthewdeanUnsure if I follow completely there, CO2---
The DEW Line was a series of radar installations running east/west along our (US) northern border and Canadas' southern border, the purpose of which was to provide early warning, for both retaliatory and protective purposes, in case of a missile strike from the USSR coming over the North Pole area.
Cold War era stuff.
Is that what you were asking?
BMEWS - Ballistic Missile Early Warning System - ??
MD
"There is no distinctly American criminal class - except Congress."
Mark Twain (1835-1910)
You got 'em both
Fri, 11/13/2009 - 18:48 ET by CO2MakerDEW line stations were built in the US, and their successors, BMEWS, were built in Greenland, Canada, and Alaska. The were radar stations, eventually over-the-horizon radar used to detect Soviet missiles fired across the North Pole, as you say.
The reason I mentioned them is that the abortion lobby has elaborate long-distance radar to detect any potential threat to the sanctity of abortion. But the knee-jerk reaction to begin to understand, and then excuse Hasan is the complete opposite. No distant warning, no vigilant defenses against Muslimification or jihad. No DEW or BMEWS.
This should be an eyeopener:
Preacher demands Buckingham Palace be turned into a mosque | The Sun |News
Unbelievable
Fri, 11/13/2009 - 07:11 ET by Birch BarlowHow about the babies who can't fight back, Rachel?
Gee....
Fri, 11/13/2009 - 07:24 ET by John WILoose nut Olberman, and rugmuncher Maddow, talking about abortion........................really?!
And then they wonder why anyone with a brain who has cognitive reasoning skills, does not watch their programs.
That's what happens when when you choose a corrupted lifestyle and manipulative thought process......fucked up and rejected.
First of all madcow, Its an
Fri, 11/13/2009 - 07:35 ET by toneyukiFirst of all madcow,
Its an elective service.
it costs 372 dollars(http://www.guttmacher.org/in-the-know/cost.html) not exactly a huge burden, if you can't afford it DONT HAVE SEX, use birth control.
2nd, Obama talked about those evil doctors that do unnecesary operations for money, they work at planned parenthood.
Who is attacking the not well off?
I left the Republican party because the Republic party went to the LEFT of me.
Exactly, Toney - professional teeth whitening costs more
Fri, 11/13/2009 - 08:03 ET by SickofLibsNot only is it the cheapest medical procedure you could have, Planned Parenthood and the other "providers" are more than happy to arrange payment plans.
It's legal; just don't ask ME to pay for it. This whole argument is philosophical, not financial.
Question: How does Japan deal with this?
Why pay for an abortion
Fri, 11/13/2009 - 08:10 ET by CO2MakerWhen you can get Uncle Sam to pay for it for you?
That way, you can save your money for an iPod with 16Gb of memory (or whatever it's up to these days).
"DONT HAVE SEX, use birth control"
Fri, 11/13/2009 - 08:08 ET by CO2MakerOr both. Works for Keith. He walks around wearing a condom, just in case. Even in the bathtub (keeps the tip from getting all wrinkly).
restrict abortion rights
Fri, 11/13/2009 - 08:08 ET by motherbeltrestrict abortion rights purely by going after women who he thinks
won't fight back, by targeting women who are not well off enough to be
able to pay for abortion services without insurance coverage for them."
gosh, Rachel, who is paying for abortions for those women now? You know, women without insurance coverage, which is all of them, because I don't think any insurance plan covers abortion.
And if abortion is such a blessing for women, why aren't you targeting Planned Parenthood to forgo some of their profits and provide their services free of charge to the neediest?
You know, like you think oil companies should not make so much money!
From Moonbattery:
Planned Parenthood reveals it has doubled "excess of revenue over
expenses" [nice way of saying "profits" dontcha think?] funds from $55.7 million in 2005 to $112 million in 2006.
How about excoriating them for "excess profits" like you do tobacco and oil companies? Aren't they targeting women, especially needy women, in their greed?
Planned Parenthood makes profits?
Fri, 11/13/2009 - 08:32 ET by CO2MakerIt shouldn't.
Tax those windfall profits! Or is that "bedfall" profits?
The reason that Maddow and Olberman appear together so much
Fri, 11/13/2009 - 08:05 ET by Patrick MichaelThe reason that Maddow and Olberman appear together so much is that they share a brain, and it is not a very big brain at that. It is also rather unfair to have both of them together speaking for abortion as it makes the viewer(s) (whoever they are) wish that the mothers of Maddow and Olberman had of given abortion more serious consideration.
Stay Free!!!
Stunning
Fri, 11/13/2009 - 08:29 ET by KC MulvilleThis completely floored me.
The legality of abortion rests on the ultimate back-door move in American life. Roe v. Wade was an absolute theft of legal authority. As Byron White said, the Court may have had the raw power to enforce the decision, but it had no justification or moral authority. It was a liberal "victory," won by cheating.
And now, these bastards say things like "Isn't a legal half-measure sideways, coming in sideways against abortion politically worse than a legal full measure?"
The entire liberal agenda is based on "coming in sideways." Look at gay marriage. No one votes for it. The only bragging that gay marriage advocates can make is that they're not losing by as much ... but they still lose. How do they achieve their "victories?" Never through honest election, but by judicial interpretation.
They have the gall to accuse others of "coming in sideways?" These are liars, plain and simple.
Yeah, KC, I'm down there
Fri, 11/13/2009 - 09:02 ET by motherbeltYeah, KC, I'm down there next to you!
Liberals invented the tactic of incrementalism, otherwise known as "coming in sideways."
Smoking is a great example. They started with just wanting a 'no smoking' section on airplanes! Look where we are now!
And with smoking they STILL don't have the gumption to push to oulaw tobacco products altogether!!
Maddow, you lip-curled
Fri, 11/13/2009 - 09:01 ET by bse5150Maddow, you lip-curled Jodie-Foster wannabe dingbat, have you heard from your ratings lately?
Because no one else has.
Just a thought...
Fri, 11/13/2009 - 09:59 ET by sam12663...should it really be called 'Planned Parenthood', when their main focus is to keep people from becoming parents?
President Obama is nothing more than a lying empty suit; a Hollywood style special effects smoke and mirrors show that has shown itself to be a total fraud.
WAKE UP AMERICA! SAVE OUR CONSTITUTION!
Yeah, Madcow???
Fri, 11/13/2009 - 09:53 ET by RESTLESS 1How about all the unborn babies that can't fight for themselves, you selfish b$%ch. Liberals are the true cowards. Look who they go after. Beauty pageant contestants, plumbers, unborn babies. Yeah, those ass$%les have a lot of guts.
"If the man, with the power, can't keep it under control...some heads are gonna roll." -Judas Priest
Olbermann and Maddow
Fri, 11/13/2009 - 10:25 ET by DaMamaBetween the 2 of them, I don't think they have a double digit IQ.
Maddow makes the most ridiculous statements. All a woman has to do to avoid getting pregnant in the first place is keep her pants up and say NO. DUH.
But Maddow, Olbermann and their ilk seem to think that sleeping around is just fine, and damn the consequences. If someone gets pregnant, just have an abortion. Never mind what it does to a woman physically, mentally and emotionally. No abortion is safe, even "legal" ones. Abortion changes a woman forever, regardless of what brainless feminists and ignorant journalists say.
Why do people even watch these airheads?
Conversely
Fri, 11/13/2009 - 10:47 ET by OxyConMadcow seems upset that poor, minoritiy babies won't be aborted under Stupak's legislation. Sounds racist to me.
sooo....
Fri, 11/13/2009 - 11:30 ET by Candance MooreAre we going to hear news reports about the civil war going on over pro-life Democrats?
The fringe targeting politically viable centrists?
Moderates need not apply?
DNC whittling down to a base of angry liberals?
Stupak crying in his office because of the hate?
No room on the left for open dialogue?
Democrats becoming irrelevant because they're too extreme?
Who exactly is cowardly
Fri, 11/13/2009 - 11:51 ET by GrannyGrump42How much more cowardly can you get than targeting for *death* a baby who can't fight back? This is a case of the pot calling the fire black.