NBC Brings on MSNBC's Maddow to Attack 'Very, Very Conservative' Romney 'Who Wants to Roll Back Gay Rights Nationwide'
To get reaction to President Obama's flip-flop on gay marriage, Thursday's NBC Today brought on openly gay left-wing MSNBC host Rachel Maddow, who quickly attacked Republicans on the issue: "It's a very, very conservative Republican Party on this issue....Mitt Romney, who wants to roll back gay rights nationwide."
Co-host Ann Curry helped Maddow along by asking series of questions from the left: "...[Obama's] leaving it to the states, there's no movement to do something federally, in terms of making a change, I mean, what actually changes?....Is it clear, though, that this will not satisfy gay marriage activists?...that there's going to be an increase in their demands to push this further forward? Have it be on the platforms for the Democratic Party?"
Curry then bolstered the case for Obama changing his mind and supporting gay marriage: "...this comes as there's increasing support in this country for gay marriage rights. There's a poll from 2004. And it found that only 30% of the population was in favor of gay marriage. And now there's a new poll that finds that 49%, a majority, favors gay marriage. So to what degree is this really just smart politics by the President?"
Note to Curry: 49% is not a majority. The NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll she cited showed that as of March 2012, 49% favored gay marriage while 40% opposed. 49% would be a plurality, not a majority.
In part, Maddow responded: "...for the President to have made this decision to say this is my personal view, I think is an act of political bravery because there's no clear – there's no clear way to say that this is going to help him politically."
Later in the show, as part of a liberal panel discussion of the topic, openly gay CNBC host Suze Orman cheered Obama's move: "This is something that should have been done, in my opinion anyway – obviously, I would think that – a long time ago."
NBC couldn't seem to find any opponents of gay marriage to react to the President's announcement.
Here is a full transcript of the May 10 exchange:
7:05AM ET
ANN CURRY: Well, Rachel Maddow is the host of The Rachel Maddow Show on MSNBC and she joins us now. Rachel, good morning to you.
RACHEL MADDOW: Hi, Ann.
[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Obama vs. Romney; Will President's Gay Marriage Stance Change Race?]
CURRY: You've called the President's announcement historic in civil rights. But given what we've just heard from Chuck Todd, that this – he's leaving it to the states, there's no movement to do something federally, in terms of making a change, I mean, what actually changes?
MADDOW: Well, you know, it's – I think that symbolic value is hard to see in the moment. I think this is something we will know more in retrospect in terms of what this milestone – just for knowing that the President believes this and he's waiting to see it – what that means.
But this is not a given that this would happen. I mean, think about what's going on in the rest of politics. George W. Bush was for civil unions. The current Republican de facto nominee Mitt Romney is against civil unions. The states that have recognized same-sex marriage rights would have those rights overturned federally by the constitutional amendment that the Republican Party supports.
I mean, this is not something that is – where everything is all marching in the same direction. I mean, Mitt Romney is right where Rick Santorum is on gay rights issues. It's a very, very conservative Republican Party on this issue. And I'm not sure that it's clear what the electoral impact will be given the way that states keep voting against these rights when they have the choice.
CURRY: Is it clear, though, that this will not satisfy gay marriage activists? In other words, that this – that there's going to be an increase in their demands to push this further forward?
MADDOW: I think that-
CURRY: Have it be on the platforms for the Democratic Party?
MADDOW: I think that – I think that there's a very good chance it will be part of the platform for the Democratic Party. I think the prospect that that was going to be some sort of divisive fight or something they really wanted to avoid is now over because of yesterday's announcement. It will be in the party platform. What that means practically, I don't know.
I think that it's interesting. I'm an openly gay person who works in the news media covering this but also feeling this as a gay person. The thing that I'm realizing is that gay people have very practical feelings about this. That this is about our lives. This is about our families. This is about whether or not we're hurt by policy made in the public arena. And so the symbolic value, I think, is important and does mean a lot to us. But mostly we want practical policies that help us.
CURRY: It's interesting in seeing how all this came about, this announcement in a hastily arranged interview on the heels of Joe Biden's comments on Meet the Press.
MADDOW: Yeah.
CURRY: You do get the sense that Joe Biden forced the President's hand on this. But I want to show you this poll, because it's really interesting to also note that this comes as there's increasing support in this country for gay marriage rights. For example, take a look at this poll. There's a poll from 2004. And it found that only 30% of the population was in favor of gay marriage. And now there's a new poll that finds that 49%, a majority, favors gay marriage. So to what degree is this really just smart politics by the President?
MADDOW: Well it – again, it's very hard to say, because as you've seen those poll numbers go up, and it's consistent across all polls and really over – it's an accelerating progression toward more accepting views in the public, but every time you put these issues up to a statewide vote, they lose. I mean, I think in civil rights, generally speaking, when you ask for a majority vote on minority rights, generally minorities do not fare well. So you have to look at the fact that this came right after the North Carolina vote on Amendment One, a constitutional amendment to ban gay rights. That was an overwhelming vote against gay rights in that state.
And so for the President to have made this decision to say this is my personal view, I think is an act of political bravery because there's no clear – there's no clear way to say that this is going to help him politically. I think the gay community broadly supported the President anyway. They've pressured him on some things certainly. But it's not like they were going to go to Mitt Romney, who wants to roll back gay rights nationwide. So this was something that the President did, I think as a matter of conscience. And I think it's sort of – we're in a chips fall where they may moment.
CURRY: Alright. Well, on that note, thank you, Rachel, for being here this morning.
MADDOW: Thank you. Thanks.
CURRY: And you can watch The Rachel Maddow Show weeknights at 9 Eastern and Pacific Time here on MSNBC.
- Kyle Drennen's blog
- Login to post comments
















Comments
Who's that skinny dork across from the vapid anchorette?
Submitted by UpNorth on Thu, 05/10/2012 - 4:18pm.
What's that? You want me to be more specific? Ok, who's the skinny guy sitting across from Ann Curry favor with the dems?
Oh, and fellas? He still said it's a state issue.
Federal? To hell with that, it must be WORLDWIDE or nothing!
Submitted by SickofLibs on Thu, 05/10/2012 - 4:24pm.
Let's start with the Sandocracies.
Toxic Stew: Dopey Anne Curry and Randy Madcow
Submitted by Motormouth KOS on Thu, 05/10/2012 - 4:29pm.
What do you get when you mix an imbecile with an idiot.
A toxic stew of stupidity.
Dopey Anne Curry meet Self-Loathing Randy.
This exchange was illuminating...
CURRY: Are you hungry? I can dip a spoon into my left ear and get you some fetid oatmeal. I don't know why you are here, so can you please interview yourself, Randy?
MadCOW: Well, you know, it's – I'm a manly little dyke and, well, ummm I love Barry but I think that he didn't actually say anything, so the symbolic value is hard to see in the moment. Do you have any spare "D" batteries? My Lady Funbeam is dead.
CURRY: I believe that Matt Lauer is an alien sent back through time to steal my brain and then kill me.
MadCOW: Will you dress up like Barney Frank and pretend to try to pick me up?
The Obamination... A crisis leading to a catastrophe..(please donate to MRC)
You my friend,...
Submitted by BBallleaper on Thu, 05/10/2012 - 4:57pm.
have talent! I'm just sorry you stopped there. Good stuff!
You forgot to mention when Ann Curry asked him....
Submitted by connman on Thu, 05/10/2012 - 10:06pm.
...."Perhaps You'd Like Me To Come In There And Wash Your Dick For You".
Romney wants to "roll back"
Submitted by motherbelt on Thu, 05/10/2012 - 4:47pm.
Romney wants to "roll back" gay rights nationwide?
What rights do gays have now that he wants to take away?
mb - one step "forward"
Submitted by Gary Hall on Thu, 05/10/2012 - 4:59pm.
Is there any evidence that Gov. Romney has come out and actually stated - proposed - hinted - that "he wants to roll back gay rights nationwide."
If not, then Maddow just out and out lied. Of course, lying on MSNBC and on Ann Curry's show, is standard procedure.
(;~/ gary
Nope, just the opposite.
Submitted by Drawn Edited on Fri, 05/11/2012 - 9:21am.
If you check this out here, it's plainly obvious that Romney is at the least not opposed to gay marriage, and at most actually supports it. Besides requiring Mass. Justices of the Peace to perform gay marriages (you'll need to scroll down about halfway), he changed the marriage license forms to accommodate for same-sex couples without even being required to. A far cry from wanting to "roll back gay rights nationwide."
Anyone know how to contact Rachel Madcow so she can try to explain this away?
That's what SHE said
Submitted by Skunk Ape on Thu, 05/10/2012 - 5:07pm.
I don't think that she even realizes that in order for Gov. Romney to "roll back gay rights", gays must have been given new rights they didn't have before. Which means she's admitting that the "right to gay marriage" is not a basic civil right that they already had.
Have you guys...
Submitted by BBallleaper on Thu, 05/10/2012 - 4:55pm.
ever seen a photo of her 'lover'? Well I have, and it is enough to make you viscerally ill. We need a Barr Cheek Cell test on each of them. I'm not sure either one of them is human!
We all have INDIVIDUAL rights
Submitted by rbosque on Thu, 05/10/2012 - 5:01pm.
We all have INDIVIDUAL rights as citizens. What these mutants want is special rights above and beyond everyone else so they can engage in behavior that would have had them kicked out of the country in a sane world.
Gee, Rage, you're the political scientist, do tell us why 32
Submitted by drsamherman on Thu, 05/10/2012 - 6:35pm.
of the 50 states (57 states for those Obamagasm-types out there) used their constitutional and democratic processes to enshrine marriage as being a recognized union between a man and a woman for legal purposes?
She would have us believe that 32 states somehow have to be "evolved" by Washington.
It is funny that some forget that if the states get really ticked off at Washington and its insiders interfering with their laws, they can simply use existing constitutional provisions to call a constitutional convention that could blast the Washington elite out of the Beltway and they could not do a damned thing about it. While there are inherent hazards (that scholars of all political stripes have pointed out), I think it's time to revisit the idea of a constitutional convention to put Washington back in its place of working for the states, not against them.
I checked my newspaper's best seller list. This woman...
Submitted by jawebster1 on Thu, 05/10/2012 - 7:34pm.
has a book on the best seller list. My only thought is, there must be a basement warehouse somewhere holding tens of thousands of her books.
Rachel honey, we know you've
Submitted by Kenny Bunkport on Thu, 05/10/2012 - 8:14pm.
Rachel honey, we know you've got a personal stake in gay politics, so why would we even begin to think can speak rationally on the subject?
Obama's Phony Evolution
Submitted by berlet98 on Fri, 05/11/2012 - 1:33am.
Obama's Phony Evolution
Now that President Barack Hussein Obama has emerged from his political closet and announced he has resolved his long-standing confusion, indecision, and lack of surety regarding the morality–and practicality–of same-sex marriages, his motivations should be examined.
Republican low-lifes will no doubt attribute the president’s sudden, radical flipflop as concrete evidence that he has no core values and he “evolved” only because he needs both gay money to supplement his campaign coffers and gay votes to supplement the ballot box in November.
They will say he has long favored men marrying men, women marrying women, and undermining the religious institution of marriage and was being coy about it all until he had “more flexibility” in his second term.
They will say Vice President Joe Biden and Education Secretary Arne Duncan shamed Obama into his alleged epiphany by indicating they would be “comfortable” with gay marriage.
They will say North Carolinianians forced his hand when they voted overwhelmingly on Tuesday to join 38 other states in opposing same-sex marriages and civil unions.
They will say that since Obama’s Democrats have already repealed the military’s Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy and his DoJ secretary announced his administration would not defend the Defense of Marriage Act in court, the president would logically have to endorse homosexual marriage.
And they would be absolutely wrong. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=23610.)
Conflict of Interest
Submitted by LaVallette on Fri, 05/11/2012 - 3:57am.
Maddow must be required by the Journalist Ethics (guffaw! guffaw!) to declare her personal interest when it comes to issues concerning anything to do with the gay lifestyle.