Sen James Inhofe vs Racheal Maddow - The Greatest Hoax

I thought this was an insightful conversation between Maddow and Sen. James Inhofe who wrote a book called The Greatest Hoax about the global warming/climate change issue. I see how heads butt and noone follows up on the facts. Hell they can't complete their thoughts on the subject. Still, I felt much was revealed here about opposing perspectives and some reasons why. If folks want to attack either of these figures, please re-direct the angst towards the message. Truth can come from any side and if we can temporarily set aside the political vitriol, we may be exposed to some intersting facts that could reshape our perspective.
Nature magazine is liberal? Hmmm
Thoughts?

Peace,
spec

Interestingly, in your second video, Maddow uses video from the wrong segment of her 12/03/2009 show, in attempt to, as always, depict herself as superior to her conservative guest. What an elitist-wanna-be bitch.

Here's the correct segment, Inhofe referenced in his book, which obviously aired immediately after the one in the second OP video. Of course, I'm sure she will invite Inhofe back to publicly apologize for the unfounded accusations. Or not...

Honestly to me it looks like a congressman bought out by his contributors flailing in an attempt to discredit Maddow using buzzwords and ad hominem. I can't even count on both my hands and feet how many times he used the term liberal in a negative and disgusting manner to degrade either Maddow or another group.

As for Maddow addressing his very references about her in the book, he completely fell flat.

Disgusting arguing tactics on both sides for sure, but I felt the senator dragged the whole argument down a few levels of integrity which forced Maddow to respond in kind less she lose face and look like a coward.

Sadly this sort of back and forth name-calling and source-baiting is popular among political zealots.

Of course he dodges when she asks about subsidies.

This one Maddow takes the argument for me but I leave the table slightly disgusted with her also.

Maddow PROVED voter fraud in Maine and Iowa. Maddow told the world that Mitt Romney DID NOT win MAINE ,and he didnt, Ron Paul did. Racheal also focused on the definition of Santorum for about 15 minutes, which for me was awesome laughing for 15 minutes. I think she is secret Ron Paul fan ,I give her a pass when the Paul people take over.

reply to post by WTFover

I think the substance is more important than the editing, and she was trying to defend herself against a claim from the book.

depict herself as superior to her conservative guest. What an elitist-wanna-be bitch.

A matter of perspective I guess, because I see it as an intellectual thing, trying to determine truth with as many facts as possible. I can understand pre-existing animosity for a pundit too though, I fell the same away about Hannity. The difference though, imo, is Maddow would smoke most pundits from the right in a debate.

reply to post by nuclear12346

Thank you, this is how I see it too! It makes me wish for a debate show, where people could fully express themselves and have time to bring in as many facts as possible. It is so hard to try and get a full picture from so many soundbites and sensationalized reports. I am always glad to see a conversation that lasts more than 10 minutes.

The Kill the Gays issue stumped me. At one point the senator says he knows more about Africa than any other senator, then he says he has knows nothing of the legislation Surely legislation that suggests killing someone is in the front news of any discussion regarding African politics.

I also love when people demonize the pres, or efforts to ween ourselves off of fossil fuels. Hell, even Bush said we should do this.

Originally posted by speculativeoptimist
I think the substance is more important than the editing, and she was trying to defend herself against a claim from the book.

Editing is one thing, however, in this case her argument is the quintessential straw man. His book addressed a completely different segment on a completely different subject, than the one she played back to him, in order to portray to her viewers that she was a victim. Either her researchers did a terrible job of preparing her for "her defense" or she is being totally disingenuous. Either way, being the host of the show, the fault lies with her.

The truth is I'm no fan of Inhofe. I think he is a pompous ass as well. But, as long as we allow the pundits to act like Maddow did here, then the truth becomes ever more elusive, to the vast majority of the populace. And, even though that is the agenda, The People who know better are responsible for exposing it to the rest.

I can understand pre-existing animosity for a pundit too though, I fell the same away about Hannity.

In some cases this is true, unless the listener/viewer is capable of objectively and honestly evaluating the pundit's claims and/or positions to discern fact from rhetoric. Though, in the past, I couldn't stand to listen to Hannity, because of his continuous whining about "well, the left did this/that to us", he has let up on that somewhat and is at least bearable. However, now that the election cycle is in full swing, he has been using that tactic more frequently. It's one thing to expose hypocrisy, but he's too over the tope with it, for my taste.

The difference though, imo, is Maddow would smoke most pundits from the right in a debate.

I'd take that bet, but I suppose determining the winner would be impossible.

reply to post by WTFover

I just get frustrated because all these issues affect us and we need the facts and lengthy discussions, but what most get is crap, half-truths distortion and downright lies. I think there should be a debate hall, that is live, participative and online. Could be a logistics nightmare I guess, but we need to hear from people involved with these issues, instead of just reading up on them or getting information via news.

Thanks for the reply,
spec