David Frum accuses Rachel Maddow of inciting violence
Wow. Just wow. Former Bush speech writer and apparent psycho David Frum appeared just a few minutes ago on The Rachel Maddow Show on MSNBC and accused Rachel Maddow of inciting violence through satire and humor. Video forthcoming.
UPDATE: Commenter Bryan makes an excellent point:
The point that Frum doesn’t get is that Maddow isn’t on C-Span. She’s on a channel where ratings matter. She has to be as entertaining as she is informative or GE will replace her with someone who will be, especially when you consider the time slot that she’s in.
UPDATE II: As promised, here is video of David Frum accusing Rachel Maddow of inciting violence and hatred through satire and humor. Unbelievable.
57 Comments »
Sceptica Says :
October 13, 2008 at 9:58 pm
I couldn’t believe it; he was wrong, as I expected, but, to top it off, he was unbelievably rude. I seriously can’t believe it.
Terry Carter Says :
October 13, 2008 at 10:04 pm
You’re right and frankly, he looked like a faux high browed condescending jackass. I enjoy her show because all points of view are welcomed and respected (even insane man Pat Buchanan) and he obviously came on with a chip on his shoulder. He failed to prove his point and she remained calm and collected.
DLax Says :
October 13, 2008 at 10:10 pm
OMG. I just saw that too…I would have lost it on him, but that’s whats so great about about Maddow. She always seems to be so gracious and respectful to those who don’t deserve it. I love when he clearly demonstrated he had something his a** when he thought sarcasm and satire had no place in politics. I guess if my party was crashing like the Titanic, I would have lost my sense of humor awhile ago.
Scott Says :
October 13, 2008 at 10:15 pm
Rachel remained cool and decided to debate the point Frum decided to direct the interview to while Frum decided to play dirty politics against Rachel directly attacking her credibility.
It was amazing to see in front of our own eyes, the irony of what Frum was doing with the point that Rachel was originally trying to make.
Frum decides to use a Rovian tactic, turning the issue around…
He really looked like an idiot.
karen Says :
October 13, 2008 at 10:15 pm
Rachel was the epitome of calm, cool and collected. Professionalism to the nth degree.
Her grace under pressure proved what a pompous ass Frum made himself to be.
Way to go Rachel!
Craig Says :
October 13, 2008 at 10:15 pm
I enjoy Rachel Maddow. She’s done a great job with a viewpoint that I rarely agree with.
But damn, you people have to be so blind to your looney-ness not to realize that Frum treated her fairly, stated clearly that although her tone doesn’t EQUAL that of the McCain supporters, it nevertheless is not particularly helpful in elevating the political discourse in this country, and did both with a sense of humility that Maddow seems to have left behind, if she ever had it to start with.
TommyT Says :
October 13, 2008 at 10:16 pm
Rachel took it to him!! That was great .. in a respectful way. She kept it cool and to the point. Great job…
omnihilumino Says :
October 13, 2008 at 10:20 pm
I love Rachel Maddow; she’s unapologetically intelligent, saw through David Frum’s unfair and unwarranted attack immediately, and called him on it. How dare she use humor and satire to enlighten us on the seriously real issues facing us! Frum was drowning in his b.s. illogic and didn’t know it.
vickie Says :
October 13, 2008 at 10:21 pm
Go Rachel
I just watched the exchange with David Frum. Once again, Frum used the old, familiar Republican “attack the messenger” trick but Maddow called him on it. Frum was a bully and the bullies are always the first to crumble iwhen they’re called out. She got him with intelligence and finished him off with graciousness. He looked like a chump. I guess I would be mad too (Frum) if my “people” acted like Jerry Springer audience members which now seems to be the standard McCain-Palin audience.
Scott Says :
October 13, 2008 at 10:21 pm
I always love post that start with “you people”. Frum was a guest on the show and was there to discuss the issue. He decided to attack Rachel on her own show.
When you enter someones house, do you treat them with courtesy or do you walk around with a white glove.
He is lucky she didn’t make it personal and take this fool apart. He was Bush’s speech writer for gods sakes! Frum lives in a very thin glass house…
Glenda Says :
October 13, 2008 at 10:21 pm
Frum appeared to have a bad “hangover.” Tried to take it out on Rachel. He should have taken a tylenol instead. He made a total fool of himself. Great job, Rachel!
traptnredstate Says :
October 13, 2008 at 10:21 pm
Rachel did a great job with a situation that was *just a little* uncomfortable — to use saracasm. Frum did have a point - think he’ll make it on Boortz, Hannity or O’Reilly’s shows any time soon?
Bud Fisher Says :
October 13, 2008 at 10:24 pm
That was a major spanking. Frum was simply destroyed. Blinded by the light. Nothing left but the shell of a man wracked with his declining talent and prospects in a brave new world dedicating to curing the damage he did all these years. Bravo!
thtg Says :
October 13, 2008 at 10:24 pm
Frum apparently doesn’t have much of a reputation, even among conservatives. This from http://www.amconmag.com/article/2003/apr/21/00030/: “From what I’ve heard, Frum is a climber who fouls everyone and everything that takes him in…” OK, that’s just one person’s opinion, but it does agree with what I saw just a few minutes ago on the Rachel Maddow Show. Frum was working very hard to foul - soil - besmirch - both Rachel and her show. She has impressed me from the first time I saw her, and even more so just now with her up-front, respectful strength in dealing with Frum. Here’s to Rachel Maddow! She rocks!
Zillno Says :
October 13, 2008 at 10:25 pm
Frum clearly had an agenda in the interview while I doubt he shared with the Maddow show before he took to the camera. I believe his goal was to anger Maddow and manuever her into some sort of on air “gotcha.”
He seems to have conveniently forgotten that it was his own party that refined the techniques of partisan politics, and have wielded them like a blunt instrument through two elections that they worked to make as divisive as possible.
Frum completely debased himself.
Mindy Says :
October 13, 2008 at 10:25 pm
David Frum’s political views are not mine. I ‘ve supported Obama from the beginning. But you know what,……in his rather pompous manner David Frum said something that is essentially true……If we keep politics at the level of turf wars, hurling horrible epithets or clever kudos, the result is the same…….The division and dare I say hatred of each other just continues and deepens and everyone suffers. Our nation is on its knees. We need something more noble to pledge our allegiance to other than mudslinging. Obama talked about what that might be. Rumi talked about it too. Before you respond, check out this video.
http://ca.youtube.com/cellibelle
Bryan Says :
October 13, 2008 at 10:28 pm
The point that Frum doesn’t get is that Maddow isn’t on C-Span. She’s on a channel where ratings matter. She has to be as entertaining as she is informative or GE will replace her with someone who will be, especially when you consider the time slot that she’s in.
anna baader Says :
October 13, 2008 at 10:28 pm
My respect for this woman grows by the hour … I could not believe my ears when Frum made this absurd accusation, and the way Maddow handled the situation - and him ! - was just masterfully !!
he is probably punching holes in the motel walls right now - clearly he didn’t have a clue who he was dealing with !!
Shelby Says :
October 13, 2008 at 10:30 pm
I could not believe what I was hearing from Frum. What has been amazing during this campaign is to see how this ticket has the uncanny ability to take a truth everyone can see and turn it around where you scratch your head and wonder if you are sharing the same planet.
Personally, I appreciate Rachel’s show. She makes me laugh about things I was angry about a few moments earlier. With so much pain and anguish coming from this ticket, it is a release to laugh about it.
Earlier this week, there was a video of conservative women meeting for a “fellowship.” They were raving about the Palin pick and one woman said something to the effect that most people do not understand Palin’s sarcasm, “but the messge is not lost on us. We get it.”
Well, Rachel’s satire is not lost on us. We get it. She is saying, “WE ARE NOT THE INSANE ONES.”
Thanks, Rachel. We get it.
Terry Carter Says :
October 13, 2008 at 10:30 pm
Bryan, your point about her not being on C-Span is exactly what I was thinking. And while I totally loathe the “MTV generation” (as I like to call it), even though it is my own, I realize that most people my age and younger are not into politics and the way Rachel presents it has a better chance of bringing them on board than does a C Span or “traditional” news shows.
Robby Says :
October 13, 2008 at 10:31 pm
Does anyone have this video?!?!?! It’s not on youtube/msnbc website..
Gotta send it to all of those Verizon Fios users in the tri-state area who DON’T get msnbc!!
Terry Carter Says :
October 13, 2008 at 10:33 pm
Robby, I will be posting it as soon as it becomes available along with transcripts.
Harry Says :
October 13, 2008 at 10:33 pm
Remember this: the Republican spinners are masters of the double cross. Frum used the sham of talking about the McCain campaign as a vehicle to attack Rachel’s show. In addition to tonight, don’t forget when Bill Clinton was interviewed by Chris Wallace and Wallace tried to double cross Bill; but Bill turned the table on Wallace.
Frum might think it’s a joke to talk about the similarities between funding Afgan tribal militias and US funding of Osama bin Laden in the 1980’s but it’s obvious that Rachel takes it seriously.
Regarding Wolfowitz, his new line isn’t much different than that of the Bush administration in early 2001 when they were warned by the departing Clinton administration of the dangers of al-Qaeda. Instead, the Bush administration decided to pursue the so called missile defense, still clinging to the cold war days.
yngskywlkr Says :
October 13, 2008 at 10:37 pm
Its funny how when repugs see the whole world crumbling around them, they suddenly want get all “serious” .
If my party was going down the drain, and I can literally see my demise, I’ll be ticked off too.
I think Frum is having a philosophical moment. Did anyone catch the point where he kept interrupting Rachel ? Sorry Frum, looks like your man is going down, Rachel’s rating are through the roof and you just out to get her… and you looked like a complete imbecile doing it.
Bryan Says :
October 13, 2008 at 10:38 pm
Frum also put the spotlight on Wolfowitz by basically promising that he’ll come on Rachel’s show if she invites him.
ghm Says :
October 13, 2008 at 10:40 pm
Frum had some nerve reviewing the show he was the guest of! Does he have any idea how arrogant and rude he is? No! Why?
He has Republican disease! Besides the classic A&R symptoms (stage: advanced), he exhibits the telltale rapid eye-blinking (lying) and Cheney lip-curl, sneer-type. And, he clearly did NOT research the chops of Rachel Maddow before he deigned to be on her show.
The only cure? Watching the youtube video, 100 times, of his Viagra-failed! performance where Rachel earnestly and politely ripped him a new one!
Bryan Says :
October 13, 2008 at 10:43 pm
Harry provided a good analogy by comparing this interview to the Chris Wallace - Bill Clinton interview. It was really intense and you could see Rachel shifting gears and throwing away her script after Frum called her out. It also reminded me of the famous George H.W. Bush - Dan Rather interview, but Rather came out on the short end of that stick.
omnihilumino Says :
October 13, 2008 at 10:45 pm
Some imagination-challenged people just don’t “get” how satire, like fiction, often reveals truth more effectively than “straight” discourse can. If it’s a truth they don’t want to hear, they’ll dismiss or attack such satire as unhelpful or detracting from the “seriousness” of the issue, or worse–as Frum does–equate it with incitement of racist violence.
Mindy Says :
October 13, 2008 at 10:48 pm
Be the Change You Want to See in This World……Ghandi
Harry Says :
October 13, 2008 at 10:57 pm
Of course also keep in mind that the extreme right has always been known for being “humorless”. The truth is, that satire has always been a great vehicle for getting information across; from the founding of our Nation and the free press, points have been delivered with a poke (or a joke). But if you are “humorless”, you’re not going to understand it much of the time. A humorless person will think of it as trivializing because his/her thought process can’t bring an understanding of the point being delivered.
yngskywlkr Says :
October 13, 2008 at 11:01 pm
“Be the Change You Want to See in This World……Ghandi” …
Rachel is being the change she wants to see from the administration by calling them out constantly and beating them in their own turf .
You know what is not change ? Doing exactly what Frum suggested and turning into Anderson Cooper who constantly wants to see “both sides” however baseless the other “side” happens to be.
yngskywlkr Says :
October 13, 2008 at 11:02 pm
First sign of the apocalypse … Bush surrogates invoking Ghandi
Or is Frum just having a midlife crisis ?
Jay Says :
October 13, 2008 at 11:08 pm
Hilarious. I did a search on Maddow & Frum to see the reaction of liberals to the segment. This is not the first time I watched Maddow’s show but it will probably be the last. Maddow looked like a 5 year old attempting to have a discussion with a Yale and Harvard graduate like…well, like David Frum. It was a pathetic display on her part.
Maddow attempted to build up and knock down strawmen claiming Frum was equating her show with that of a few kooks at McCain rallies yelling nasty things (unlike Obama supporters who only do light-hearted things like calling McCain a “murderer” and wearing t-shirts that say, “Sarah Palin Is A C**t”) about Obama and that’s not what he was saying at all. He was merely saying her show doesn’t contribute to any kind of meaningful discourse and he’s 100% right.
In addition, I find it even more laughable that after 8 years of liberals comparing President Bush to Hitler, burning him in effigy, calling him a murderer, a human rights abuser, and all other sorts of slurs and name-calling are now all concerned about a handful of people out of tens of thousands at McCain rallies. What a joke.
Mindy Says :
October 13, 2008 at 11:11 pm
Yaaay! I got a response. This is great! (And so is Rachel) Ever heard of Barbara Frum?
Jon Mark Says :
October 13, 2008 at 11:15 pm
I am so proud of Rachel. Her voice is so critically important because she will challenge the conservative viewpoint and will tell them to their face that they are defending their public hatred. Do you recall the McCain camp’s response when Obama said “nothing’s easier than riling up a crowd by stoking anger and division”? Instead of admitting that “kill him” is totally inappropriate, they talked about “Obama’s assault on our supporters is insulting and unsurprising.” The repubs have become a disgrace to this country - which is hard to admit because I once voted republican. It is important, however, to have a dialog with “healthy conservatism”, which should be about topics such as conserving our Constitution. But alas, this repub party is nothing more than a fringe right wing hate group whose only strategy to stay in power is to divide our country. I consider Frum to be the spokesman for this sick and vile party.
By the way, how can anyone in their right mind consider democrats weak on national security with leaders such as FDR and JFK? It will be interesting to see if ole’ Wolfy will accept the invitation to appear on TRMS, but I won’t hold my breath.
Scott Says :
October 13, 2008 at 11:17 pm
The joke is a former Bush speech writer trying to pretend to work on the moral high ground.
Rachel was gracious in not ripping into Frum for his support of 8 years of failed policies.
BTW Rachel has a doctorite in Political Science, debating a graduate from Harvard or Yale would be normal discorse with her knowledge…
Jeff Says :
October 13, 2008 at 11:30 pm
I agree with omnihilumino and Shelby about the use of satire, sarcasm and, in general, humor.
Lots of things going on in the political scene, perhaps most, are worthy of mockery and derision—taking them seriously would elevate them far above where they should be. (One obvious example from the same broadcast is Sarah Palin’s risible denial that the Troopergate report cleared her “of any hint of any kind of unethical activity,” when the report unambiguously says the opposite. What serious response does that, could that warrant?)
I could easily see that Rachel, with her playfulness and wit, is “being the change you want to see in the world.” What does Frum want—global leaden, obtuse, humorless condescension?
“Life is too important to be taken seriously.” Oscar Wilde
Kathy Says :
October 13, 2008 at 11:47 pm
Bravo Rachel!! She never backed down from his rude comments - in his very sentence he insulted her. What a riot!! Did he not know going into it that Rachel is brilliant!! A Rhodes Scholar with a PhD!!!! He acted like he was so much better than her just because he was serious and she uses satire!! What a fool!!
His whole rant was about ‘elevating the conversation in politics today’ - I guess insulting the host of the show is a great example of “elevating the conversation”!
Great ploy Frum!! YOU have nothing of substance to say - so let’s just insult and demean people who don’t agree with your point of view!
ps Says :
October 14, 2008 at 12:07 am
Regarding the interview, if you watch it again, you’ll notice Frum did not suggest that her show was equivalent to the unfortunate pejorative shouts that are sometimes heard at McCain campaign rallies (and Obama’s, for that matter); rather, she is the one that raised the idea of equivalence by asking him if he was suggesting that her show is equally debasing. She did so in an effort to distract from his argument. To his discredit, however, instead of diffusing the issue right away by reiterating his point, he instead dismissed her question by saying it was not important. To that point, he is essentially right.. it’s not an important question in the larger context of his argument that the political discourse in this country should be elevated to a more substantive discussion of issues. Rachel’s show does little to achieve that end.
That said, I generally enjoy Rachel Maddow and her show, for what it is. There’s no question that she’s intelligent well read. To her defense, in the age of short attention spans and the staccato media feeding them, it’s hard to avoid the marriage of news and entertainment, which probably necessitates a bit of sarcasm and satire in order to survive as a cable “news” show. But let’s not get carried away here by calling her a “critically important.” voice or an embodiment of Gandhi’s philosophy. Tonight’s segment with Frum was, while off-topic and unexpected from Rachel’s vantage point, the best part of the show. I’ll take segments like those over a daisy-chain of sarcasm any day. Wouldn’t you rather watch spontaneous debate instead of cleverly spliced quotes paired with music and graphics that pander to your politics? Saturday Night Live does a fine job of that.
Terry Carter Says :
October 14, 2008 at 12:10 am
“PS” you are missing the point. Rachel Maddow is there to entertain. She is not on PBS or C-Span and as someone has already stated she either brings in ratings or she gets canned.
querencia Says :
October 14, 2008 at 12:18 am
To Craig: Maddow presents political commentary in a style that employs satire and a teasing tone. This is not the same thing as calling for the death of the political opponent. McCain and Palin, especially Palin, have talked about Barack Obama used a mocking, taunting manner, distortions, and outright lies to whip a rally crowd into a rabid mob shouting “Kill him!”. I realize that many GOP supporters don’t do nuance, but distinguishing satire from incitement to violence should be possible even then. Do make an effort.
querencia Says :
October 14, 2008 at 12:21 am
Tp ps: Let’s do an experiment. You hire David Frum to be serious for an hour, and I’ll hire Rachel Maddow to be playful for an hour, and we’ll see which one is still on the air at the end of a week.
ps Says :
October 14, 2008 at 12:35 am
to terry: What point am I missing? I know that she’s there to entertain. But it’s a shame to waste her intellect on entertainment, when she could surely carry out more substantive discourse in a different forum. It’s too bad our culture necessitates a bridge between politics and the MTV generation, and that ratings are the only supports holding up that bridge.
to querencia: As for the experiment, Maddow would win the ratings game… not sure what that proves, though.
Terry Carter Says :
October 14, 2008 at 12:45 am
“It’s too bad our culture necessitates a bridge between politics and the MTV generation, and that ratings are the only supports holding up that bridge.”
PS, I won’t disagree with you there, but that is the reality of cable news.
Glen Says :
October 14, 2008 at 12:45 am
Though I do wish television news programs were more substantive in their discussion, I also respect humor and satire as political tools, they’ve been around since antiquity for precisely this purpose, so brava brava brava Rachel Maddow!
What really bothers me about this exchange is the fact that Frum belongs to a party that has systematically promoted, and profited extraordinarily from, the trivialization of political debate. Now that the tide has turned against that party, here he is, hypocritically bemoaning precisely that which he helped to produce.
Earlier in the program there was a segment on all the Republican intelligentsia (Kristol, Will, Parker et al) decrying the McCain campaign, particularly with respect to the latter having incited racial hatred in its rallies. On the hand it’s good that they say something, on the other hand we have to remember that it is these same people who have profited from the party’s shrewd manipulation of the mob, their conservative ideologies (deregulation, etc) gaining prominence on the backs of those they now disown.
Bryan Says :
October 14, 2008 at 12:51 am
PS, the point is that Frum knew he wasn’t going on C-Span or PBS, so why did he complain about the first part of the show that didn’t even mention him? Frum seemed to be criticizing Rachel in a way that was in no way constructive, since he knows that she can’t run the type of show he wants and stay on the air. If he wanted to criticize the TV cable news channels in general, he could have done it without singling out the person that invited him onto her show.
Riley Harris Says :
October 14, 2008 at 12:52 am
Frum was an unmitigated boor. He looked so resigned at the end and obviously underestimated her. Good for Rachel. She showed the world what she’s made of.
John Says :
October 14, 2008 at 2:01 am
Not much to add to above, but not only is Rachel a Ph.D, but it is from Oxford. She is also a Rhodes scholar and has a bachelor’s from Stanford. Political satire has been around as long as politics itself, and she does it very well. She is also a formidable debater. Frum has a highly overestimated view of his own intellect, and obviously, underestimated hers. I don’t think he will be back on the show. Somehow, I don’t think he has the political pull to get Wolfawitz to appear on her show, either.
omnihilumino Says :
October 14, 2008 at 3:08 am
Well said, Glen! (October 14, 2008 at 12:45 am) My thoughts exactly! Frum strikes me as sanctimonious and hypocritical. Be the change, indeed!
to ps (October 14, 2008 at 12:07 am), I DID watch the show again and Frum did, indeed, at the very outset, try to equate Rachel’s insightful humor with the divisive, incendiary, “inciteful” rhetoric spouting from the McCain campaign, which he (Frum), sanctimoniously attempted to decry, even, outrageously, quoting Gandhi. Puhleeze! The stench he is complaining about (which was actually just an sneaky excuse to attack Rachel) is emanating from himself.
Craig Says :
October 14, 2008 at 7:20 am
It is assumed by many here that satire and sarcasm is only used by intelligent observers who have found a way to deliver their viewpoint in a succinct and humorous manner. What you fail to recognize is that it is also the primary tool of angry junior high kids who have yet to find a constructive way to point out their differences with the world outside of them. It’s also a wall we use to hide behind our insecurities.
It is not surprising that those who agree with Maddow believe her use of it is the former, and those who disagree with her believe it is the two latter.
Jan Says :
October 14, 2008 at 8:35 am
In response to Rachel’s questioning, all Frum could come up with was basically “I know you are, but what am I?” To channel Rachel Maddow: “Is that all ya got? Really?” Love the show - keep up the good work!
lisa Says :
October 14, 2008 at 9:00 am
Without satire we’d never stop screaming. Frum is a diabolical enabler of the Bush destruction doctrine and a total jerk as evidenced by his guilty smirk at the end. Rachel and Keith tower over these fools with their brilliance and wit.
Grace Says :
October 14, 2008 at 10:43 am
The weird thing about this is — why Rachel? Of all the talking heads Frum might’ve taken it to, he chooses the one who manages to debate with PAT BUCHANAN while staying on an even keel.
If Frum had pulled this on another MSNBC personality, it might’ve been a winning strategy. Matthews might’ve gone into a logical tailspin, Olbermann might have tried to keep to the original topic. But to take it to Maddow, of all people, seems nuts.
Maddow is not just more entertaining than your average head, she’s flat-out more intelligent and reasoned than most people I know. I don’t think Frum was expecting her to not only immediately latch onto the false dichotomy he was presenting — she also proceeded to bring it to him, again and again, and make him explain it.
I don’t like what Frum has to say most of the time, but all he did in that interview was show Rachel as a very even-tempered, adaptable, perceptive host. She didn’t slip up, and she blended humour and intellect. Frum didn’t come off particularly badly, I don’t think — she just came off a lot better, especially as she was adapting so quickly to a new topic of conversation.
Bunnygit Says :
October 14, 2008 at 10:57 am
It seems that Frum seems very thinned skinned to me . Although she uses it to a degree Rachel Maddow’s satire and witt hardly seems very caustic to me . She certainly brings something to national discourse . It is great to see KO and RM calling things as they are and calling a lier a lier instead of the usual wimpy press and TV acting afraid to confront government . It is discusting to watch someone like Sarah Palin tell lie after lie and then the pundits go so easy on her .
Although I agree that respect in public discourse is a good thing I think RM shows a very mild brand of teasing and does a good job of calling some very lousy people to task . I wunder if Frum has mentioned his self righteous message to some of the bullies from the other side who are far more nasty than RM .
I also find it galling that someone who promotes such snobby exclusive policies
all of a sudden quotes Mahatma Ghandi in such a self righteous tone . It was a good quote but considering who was quoting it and what they stand for it seemed very shallow .
Joan Says :
October 14, 2008 at 7:39 pm
My head exploded during this interview. Dick Frum is a regular guest on Real-Time with Bill Maher where the “contestants” shout at one another and the host drops f-bombs and he accuses RACHEL MADDOW of not being serious enough?!!!!!!!!!!!
Yeah, I know his name is not Dick but last night he proved himself far more Dick than David.
Joan Says :
October 14, 2008 at 7:40 pm
Is it just me or does Frum look like Gene Simmons’ long lost brother?
Jan Says :
October 15, 2008 at 5:09 pm
That is an insult to Gene Simmons.
Leave a Comment