Rachel Maddow nails JD Hayworth on ‘establishment of intimacy’ claim

Posted by The Right Scoop The Right Scoop on March 16th, 2010 in Uncategorized | 9 Comments

When this interview started, I assumed it would be all about the homosexuality/bestiality comparison that’s been outraging the left. I was wrong and pleasantly surprised.

In fact, I thought the interview started out well as Hayworth defended himself against incorrect information regarding the Abramoff scandal and Maddow let him talk at length as he corrected the record.

All is going well so far.

But then Maddow asks him where to find the specific intimacy clause in the Mass. court ruling that he quoted in an interview on the previous day:

You see, the Massachusetts Supreme Court, when it started this move toward same-sex marriage, actually defined marriage — now get this — it defined marriage as simply, ‘the establishment of intimacy’.

Hayworth had no good answer. When Maddow said that after going through the ruling earlier in the day that she didn’t believe “the establishment of intimacy” was in the ruling, Hayworth simply said they could disagree on it. She implored him that it was empirical and either it was in there or it wasn’t. He insisted they could disagree, which is the lamest response I’ve heard him give in an interview. I believe that now, before he speaks he will get his facts straight.

Even through all of this, I’d be remiss if I didn’t mention the fairness that Maddow exerts in this ‘hostile’ interview. She let’s Hayworth speak and doesn’t try the antics that we’ve come to hate at MSNBC. For all the disagreement I have with her, she is the most fair interviewer that MSNBC has on staff.

That said, I really can’t watch her show for very long because it makes me want to punch my TV. MSNBC has a way of doing that to me.




Comment Policy: Please read our new comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.

  • Tyler

    This isn't the first time I've heard her defend the homosexual community the way she has. To me, this is EXACTLY why marriage SHOULD NOT be a LEGAL thing. These debates wouldn't even come up if marriage was strictly a ceremony the way it has always been before governments decided to control them.

  • GGRaider

    The fact that this know-nothing is running as well as he is against John McCain does not bode well for our country.

  • GGRaider

    Tyler,
    She didn't mention her views about gay marriage. As you can see from the video, she was simply making a point that nowhere in the Mass. Supreme Court decision did they refer to “the establishment of intimacy”. Hayworth tried to play it like all politicians do when they want to weasel out of a question, he tried toreduce it to a difference of opinion. Maddow appropriately noted that it was not a question of opinion, but a factual question of whether the decision made that reference or it didn't.

  • mitchblatt1dot1com

    Yes, Hayworth has a way of being even more insane than MSNBC hosts.

    Good thing the Tea Partiers didn't endorse him. It shows they know politics better than some conservative bloggers.

  • Tyler

    Right…I meant USE HOMOSEXUALITY against conservative people. THAT'S what I meant by this isn't the first time.

    She did this also to the Virginia governor when he went out of his way to repeal the state employee discrimination executive order and replace it with a new one taking “sexual orientation” OUT of the things one can't discriminate against a state employee for.

    She does a PRETTY GOOD JOB of making conservatives SEEM like “homophobes,” from this Hayworth example as well as ol' Bobby boy.

  • Tyler

    We NEED a LITTLE crazy in order to change things for the better…but NOT THIS kind of crazy.

  • theglider

    JD got is worse the next night when Maddow double-checked what he said about his place amongst “congressmen” who money accepted by Abramoff. JD tried the “Jedi mind trick” to get him out of a pickle on the spot, but it didn't save him today.

    JD said he was 9th amongst “groups,” not congressmen who accepted donations from Abramoff. He is 3rd among congressmen. Maddow was right.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/ns/msnbc_t…

  • eveengles

    JD has no good answer for anything unless he's blowing smoke. He lost his seat, he doesn't deserve another one!

  • david_in_denton

    By your own statement, the governor “went out of his way” to remove discrimination protection for sexual orientation. Hayworth made up a lie in order to claim that same-sex marriage was equal to marrying a farm animal.

    These are both very anti-gay acts. Their actions make them “SEEM like 'homophobes',” not Rachel. You can argue semantics of “homophobe” vs. “anti-gay” (they're not afraid of gays, they just oppose rights for them), but there is no ambiguity in what they're doing. Rachel is just stating facts. You haven't disputed any of the facts, but you still insinuate that Rachel is trying to unfairly represent them.

    These two conservatives “SEEM like 'homophobes'” because they are actively working against the basic rights of gay people. That's homophobic.

awesome meter

subscribe to us


Places of Interest

Admin

archives

required viewing

Islam: What the West Needs to Know (98 min)