Joe Miller to be Interviewed by Rachel Maddow

[Wry Catcher]

he's damn sure prettier.

Not really. He looks like a 12 year old in a 50 year old body. His voice sounds like Donald Duck as well.

He has zero journalistic integrity. Rachel does. You all just like dummed down cable news so you tune into Fox every night. Talking point city!

Hannity is a commentator, not a journalist. Maddow is a commentator, not a journalist. Neither has any journalistic integrity. Nor do any other commentators - because their arena is 'comment' not reporting. I wish more people would make the effort to understand the differences between these roles.

Actually Hannity is a reader of and defender of editorials written by others - call him a commentor if you like.
Rachael is a Journalist, and of course reports with a point of view. Can you name a journalist who doesn't?
And you, you're a partisan hack, you may write on economics but any topic upon which you comment is colored by partisan rhetoric - at least everything I've read which is posted on this MB is so construed. Your ideas are framed on unproven axioms you hold as immutable and treat anyone how offers ideas which differ from such dogma with disdain.
It is much easier for you to attack the person than to defend your beliefs - and that makes you a (ok, ok, I'll be nice) a, ah...(shit) um...(screw it) a jerk.

 

[California Girl]

I watched Maddow's show to see her "interview" with Miller. I found the show to be down right hilarious! She's out there shamelessly shilling for the Democrats, rooting for the morbidly obese Democratic Senate Candidate that no one can name, all while she calls Fox "unbalanced"!! (note to Rachel - buy a mirror sister!) She is intelligent, but she is a dyed in the wool Liberal with a far left wingnut agenda.

As for the "interview". Joe was nuanced and intelligent. He gave her exactly what she deserved - a few minutes on the way to somewhere else. He has to appeal to people that actually live and VOTE In Alaska!! Rachel Maddow is not exactly a powerhouse in Alaskan politics! She has an audience of what, 10 people in Alaska? All politics is local - she is not local, hence she is irrelevant. She is lucky she got what she did.

Liberal wingnuts like Maddow want this election to be about gay rights and abortion - that is what she asked him about. Sorry, but that shit ain't gonna fly this time. The election is about the $5 trillion debt that the Democrats have added since '07; it is about massive unemployment we have across the country; it is about job killing legislation like Obamacare; it is about the economy, stupid. By the time people like Olbermann and Maddow figure that out, the election will be over.

The tactic of catching a politician between meetings, or on route somewhere, (door-stepping) is always going to make the politician look bad. Normally, because they are in a hurry to get to some appointment. That gives the 'interviewer' an opportunity to ask questions that they know require a more complex and thoughtful answer... this leads to the politician not answering the question.... hey presto, the politician is 'avoiding' the answer. This is a bullshit technique, similar to shoving a camera and mike in front of a grieving parent and asking how they feel about their child being murdered. It is low class "journalism".

 

[California Girl]

Not really. He looks like a 12 year old in a 50 year old body. His voice sounds like Donald Duck as well.

He has zero journalistic integrity. Rachel does. You all just like dummed down cable news so you tune into Fox every night. Talking point city!

Hannity is a commentator, not a journalist. Maddow is a commentator, not a journalist. Neither has any journalistic integrity. Nor do any other commentators - because their arena is 'comment' not reporting. I wish more people would make the effort to understand the differences between these roles.

Actually Hannity is a reader of and defender of editorials written by others - call him a commentor if you like.
Rachael is a Journalist, and of course reports with a point of view. Can you name a journalist who doesn't?
And you, you're a partisan hack, you may write on economics but any topic upon which you comment is colored by partisan rhetoric - at least everything I've read which is posted on this MB is so construed. Your ideas are framed on unproven axioms you hold as immutable and treat anyone how offers ideas which differ from such dogma with disdain.
It is much easier for you to attack the person than to defend your beliefs - and that makes you a (ok, ok, I'll be nice) a, ah...(shit) um...(screw it) a jerk.

Actually, if you would stop obsessing about what you THINK I'm saying and actually read what I do say, you would find that I am not as partisan as you claim. I have no idea why certain posters on here obsess over my profession. I don't give a shit what you do for a living and I fail to understand why you insist on trying to make my profession relevant.

I don't really give a shit about Maddow, or Hannity, or any other 'commentator'. Their programs do not interest me in the slightest. I am interested only in how people fail to understand the different techniques used in 'interviewing'.... and how they allow their own partisanship to color their view of the outcome of an 'interview'.

The content of the 'interview' with Miller is neither here nor there to me. What interests me is how certain posters, based on their political ideals, see 'door stepping' as an 'interview' at all. It is not an 'interview'.... it's a tactic.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Hannity is a commentator, not a journalist. Maddow is a commentator, not a journalist. Neither has any journalistic integrity. Nor do any other commentators - because their arena is 'comment' not reporting. I wish more people would make the effort to understand the differences between these roles.

Actually Hannity is a reader of and defender of editorials written by others - call him a commentor if you like.
Rachael is a Journalist, and of course reports with a point of view. Can you name a journalist who doesn't?
And you, you're a partisan hack, you may write on economics but any topic upon which you comment is colored by partisan rhetoric - at least everything I've read which is posted on this MB is so construed. Your ideas are framed on unproven axioms you hold as immutable and treat anyone how offers ideas which differ from such dogma with disdain.
It is much easier for you to attack the person than to defend your beliefs - and that makes you a (ok, ok, I'll be nice) a, ah...(shit) um...(screw it) a jerk.

Actually, if you would stop obsessing about what you THINK I'm saying and actually read what I do say, you would find that I am not as partisan as you claim. I have no idea why certain posters on here obsess over my profession. I don't give a shit what you do for a living and I fail to understand why you insist on trying to make my profession relevant.

I don't really give a shit about Maddow, or Hannity, or any other 'commentator'. Their programs do not interest me in the slightest. I am interested only in how people fail to understand the different techniques used in 'interviewing'.... and how they allow their own partisanship to color their view of the outcome of an 'interview'.

The content of the 'interview' with Miller is neither here nor there to me. What interests me is how certain posters, based on their political ideals, see 'door stepping' as an 'interview' at all. It is not an 'interview'.... it's a tactic.

Your tactic of posting a general comment framed with one specific example - one I might add which belies the truth, Miller was not ambused - & focused on RM is a partisan attack. Your denial is dishonest.
As for any comments on your alleged occupation, such comments are only offered because of your boasts. I'm not impressed.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The liars are those who keep insisting that I have claimed to have 'secret sources' and yet, when asked to produce evidence that I said that, fail to do so. I didn't say it. This is like those who say Palin claimed to see Russia from her house..... She didn't say that either. It's another USMB myth.... and there's always a reason that these myths are created. They are created out of fear. I understand that it must be scary for you to have to try and deal with someone who is smarter than you but resorting to lies will not help you. Idiot.

So do you want to deny you said this?



And I asked:



And you chose to keep them secret (actually, because they don't exist)

Here's the thing.... maybe, if it didn't drive a few posters here totally crazy that I don't say... I may have told you. But, since not knowing clearly pisses you off, I am inclined to decline to answer.

LINK: http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/135906-what-sources-do-republicans-consider-legitimate-2.html

No I don't think you really want to deny claiming that you had secret sources for your information.

The funniest part is, you NEVER contribute any substantive information that could have come from any secret source,

which only further proves that you're a pathological liar.

I used to work with a pathological liar. Textbook case. I know what one looks like, and sounds like.

That's a link to you accusing me of this 'secret sources' claim. And me responding that I have never said I have 'secret sources'. Please link to the actual post where I claimed to have 'secret sources'. If you cannot do that, then the conclusion will be that the liar is you.

You claimed to have sources but wouldn't reveal what they are.

What's the definition of a secret source? A source you won't reveal, you daft cow.

 

[California Girl]

Actually Hannity is a reader of and defender of editorials written by others - call him a commentor if you like.
Rachael is a Journalist, and of course reports with a point of view. Can you name a journalist who doesn't?
And you, you're a partisan hack, you may write on economics but any topic upon which you comment is colored by partisan rhetoric - at least everything I've read which is posted on this MB is so construed. Your ideas are framed on unproven axioms you hold as immutable and treat anyone how offers ideas which differ from such dogma with disdain.
It is much easier for you to attack the person than to defend your beliefs - and that makes you a (ok, ok, I'll be nice) a, ah...(shit) um...(screw it) a jerk.

Actually, if you would stop obsessing about what you THINK I'm saying and actually read what I do say, you would find that I am not as partisan as you claim. I have no idea why certain posters on here obsess over my profession. I don't give a shit what you do for a living and I fail to understand why you insist on trying to make my profession relevant.

I don't really give a shit about Maddow, or Hannity, or any other 'commentator'. Their programs do not interest me in the slightest. I am interested only in how people fail to understand the different techniques used in 'interviewing'.... and how they allow their own partisanship to color their view of the outcome of an 'interview'.

The content of the 'interview' with Miller is neither here nor there to me. What interests me is how certain posters, based on their political ideals, see 'door stepping' as an 'interview' at all. It is not an 'interview'.... it's a tactic.

Your tactic of posting a general comment framed with one specific example - one I might add which belies the truth, Miller was not ambused - & focused on RM is a partisan attack. Your denial is dishonest.
As for any comments on your alleged occupation, such comments are only offered because of your boasts. I'm not impressed.

There you go again.... assuming things. I haven't made a comment about this particular incident. I have talked about the tactic. I talk about the tactic because the tactic is relevant to the discussion. It is called 'door-stepping', it's catching people on the fly and it may make for great partisan clips, but it is a crap tactic for anyone who is actually interested in the issues. You're the partisan one, for whining at me for pointing out the tactic.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The liars are those who keep insisting that I have claimed to have 'secret sources' and yet, when asked to produce evidence that I said that, fail to do so. I didn't say it. This is like those who say Palin claimed to see Russia from her house..... She didn't say that either. It's another USMB myth.... and there's always a reason that these myths are created. They are created out of fear. I understand that it must be scary for you to have to try and deal with someone who is smarter than you but resorting to lies will not help you. Idiot.

So do you want to deny you said this?



And I asked:



And you chose to keep them secret (actually, because they don't exist)

Here's the thing.... maybe, if it didn't drive a few posters here totally crazy that I don't say... I may have told you. But, since not knowing clearly pisses you off, I am inclined to decline to answer.

LINK: http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/135906-what-sources-do-republicans-consider-legitimate-2.html

No I don't think you really want to deny claiming that you had secret sources for your information.

The funniest part is, you NEVER contribute any substantive information that could have come from any secret source,

which only further proves that you're a pathological liar.

I used to work with a pathological liar. Textbook case. I know what one looks like, and sounds like.

That's a link to you accusing me of this 'secret sources' claim. And me responding that I have never said I have 'secret sources'. Please link to the actual post where I claimed to have 'secret sources'. If you cannot do that, then the conclusion will be that the liar is you.

You also claimed to have sources that were not available to the general public.

Give us the name of ONE of those sources.

Give us one meaningful piece of information that you obtained on any recent discussed news story that was relevant to the story and came from a source not available to the general public and was not generally known about the story because only people like you were privy to it.

ONE. To prove you're not a pathological liar.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Actually, if you would stop obsessing about what you THINK I'm saying and actually read what I do say, you would find that I am not as partisan as you claim. I have no idea why certain posters on here obsess over my profession. I don't give a shit what you do for a living and I fail to understand why you insist on trying to make my profession relevant.

I don't really give a shit about Maddow, or Hannity, or any other 'commentator'. Their programs do not interest me in the slightest. I am interested only in how people fail to understand the different techniques used in 'interviewing'.... and how they allow their own partisanship to color their view of the outcome of an 'interview'.

The content of the 'interview' with Miller is neither here nor there to me. What interests me is how certain posters, based on their political ideals, see 'door stepping' as an 'interview' at all. It is not an 'interview'.... it's a tactic.

Your tactic of posting a general comment framed with one specific example - one I might add which belies the truth, Miller was not ambused - & focused on RM is a partisan attack. Your denial is dishonest.
As for any comments on your alleged occupation, such comments are only offered because of your boasts. I'm not impressed.

There you go again.... assuming things. I haven't made a comment about this particular incident. I have talked about the tactic. I talk about the tactic because the tactic is relevant to the discussion. It is called 'door-stepping', it's catching people on the fly and it may make for great partisan clips, but it is a crap tactic for anyone who is actually interested in the issues. You're the partisan one, for whining at me for pointing out the tactic.

You're claiming not to be partisan when 99% of your attacks are directed at the left?

lol

 

[JakeStarkey]

Zander writes, "Joe Miller is going to win with over 50% of the vote. The Democrat will draw the 20% that they usually get in Alaska, and Murkowski will get the rest. You can take that to the bank and deposit it. Miller is a LOCK." We will see.

You are such a loon and tool for the wannabee reactionary right. But you are good for grins and chuckles, so keep entertaining us.

 

[uscitizen]

Coming up. This should be good.

who is Joe Miller?

I know from this board who Rachel Maddow is.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I watched Maddow's show to see her "interview" with Miller. I found the show to be down right hilarious! She's out there shamelessly shilling for the Democrats, rooting for the morbidly obese Democratic Senate Candidate that no one can name, all while she calls Fox "unbalanced"!! (note to Rachel - buy a mirror sister!) She is intelligent, but she is a dyed in the wool Liberal with a far left wingnut agenda.

As for the "interview". Joe was nuanced and intelligent. He gave her exactly what she deserved - a few minutes on the way to somewhere else. He has to appeal to people that actually live and VOTE In Alaska!! Rachel Maddow is not exactly a powerhouse in Alaskan politics! She has an audience of what, 10 people in Alaska? All politics is local - she is not local, hence she is irrelevant. She is lucky she got what she did.

Liberal wingnuts like Maddow want this election to be about gay rights and abortion - that is what she asked him about. Sorry, but that shit ain't gonna fly this time. The election is about the $5 trillion debt that the Democrats have added since '07; it is about massive unemployment we have across the country; it is about job killing legislation like Obamacare; it is about the economy, stupid. By the time people like Olbermann and Maddow figure that out, the election will be over.

The tactic of catching a politician between meetings, or on route somewhere, (door-stepping) is always going to make the politician look bad. Normally, because they are in a hurry to get to some appointment. That gives the 'interviewer' an opportunity to ask questions that they know require a more complex and thoughtful answer... this leads to the politician not answering the question.... hey presto, the politician is 'avoiding' the answer. This is a bullshit technique, similar to shoving a camera and mike in front of a grieving parent and asking how they feel about their child being murdered. It is low class "journalism".

Except that's not the way it happened, and you don't even need a secret source to know that.

Maddow approached Miller and asked for an interview, a few questions, and Miller agreed. THEN Miller asked if they could do it walking, as he was headed somewhere.

Which they then did.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Actually, if you would stop obsessing about what you THINK I'm saying and actually read what I do say, you would find that I am not as partisan as you claim. I have no idea why certain posters on here obsess over my profession. I don't give a shit what you do for a living and I fail to understand why you insist on trying to make my profession relevant.

I don't really give a shit about Maddow, or Hannity, or any other 'commentator'. Their programs do not interest me in the slightest. I am interested only in how people fail to understand the different techniques used in 'interviewing'.... and how they allow their own partisanship to color their view of the outcome of an 'interview'.

The content of the 'interview' with Miller is neither here nor there to me. What interests me is how certain posters, based on their political ideals, see 'door stepping' as an 'interview' at all. It is not an 'interview'.... it's a tactic.

Your tactic of posting a general comment framed with one specific example - one I might add which belies the truth, Miller was not ambused - & focused on RM is a partisan attack. Your denial is dishonest.
As for any comments on your alleged occupation, such comments are only offered because of your boasts. I'm not impressed.

There you go again.... assuming things. I haven't made a comment about this particular incident. I have talked about the tactic. I talk about the tactic because the tactic is relevant to the discussion. It is called 'door-stepping', it's catching people on the fly and it may make for great partisan clips, but it is a crap tactic for anyone who is actually interested in the issues. You're the partisan one, for whining at me for pointing out the tactic.

Thanks for sharing.

 

[California Girl]

I watched Maddow's show to see her "interview" with Miller. I found the show to be down right hilarious! She's out there shamelessly shilling for the Democrats, rooting for the morbidly obese Democratic Senate Candidate that no one can name, all while she calls Fox "unbalanced"!! (note to Rachel - buy a mirror sister!) She is intelligent, but she is a dyed in the wool Liberal with a far left wingnut agenda.

As for the "interview". Joe was nuanced and intelligent. He gave her exactly what she deserved - a few minutes on the way to somewhere else. He has to appeal to people that actually live and VOTE In Alaska!! Rachel Maddow is not exactly a powerhouse in Alaskan politics! She has an audience of what, 10 people in Alaska? All politics is local - she is not local, hence she is irrelevant. She is lucky she got what she did.

Liberal wingnuts like Maddow want this election to be about gay rights and abortion - that is what she asked him about. Sorry, but that shit ain't gonna fly this time. The election is about the $5 trillion debt that the Democrats have added since '07; it is about massive unemployment we have across the country; it is about job killing legislation like Obamacare; it is about the economy, stupid. By the time people like Olbermann and Maddow figure that out, the election will be over.

The tactic of catching a politician between meetings, or on route somewhere, (door-stepping) is always going to make the politician look bad. Normally, because they are in a hurry to get to some appointment. That gives the 'interviewer' an opportunity to ask questions that they know require a more complex and thoughtful answer... this leads to the politician not answering the question.... hey presto, the politician is 'avoiding' the answer. This is a bullshit technique, similar to shoving a camera and mike in front of a grieving parent and asking how they feel about their child being murdered. It is low class "journalism".

Except that's not the way it happened, and you don't even need a secret source to know that.

Maddow approached Miller and asked for an interview, a few questions, and Miller agreed. THEN Miller asked if they could do it walking, as he was headed somewhere.

Which they then did.

Can you see Russia from your house? Genuine question.... since you seem incapable of distinguishing fact from fiction.

 

[sitarro]

CaliforniaGirl...YOU'RE a carreer-writer? Interesting. Are there any samples online featuring your work? I'd love to take a look at it. You see, based on your posts on USMB, I find it hard to believe if not downright astonishing that someone would pay you to write the way you do.

Or do you just throw all your skills out the door so you won't always be "on?" You come on USMB to kick off your shows and relax huh?

I love it when assholes degrade someone else's writing ability and forget to proof their own posts........ you are a dick and an ignorant, dimwitted fool. You can get off your high horse, your boy has made 98% of black people in America, look like suckers. His approval rating is down to 37%, he's even starting to lose them.

 

[B. Kidd]

Maddow's best interview of the show was with the driver/bodyguard who picked her up at the airport. Who would've thought Anchorage had any gay bars, no less three. I double checked to make sure that I wasn't watching 'The Travel Channel'.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The tactic of catching a politician between meetings, or on route somewhere, (door-stepping) is always going to make the politician look bad. Normally, because they are in a hurry to get to some appointment. That gives the 'interviewer' an opportunity to ask questions that they know require a more complex and thoughtful answer... this leads to the politician not answering the question.... hey presto, the politician is 'avoiding' the answer. This is a bullshit technique, similar to shoving a camera and mike in front of a grieving parent and asking how they feel about their child being murdered. It is low class "journalism".

Except that's not the way it happened, and you don't even need a secret source to know that.

Maddow approached Miller and asked for an interview, a few questions, and Miller agreed. THEN Miller asked if they could do it walking, as he was headed somewhere.

Which they then did.

Can you see Russia from your house? Genuine question.... since you seem incapable of distinguishing fact from fiction.

Did you watch the actual interview?

 

[JakeStarkey]

CaliforniaGirl...YOU'RE a carreer-writer? Interesting. Are there any samples online featuring your work? I'd love to take a look at it. You see, based on your posts on USMB, I find it hard to believe if not downright astonishing that someone would pay you to write the way you do.

Or do you just throw all your skills out the door so you won't always be "on?" You come on USMB to kick off your shows and relax huh?

I love it when assholes degrade someone else's writing ability and forget to proof their own posts........ you are a dick and an ignorant, dimwitted fool. You can get off your high horse, your boy has made 98% of black people in America, look like suckers. His approval rating is down to 37%, he's even starting to lose them.

What a foolish post, even for you,

 

[NYcarbineer]

The tactic of catching a politician between meetings, or on route somewhere, (door-stepping) is always going to make the politician look bad. Normally, because they are in a hurry to get to some appointment. That gives the 'interviewer' an opportunity to ask questions that they know require a more complex and thoughtful answer... this leads to the politician not answering the question.... hey presto, the politician is 'avoiding' the answer. This is a bullshit technique, similar to shoving a camera and mike in front of a grieving parent and asking how they feel about their child being murdered. It is low class "journalism".

Except that's not the way it happened, and you don't even need a secret source to know that.

Maddow approached Miller and asked for an interview, a few questions, and Miller agreed. THEN Miller asked if they could do it walking, as he was headed somewhere.

Which they then did.

Can you see Russia from your house? Genuine question.... since you seem incapable of distinguishing fact from fiction.

lol

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zxOrksY4l0[/ame]

EXACTLY as I described it.

And no secret sources needed.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So do you want to deny you said this?



And I asked:



And you chose to keep them secret (actually, because they don't exist)





LINK: http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/135906-what-sources-do-republicans-consider-legitimate-2.html

No I don't think you really want to deny claiming that you had secret sources for your information.

The funniest part is, you NEVER contribute any substantive information that could have come from any secret source,

which only further proves that you're a pathological liar.

I used to work with a pathological liar. Textbook case. I know what one looks like, and sounds like.

That's a link to you accusing me of this 'secret sources' claim. And me responding that I have never said I have 'secret sources'. Please link to the actual post where I claimed to have 'secret sources'. If you cannot do that, then the conclusion will be that the liar is you.

You also claimed to have sources that were not available to the general public.

Give us the name of ONE of those sources.

Give us one meaningful piece of information that you obtained on any recent discussed news story that was relevant to the story and came from a source not available to the general public and was not generally known about the story because only people like you were privy to it.

ONE. To prove you're not a pathological liar.

One? One teeny tiny example of a secret private special source that you bragged about having?

lol. CG, the 'that's the ticket' Jon Lovitz character revival.

 

[California Girl]

Except that's not the way it happened, and you don't even need a secret source to know that.

Maddow approached Miller and asked for an interview, a few questions, and Miller agreed. THEN Miller asked if they could do it walking, as he was headed somewhere.

Which they then did.

Can you see Russia from your house? Genuine question.... since you seem incapable of distinguishing fact from fiction.

lol

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zxOrksY4l0[/ame]

EXACTLY as I described it.

And no secret sources needed.

Very nice. Except I won't waste my time watching it.

Now, would you care to actually back up this repeated claim of yours with a fact. Simply put, you keep claiming that I have claimed to have 'secret sources'. So, either provide the original post where I claim that I have 'secret sources'. You know that you will not be able to do so. I know that you will not be able to do so. The board knows you won't be able to do so. Or, you can cut the crap and admit that you're full of shit. An apology would be great but that takes courage - I doubt very much that you have that.