Capehart went for his, did his best, and somehow managed to not catch a case. But my heart broke watching this. I am feeling like Carolyn Forche in "Return." "It is not your right to feel powerless," she says in that piece. "Better people than you were powerless."
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
Coates,
Capehart is Black when it suits him. I haven't seen him defend a Black person yet. When they need this Negro to beat up on another Black person, they trot him out.
Someone on JJP wrote to Capehart about Pat Buchanan, and the response made me shake my head in disgust.
Capehart deserves not one ounce of your sympathy.
He deserves all of it. Sympathy isn't quid pro quo--at least not for me. I extend it for no other reason besides the fact that I feel for the person. It's not my job to make sure they reciprocate.
Come on. It was excruciating, I was feeling horrible. You wanted the guy to jump on the those fuckers --not only Buchanan. You can tell Mika was suffering just watching it. I can't get mad at Capehart or blame him or anything. I have been in similar situations and not in live TV and haven't made my arguments very well or feel overpowered or outnumbered. Then I have spent hours rehearsing what should I have said.
And I haven't seem much of Capehart but I have a soft spot for him. He seems to be a nice guy.
Just came here after watching this elsewhere and 'painful' was exactly what I was thinking. I didn't make it to the end..
Mika looked like she wanted to puke,the Joe S. fashion sense comment had me gagging, and Pat B. was oozing contempt for this poor dude. I almost saw a cartoon bubble over Pat's and Joe's head going: black+gay=uppity wuss.
Coates
I don't think Capehart is gay. He has often spoken of his ex girl on Morning Joe. I know in this clip he is coming off as speaking as a gay man and I have watched it again to see if he actually admitted to being gay but I didn't see him do so. Now he might have been lying before about an ex girlfriend but I don't know about that either. Have you confirmed that he is gay or is he just maybe really all about gay rights?
He's gay. And quite out.
http://www.advocate.com/issue_story_ektid48650.asp
Woops never mind. Shoulda used google before I asked. But not I am confused as to why he has said something about an ex girlfriend repeatedly on Morning Joe. Better yet he is on the show at least 2 or 3 times a week every week and they NEVER talk about him being gay or get his "gay" perspective on stuff like the gay marriage issue until now. Of course maybe its because then they would have exchanges like the one you posted on the regular.
And why isn't Buchanan simply dismissed as a white supremacist when he writes for vdare.com and his latest book is a rehash of the America First movement? Why is he allowed anywhere near mainstream news? Why isn't MSNBC embarrased to have him on?
Matt
They try to frame him as a lovable bigot. Hell Rachel Maddow even has him on her show on the regular and calls him Uncle Pat. I think they feel like he is so old that most people will just dismiss his rhetoric as generational. But the truth is Scarborough to me came off as the big asshole in that clip. He is always condescending as hell and most folks won't stand up to him.
Thats one thing I never liked about Capehart before this clip. He is the editor of a major newspaper but he never corrects Scarborough on his bogus facts. You can't convince me that he didn't know that in point of fact black folks were not the deciding factor in Prop 8 getting passed but he refused to stand up to Joe on that point. I hate that they verbally beat him down like that but this wasn't his first Rodeo and for once maybe he could have shouted their punk asses down and went for his.
sgwhiteinfla,
Most of gay people older than 30 have had a phase of playing it straight or confusion or whatever anybody wants to call it. Many of the younger ones thankfully are skipping that. I think part of the problem with Capehart is that he is a very agreeable guy that doesn't like confrontation, which is not the right approach to go against that big asshole of Joe. He can't pull that off with Rachel Maddow.
I somehow like that the Buchanans have their day on the air. People need to know that that level of bigotry exists. I don't like that they don't confront him and call him what he is, though.
Interesting perspective from Melissa Etheridge:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/melissa-etheridge/the-choice-is-ours-now_b_152947.html
This was rathe cringe-inducing at points. Good for Capehart for hanging in there, but he's not a very effective debater. He needs to be more confrontational with these folks. Scarborough and Buchanan wilt when confronted.
And Capehart missed a chance to argue that these bigots are just betting against the future. Young people are for gay marriage and it will become law in this country. That's a powerful angle that he should've deployed.
There are only 3 people who I know of who've actually called Scaroborogh on his bullshit on air: Rachel Maddow, David Shuster, and Lawrence O'Donnell. In fact of the 3, O'Donnell is the only one who consistently calls Scar on his shit. That's probably why they don't have him on as often when both Joe and Mika are there. When Joe out O'Donnell is around alot more. Also, IIRC, O'Donnell is the one who ask Pat Buchanan why the Republican party has become a party that endorses and embraces ingnorance like Sara Palin.
O'Donnell set the tone of how he will be dealt with early. Capeheart unfortunatley did not, and now has no way to combat the disrespect.
The fashion sense comment made me want to hurl.
I think it is ridiculous that Joe Scarborough decides to compare preventing gay people from marrying who they want to something completely unrelated and random. Gay people have been subjected to plenty of violence over the ages (the Holocaust, countless beatings and killings in backwoods hellholes) and black people have had their loving relationships delegitimized by their government (miscegenation laws). Why not compare apples to apples?
That really was sickening. I bet Capeheart is thinking of a thousand things that he should have said after it was all over. Because the truth is that Buchanan and Scarborough and Mike Barnacle are all missing a very important point: in twenty years this discussion will be entirely different. And it will be different because a generation of individuals died off who were still debating whether homosexuality was as a legitimate form of identity in American society. Thats all Capeheart needed to say. But my heart goes out to him because when you are being ganged up on like that, you never think of the right thing to say.
OK, I don't watch TV news, so this clip was a big supirse to me. I figured out who Capehart was, and that the nasty old whaite guy was Pat Buchanan (first time I've ever seen him), and have no idea who the woman and the younger guy with no tie were. But mygod, the crap they laid on Capehart was disgusting. He should have given them the finger and walked off. He was more than nice in the face of some of the most crap I have seen dished out since the anti-war protests in my college days. They weren't asking questions; they were just scoring points.
Hell, if they put the Bill of Rights up for a vote, a majority of the American electorate would repeal them.
capehart put forth an excellent counter when he said that if let up to popular vote, black folks would not be given full rights. this is explicitly adjacent to gay marriage. why doesn't Capehart (along with other supporters of gay marriage) state the banal, yet truthful cliche of "what's popular isn't always right"? we know that Americans can showcase ignominious ignorance on issues, particularly social issues. so why allow us to be the deciding factor on an issues that is indubitably unconstitutional?
I know this is slightly off point here but does anyone else remember on morning Joe during the primaries when they were really down on Obama and saying that he was way too intellectual and reserved to take on Hillary strongly, all kinds of hints, feints, and euphemisms but the panel as constituted could not just say what they were itching to- out comes Capehart and within 30 seconds(@the most 45secs) he blurts out in reference to Obama, UPPITY and by the token-no pun intended- of being the only black on the panel that morning no uproar. I thought that was a non too slick move but take him for what he's worth an insider who until he's denied it's all shits and giggles. Peace, by the way ole killa Joe's declining to have John Lewis on while leeching off of the abuse he suffered was priceless especially in light of how up in arms that whole panel got when Lewis spoke up late in the general about the crowds @ Johnny Mac and Palin's rallies. What clowns.
This is also off point -although it's got to do with Barack Obama and gays.
Mr. President-elect: That shirtless photo of yours will not --I repeat, will not-- make us forget about Rick Warren.
@ Eduardo
Who said it was for you? I thought it was for us straight gals.
I don't know if he's gay, but as a black man I would have thought he would have done better standing up to Pat who doesn't like negroes all that much either. One part of him should have done better.
Joe was such a class act, right?
"I'm a big admirer of you - especially your fashion sense".
Hah-ha! Ha-ha!
A**hole.
At the end, I think it got better - I think Scar's "are you fine?" question was real, and not simply more salt....
@emma
You've got a point. Self-centered gays! ;-)
I'm totally late here, but had to chime in. I actually thought Scarborough was the real disgusting one. His berating of Capehart over the civil rights analogy seemed like an attempt to change the subject and confuse viewers about what Capehart was really saying. I hate it when people do that when I'm arguing with them. Oh, and did you catch the part when Scarborough said something like, "I like you, your a smart dresser." Capehart looked like he either wanted to slap Joe upside the head, or hide under the table. But he held his own, and yes, looked great doing it (very handsome man). And btw...that Mica(sp?) chick might as well be a lamp on the table.
TNC -- I thought Capehart kicked booty! Notice Pat never answered why gay marriage impacted him except for the ridiculous "it redefines marriage" response. Capehart's comment on the "moving goalposts" -- where pretty much the entire mainstream accepts civil unions only eight years after that being the death-knell of society -- was also a strong point.
I would ask why does a black gay man consistently accept the invitation to sit along side a white man who thinks black folks should be grateful for slavery, joining him in inaccurate, petty and always proven wrong analysis of Barack Obama? Jonathan Capehart made the mistake of believing he was an acceptable negro to Pat Buchanan and Joe Scaborough when in fact he's nothing more, like all of their rotating tokens, I mean black pundits, a shield to attack President elect Obama and not be called racist.
Jonathan Capehart, Rachel Maddow and no one else at MSNBC can lecture PEO and black folks on Rick Warren or any gay rights issue as long as Pat "Thank whitey for slavery and section 8" Buchanan has a seat at the MSNBC table.
Forgot about the white bigot. What is Capehart doing to confront hatred of gays in the Black community? Remember, it's not only white people who can be bigoted.
"Jonathan Capehart, Rachel Maddow and no one else at MSNBC can lecture PEO and black folks on Rick Warren or any gay rights issue as long as Pat "Thank whitey for slavery and section 8" Buchanan has a seat at the MSNBC table."
That's an interesting point. Not sure that I wholly agree with it, but when Rachel Maddow features Buchanan on her show as "Uncle Pat", it is a bit of a stretch to watch her current campaign for purity on Obama's part. (I happen to think Buchanan - while obviously a total ideological neanderthal - is the most interesting, and often the most cogent political "pundit" on MSNBC simply because he's been witness to so much Presidential and Beltway history. Personally I'd rather have a drink with the crazy old coot than with Rachel Maddow, who I find overly earnest for someone who works in the absurd landscape of cable news. He's got stories about Hunter Thompson and Murray Kempton. She's got stories about Air America and Chris Matthews. Not much of a contest.
Interesting perspective from Melissa Etheridge:
Yeah, I disagree. I have seen Etheridge try in a few forums to strike a conciliatory tone on this. But it obscures the debate and really allows Warren off the hook for some of his more inflammatory and dishonest rhetoric. Its nice that he told her that he regrets the comments about pedophilia but he didn't make them by accident and it wasn't the only time he's made them and I'll bet her anything she likes that it won't be the last time.
He poisoned the well with a number of outright lies about what the state of law in California would do. He poisoned it with repeated and deliberate attempts to paint homosexuals as a class of perverted deviants. It is a mistake to let him even halfway off the hook because he claims that he really likes gays after all. The only way to win with people like Warren and Elizabeth Hasselback ( who repeated a lot of the same bullshit before Etheridge's appearance on The View) is to make them embrace the hatefulness of their own rhetoric when it counts. That is, it is important to make it clear that they are not just repeating something that people are saying or passive actors in some minor disagreement. They are deliberately acting in a way that has real consequences for the lives of the real people that they are now face to face with. They don't get to just play polite when it suits them.
brent - I've heard similiar arguments about the "only way to win" over way too many years from activists who don't seem to be the ones winning in the short term, but are simply the most pissed off. The point isn't even remotely to "win with people like Warren or (god forbid) Elizabeth Hasselback" but with the broader public. Who gives a shit about Rick Warren, other than to deflate his rhetoric ? Rachel Maddow isn't going to win a pissing contest with Rick Warren. Melissa Etheridge "reaching out to him" is going to have much more impact on public perception and ultimate acceptance IMHO. Polarization isn't the best political strategy when you're in a minority position, no matter how justified it may be.
Also, folks focusing on gay rights should be (silently) thanking Obama for this gift just as the Prop 8 protests were about to fade in public consciousness.
To echo Dawn
For those who don't watch Morning Joe on the regular this wasn't some one time appearance by Capehart. He is on there as a frequent guest several times a week and was a fixture there during the campaign season. He always comes off as Scarborough's patsy though and he never passionately defends his own position when he disagrees or when Scarborough is blatantly factually wrong. So I am sorry but I just don't feel all that much sympathy for the guy when in any other situation he would have been an enabler for the same kind of bullshit that Scarborough et all were selling.
As for Rachel Maddow, I wonder if she is going to ban Uncle Pat from her show now since she seems to think that Obama has committed the crime of the century by inviting Rick Warren.
Oh and as for the fashion sense quote from Scarborough, the guy is an asshole but he has complemented Capehart on being a dapper dresser many many times before and the truth is the guy does put a suit and tie together pretty damn well.
Someone made this point last night on Tee Vee
Since Obama announced that Rick Warren was going to do the invocation he has:
Removed anti gay rhetoric on his website.
Released a video to his congregation refuting himself on the issue of if gay marriage is analagous to incest and polygamy
Gone to "Out of the Closet" thrift store to be seen hugging a gay man
Reached out to Melissa Etheridge and apologized from some of the stuff he said and explained that he struggled with Prop 9
President Elect Barack Obama on the other hand has:
Gone on vacation to Hawaii.
Now don't get me wrong, everything Warren has done has been self serving and hypocritical. In the video he out and out lies to his congregation and says he never compared gay marriage to incest even though its all over youtube. I guess McCain isn't the only one who wishes youtube didn't exist. BUT he has had to do these things whether they are sincere or not because thte light has been shined on him. Now in my opinion that is in fact progress because as brucds said its not about changing Warren's mind, its about changing the minds of some of his followers.
Like I said politically the move still looks brilliant.
Its not painful to watch, its vigorous discussion between people with widely disparate views-which is what a debate is. I prefer that to seeing an all-liberal or all- conservative panel sit around agreeing and stroking each other. YMMV.
That, BTW, is the whole point of Obama'a inviting Rick Warren-getting people of disparate views up on one podium.
Obama was frequently pilloried by liberals for not being aggressive enough with Clinton and Mc Clain. He charted his own course and proved them wrong by winning a big victory. I suspect that his invitation to Rick Warren will once again prove liberals wrong by being a big public relations victory. If Obama wins significant victories on DADT and civil unions by co-opting Warren and Lowery, then his invitation will be seen as a master stroke. Given the record of his critics, I'm betting on the O - man again.
Like sg mentioned, the point of the movement should be to persuade those on the fence. In California, get 3-4% to change their minds, and gay marriage is on the books.
I am sure the more strident think they are keeping it real. Calling out the religous right in the harshest terms possible probably looks good on fundraising letters that these groups send to Susasn Sarandon but I doubt it changes anyone's mind.
Maybe some just want to be seen as more liberal than thou, to win the endless liberal pissing contest of who is the truest progressive. So if that is the goal, then vandalizing churches and calling Obama a bigot is the correct course. However, if getting to 50%+1 of the vote for gay marriage is the aim, then some may see that keeping it real can go wrong.
Who gives a shit about Rick Warren, other than to deflate his rhetoric ? Rachel Maddow isn't going to win a pissing contest with Rick Warren. Melissa Etheridge "reaching out to him" is going to have much more impact on public perception and ultimate acceptance IMHO.
The point is that allowing him to pretend in one forum that his rhetoric is just a matter of polite disagreement doesn't deflate it. It allows him and his movement to continue to pretend that their attitudes aren't really hurting people and that has and has had a very real effect on the public perception.
I am not talking about a "pissing contest," whatever that is. I am talking about not playing along with a willfully dishonest debate. The thing I like most about Maddow is that on the infrequent occasions that conservatives agree to come on her show, she mostly doesn't allow them to get away with this kind of stuff. I have even seen a sweetheart like Degeneres, who would normally never allow a single unpleasant moment on her show, make the point pretty firmly with McCain that he is not allowed to get away with the "we just disagree" dodge.
I think Etheridge is allowing that. She is allowing Warren to leverage his more personable characteristics to camoflauge the more strident elements of his approach to this issue.
What you are saying works both ways. Rick Warren also knows that he doesn't win as many people over by getting into a so-called pissing contest. He doesn't get what he wants if people think he's the new Swaggert. So he uses people who are willing to reach out to him to create the impression that he is just a moderate and affable preacher man, who just wants whats best for everybody. He is trying just as hard to sell the idea that his is the moderate position that well meaning people, who really have nothing against homosexuals after all, can take with no consequence. Its a lie, and letting him get away with it, IMHO, doesn't move the debate one inch to the favor of those who want to expand gay rights.
Sorry, can't get through the clip. Scarbrough is just too annoying.
Rachel Maddow invites Uncle Pat to spar with him not to give him a great honor. Little sample of Ms. Maddow putting Uncle Pat in his place? Here it is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6VoWdMVBvA&feature=related
Barack Obama's move is politically brilliant -anybody that doesn't understand he is an unbelievable talented politician is crazy. And I think that contrary what many people have said it has been positive for gays that we and our closest allies didn't just rolled over this. But let's not kid ourselves thinking that what the President-elect had in mind inviting RW to the inauguration is making that bigot to try to take off a little bit of the edge of how he expresses his bigotry. I shouldn't have to said this but of course the reason he did what he did was NOT to fuck with the gays in any way, shape or form. Barack Obama is NOT a bigot. Gays were an afterthought on this -if a thought at all.
On what the equality side needs to do to in California: it is not 3 or 4 percent, with just 2% we get to 50. There's the natural replacement of old people with young people, there is the slow process of people of previous generations to get familiar with us being their equals, and yes, the offensive gay people in Cali started because the anger of the defeat. I think they have been surveys showing that Prop. 8 would win today. No on Prop 8 was too timid and for months and months didn't put out there gay families making a clear case for their equality. Same thing in Fla, most of the time was (mis)spent on trying to convince people that this was most about straight people losing their partnership arrangement rights. As if we were telling people: I know you are not ready.
I second that one Doug...i turned it off when he started talking about black people like he was Eldrigde Cleaver...why is it that people dont call him on his bullshit?! It's so obvious, so annoyingly obvious!
@DougEMI,
I would appreciate If you can link to an article that shows that gay people have vandalized any church because Prop 8. If not, maybe people that are throwing fits because some gay people have gone overboard on their rhetoric should be a little bit more careful showing some restraint themselves.
Eduardo
It wasn't representative of all gay folks or all folks who were against prop 8 but there were some vandalizations of churches after it passed.
http://www.sacbee.com/295/story/1382472.html
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/11/24/Police_suspect_Prop_8_behind_vandalism/UPI-64801227547916/
What world is this? "I love your fashion sense"? When making a sport analogy, they feign impropriety? Prissy gay people don't play sport, of course! And this is within the first three minutes.
After Pat Buchanan came out with his latest "black 'folks' should be grateful for all the welfare 'we' gave them" (JUST THIS LAST SUMMER, not back in the 70s), I wrote to all the NBC execs whose name I could find asking them to can Pat. They did make Pat disappear for a couple of weeks, but now even Rachel has him as sort of a regular on her show (was that a condition of her employment?). I'm thinking Pat of the Nixon White House has something on some old NBC suit.
Anyway, I NEVER watch Scarborough because even when he has good guests, he and Mika are such righty-right apologists, I'm afraid I'll throw something and wreck a perfectly good foreign-made TV.
Capehart should never have had to make any argument, and he didn't get to make it to me, because I know I couldn't stomach the clip.
As for Rick Warren, I still say the bigger argument is not his being anti-gay, anti-feminist, or his anti-semitic. It's his being an anti-science fundamentalist. All of the major social problems in this country and most of the world's problems are directly attributable to fundamentalist religious beliefs. (If there WERE a god, the first thing she would do would be to wipe out religion.)
Barack Obama's choice of Rick Warren promotes fundamentalism, and as such it undermines American social equality and world peace. Not exactly a good way to start a presidency.
I'm still urging a quiet protest at the inauguration, in which people sing "We Shall Overcome" throughout the invocation. Drown out the bigot with hope.
The Constant Weader at www.RealityChex.com
@sgwhiteinfla
Thanks for the links.
I stand corrected on the vandalizing of churches. It is wrong and leads to nowhere.
I knew Capehart back in the day. In college, he lived a couple doors down from me in the dorm. Back then, he was a go-along, get-along, say-anything, do-anything, don't-rock-the-boat, simpering little wimp. Obviously, nothing has changed!
Well, one thing. At least he's stopped wearing bow ties.
nice point sgwhiteinfla.
nice point sgwhiteinfla.
Which dorm were you in, matter?
Actually seeing as how you were never a slave (presumably), you should be thankful. And if your ancestors were slaves you should be thankful they ended up here.
It doesn't make it right, but I am certainly thankful for the many terrible things my ancestors endured so that I might enjoy the benefits I have today. This should go without saying....
Yes, we are thankful many many terrible things were endured so that we might enjoy the freedoms and liberties we have. We are NOT thankful that those things had to happen in order for things to turn out as they are, but this planet has never been a rose garden. Of course, if you want to score cheap "I'm offended" points you could assume otherwise and get all huffy puffy without having to address the substance. Which is that the terrible things many or our ancestors endured in the past, we are better because of them, not in spite of them.
This does not give someone free reign to go and do terrible things simply because it benefits someone's progeny. Although many terrible things do happen that have benefit to our decedents.
"Actually seeing as how you were never a slave (presumably), you should be thankful. And if your ancestors were slaves you should be thankful they ended up here."
By this logic, Jews who ended up here after fleeing the Holocaust should be "thankful" for the Holocaust. Cuban-Americans should be "thankful" for Fidel. The Puritans should have been "thankful" for the religious persecution they endured. Native Americans in this country should be "thankful" for being wiped off the continent. And so on...