If Rush Wanted To Interview Barney Frank, Should We Let Him?

[MyUncle]

I LOVE Rachel Maddow but a stunt is a stunt. The bigger question is WTF is she doing in Delaware giving PR to someone who has to run an ad to say she "is not a witch". That is what scares me and some of my friends. We are worrying about Joe Biden's seat going to a possible self denying witch!!!???

The gap is narrowing in this state. WTF planet are we on?

Democrats of Delaware UNITE and please put this race away, for good, forever and get it out of the eye of the nation so Rachel Maddow can go to Nevada, Washington, Colorado, Wisconsin where there are tight races with semi idiots not TOTAL NUTJOBS.

[Fumesucker]

1. We have veto power over who Barney Frank talks to?

I did not know that.

/Johnny Carson

[blondeatlast]

16. Beat me to it. One of the sillier posts I've ever seen here--and that's saying something. nt

[demmiblue]

2. What?

[JVS]

3. Isn't that Barney Frank's decision?

[MyUncle]

5. Wake up folks, hypothetical question.

Rachel Maddow spends time, money and people to try and interview O'Donnell about whatever. O'Donnells people say NO, we say O'Donnell is wrong. If Rush went unannounced to Barney Frank to interview him about whatever and was unceremoniously denied access we'd say Barney is right. OK, we can be fans and hold our side to a different standard. I'm OK with that.

But why is O'Donnell on TV for any reason what so ever that she does not pay for? We are doing her a favor by making her look like the victim here. That is Rachel Maddow's fault. Please ignore O'Donnell. PLEASE.

"The opposite of love in not hate. The opposite of love is indifference."

Please ignore O'Donnell and let here lose.

[jobycom]

7. Wake up whose folks? Barney Franks's folks? And who is "hypothetical question?"

Sounds like a DUer name, but I don't recognize it right off.

[blondeatlast]

18. I vaguely remember that username; can TSed DUer names be co=opted? I want that one! nt

[blondeatlast]

17. So who is this "we" you speak of? nt

[Book Lover]

4. The trouble with "we"... (nm)

[MyUncle]

6. I know it's late for you people east of P.S.T. but what are you saying???

[Book Lover]

8. That your use of the term "we" in your header is

inaccurate to say the least. The trouble with using the generalized "we" is that you're going to get fewer people who include themselves in that "we" than you think. Viz the replies to your OP.

[hobbit709]

14. As Mark Twin said

The only people that had the right to use the word we were pregnant women, royalty and newspaper editors.

[MyUncle]

15. Oh, I get it. I am in "Literalville" here not "What If Land".

I meant to be in "Cyberhypothetical Land".

[blondeatlast]

19. First it was "we" now it is "you people." Am I in or am I out? nt

[MyUncle]

20. OK, OK "UNCLE" I surrender to the English Teachers...

[eirteacher]

9. He would tear the drugster/fatassa new ass.

That is up to Rep. Frank. He would tear the drugster/fatassa new ass.
Go for it.

[opihimoimoi]

10. NO NO NO...Barney needs not meet Zitt Butt..Barney would need a week of scrubbing the pus off

[Uben]

11. Hell no!

Rush Limbaugh has the same thing spewing from both ends of his body. The guy is an American traitor and a drug addict. Never reward that kind of behavior.

[zbdent]

12. I would say that Frank would mop the floor with Rush's voluminous ass ...

but then, I'd be accused of making a joke about homosexuality ...

[SmileyRose]

13. Do "we" have any say in the matter?

Wouldn't that be between Rushbo and Frank?

[petronius]

21. I'm not 100% clear what you're saying here, but I'll try to answer: my reaction

to Frank rejecting Limbaugh would be the same as O'Donnell avoiding Maddow - politicians can choose not to speak to interviewers they expect to be hostile, and that's perfectly fine, as long as the pol isn't completely avoiding all forms of public scrutiny (e.g. Palin). I also think that Frank would handle Limbaugh far more competently than O'Donnell would handle Maddow, to the point that Rush is as likely to avoid Barney as the other way around.

If your comment is about Maddow focusing on one race to the exclusion of more important races, I suppose that's a point, but people can think about and care about more than one thing at the same time...