Jump to content

Type keyword(s) to search
Log-in Changes With Upcoming Upgrade - Update

All Episodes Talk: TRMS 2021 Season

tessaray

By tessaray
in The Rachel Maddow Show

  • Start Topic

Recommended Posts

GHScorpiosRule

GHScorpiosRule

(edited)

That interview with Dr. Fauci made me so HAPPY! What a difference from when he was most recently on Lawrence’s show and looked like he wished he could be anywhere else.

21 hours ago, freddi said:

 But I volunteer at the medical center where Dr. Vin Gupta works.  And it did not hurt, and I was not sore.  Onward.)  

SOOOO JEALOUS! Dr. Gupta is one of my heroes!!!!

What I most wanted to know after learning the latest about the DOJ was for Rachel to say that Clark was fired or shown the door. Is he still at Justice?

Edited by GHScorpiosRule
  • Love 3
  • Replies 358
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

ruby24
ruby24

LOVED Rachel's gobsmacking disbelief about what's happening to the Republican party and how we can survive in a two party system when one of the parties has become this. 

freddi
freddi

I had hoped that Rachel would revisit the Flint water story with the proceedings involving former Governor Snyder.  She deserves a major award for staying on this story for so many years.  It is utter

ahisma
ahisma

Since he was under the power of Mitch McConnell before, I think his new pep makes sense. Similar to Dr. Fauci’s new ray of sunshine he brought to his interview.

Posted Images

chick binewski

chick binewski

8 hours ago, MMEButterfly said:

The Fauci interview was my favorite Rachel interview in recent months. I was especially glad she asked about care for people whose covid symptoms continue and even worsen. I'm so happy much work is being done to care for people. There will be so many. 

Yes - that and the at-home testing, which Fauci seemed to imply was long-overdue and much-needed. I just had my second bout of covid and the  effects are lingering longer this time - I'd like to have the option to test regularly at home.

I want to be spoiled with a weekly Rachel & Fauci segment.

  • Love 3
DanaK

DanaK

3 hours ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

That interview with Dr. Fauci made me so HAPPY! What a difference from when he was most recently on Lawrence’s show and looked like he wished he could be anywhere else.

SOOOO JEALOUS! Dr. Gupta is one of my heroes!!!!

What i most wanted to know after learning the latest about the DOJ was for Rachel to say that Clarke was fired or shown the door. Is he still at Justice?

This Bloomberg article that profiles him says he resigned on Jan 14 thank God https://news.bloomberglaw.com/environment-and-energy/divisive-top-trump-environment-lawyer-reviews-challenging-job

  • Useful 1
  • Love 1
Robert Lynch

Robert Lynch

The Chuck Schumer interview should be interesting. Funny story, he was the speaker at my sister's graduation and I can still recall how he told a very typical New York story of his life growing up. It was a bit of deja vu moment for me, too. My sister remembered him there and she still didn't know what the whole story was about. One of life's mysteries.

 

 

  • Useful 1
  • Love 2
Moose135

Moose135

4 hours ago, Robert Lynch said:

Funny story, he was the speaker at my sister's graduation and I can still recall how he told a very typical New York story of his life growing up.

A few years back, I was helping to photograph commencement at a Long Island college and Schumer was the speaker. It was a warm day and he pulled out several pages, saying it was his speech. He tore them up saying "I don't need to talk this long in this weather..."

  • LOL 3
  • Love 3
ahisma

ahisma

9 hours ago, possibilities said:

Seriously, I liked him for the first time. It's like he's a different person than I've ever seen before. Does this mean sometimes power makes people better?

Since he was under the power of Mitch McConnell before, I think his new pep makes sense. Similar to Dr. Fauci’s new ray of sunshine he brought to his interview.

  • Love 14
ScoobieDoobs

ScoobieDoobs

The Schumer interview was OK, but I’d like to see Rach get tougher with him — not harsh, the way others are on him, but definitely tougher, cuz she’ll surely be interviewing him regularly.

Look, she ended the interview, all happy & thrilled to report McConnell finally giving in, but he said he only did so cuz he knows there are 2 Dems who are vehemently against filibuster.  Does McConnell still think he’s calling the shots in the Senate, despite now being the Minority Leader?  Is Schumer being tough enough?

Rachel, please assess this situation as it actually is, & try to push Schumer — hard.  We need you to do this, Rach cuz he still seems like an ineffective wimp to me.  Is he a match for McConnell’s scheming?  I have my doubts.  Rach clearly has his ear — maybe she can have some positive effect?

  • Love 2
Pearson80

Pearson80

1 hour ago, ScoobieDoobs said:

The Schumer interview was OK, but I’d like to see Rach get tougher with him — not harsh, the way others are on him, but definitely tougher, cuz she’ll surely be interviewing him regularly.

Look, she ended the interview, all happy & thrilled to report McConnell finally giving in, but he said he only did so cuz he knows there are 2 Dems who are vehemently against filibuster.  Does McConnell still think he’s calling the shots in the Senate, despite now being the Minority Leader?  Is Schumer being tough enough?

Rachel, please assess this situation as it actually is, & try to push Schumer — hard.  We need you to do this, Rach cuz he still seems like an ineffective wimp to me.  Is he a match for McConnell’s scheming?  I have my doubts.  Rach clearly has his ear — maybe she can have some positive effect?

Rumor has it that there will be a primary challenger for Schumer in 2022, so stay tune..

  • Love 2
ScoobieDoobs

ScoobieDoobs

Idk, it seemed like Rach was preparing herself (and us) for the ugliness of what's coming with this Impeachment -- specifically, that the Dems will effectively show the awfulness of what happened on Jan. 6th & the Repub Senators will mostly ignore it.  Horrifying, but predictable.  Still glad Rach is around to effectively assess it, but unfortunately we'll have to move on. 

Honestly, I'm much more disturbed by the confidence Schumer displayed in Rachel's interview with him.  I just don't trust his confidence (or his ability to match the cunning evilness of McConnell) & I'm hoping Rach stays on top of him . . .

  • Love 2
Robert Lynch

Robert Lynch

5 hours ago, ruby24 said:

LOVED Rachel's gobsmacking disbelief about what's happening to the Republican party and how we can survive in a two party system when one of the parties has become this. 

Frankly, I don't know how that party would survive. It really is in tatters. It's like that ignored bully on the sidewalk screaming at you and you later turn the other cheek. Their future is really grim.

  • Love 1
ScoobieDoobs

ScoobieDoobs

(edited)

Yeah, I loved Rachel’s “tirade” on what’s going on with the Republican Party now, particularly if these Senators are willing to ignore what happened on Jan. 6th.  She could be doing that every nite — cuz this can’t be emphasized enough!

We already know for certain how this Impeachment is gonna play out.  But if the Dems can make a strong case (showing lots of vids) and Rach continues her super smart analysis, hopefully that will have a more effective & lasting impression — to the public, rather than the Senate cuz that’s clearly a lost cause.  That’s the best we can hope for.  Otherwise, this Impeachment stuff is merely of the moment & we gotta move on cuz there are way bigger fish to fry for this new administration.

Edited by ScoobieDoobs
  • Love 2
freddi

freddi

Rachel tonight, rightly said she will not let go of the issue of children who have not been reunited with their parents.  Then she said "It's been a week, and they are not saying how they will do this."  Then showed a clip of Jill Biden committing to working on this issue.

But Rachel, c'mon -- as you said, it's been a week.  And they put the First Lady on it to give it heft, as you showed.  It is not a 20-point plan in binders yet, but I do believe they are committed to this.  I'd give them a month, and find ways to assure families affected that they are working on this with resources and sincerity.  

  • Love 13
ruby24

ruby24

I appreciated Rachel's big explanation about the budget process tonight, but she really tends to repeat a lot of the same things over and over again when going over the historical context part. I think all we really needed to understand that it happened right before Nixon left office was, you know, saying it once.

Also she didn't really explain that it can only be used as far as issues that relate to taxes and spending. When she was pointing out the four issues the Biden administration and Democrats want to pass, she said she thinks they were going to go for the first two (Covid relief and jobs/infrastructure) as opposed to the last two (immigration reform/voting rights), but didn't say why. She mentioned something about the parliamentarian but not the fact that those first two issues are the only ones that CAN go into budget reconciliation. Unless there's something I'm not aware of that she didn't mention. But I think if I was hearing all that for the first time I would have wondered why they can't put the first two in the first bill, and then the next two in the second bill, since they get two this year.

I like that she's keeping the reuniting families issue front and center too. I was also wondering when they're going to announce something about that, but I'm also not surprised to hear that reporter say that there are probably things they are discovering that are making it more complicated than they thought it would be.

  • Love 4
ScoobieDoobs

ScoobieDoobs

The Nixon stuff was way too long for me — I tuned out.  C’mon Rach, we don’t need to be clunked over the head for 20 minutes with history — please don’t take up so much time with this.

The interview with Jen was good. So does this mean she’ll finally, finally, finally get an interview with Biden?  Sheesh, why is he & his people putting off an interview with Rach?  I don’t get it— it would only benefit him.

She seemed to be pushing Jen, which was good.  Rach is in a very important & influential position now.  It’s clear that all Biden’s people (well, at least Jen & Ron Klain) are listening to her.  Remember when she was all over DeJoy & the Postal Service story?  Er, nothing has changed & mail delivery still stinks, so please get back on it, Rach!

  • Love 3
Calvada

Calvada

(edited)

Rachel broadcasting from home again due to the snowstorm - I was wondering if the  background is different?  It seems to show more color, but I think that's because the camera is showing a lower part of the background than it did before.  We're seeing more of that red cushion on the bench.   Is she sitting further back from the camera?  She's not wearing her glasses, which I think she did in November, so perhaps that has changed how close she needs to be to the camera.  

Edited by Calvada
  • Love 1
BuckeyeLou

BuckeyeLou

1 minute ago, Calvada said:

Rachel broadcasting from home again due to the snowstorm - I was wondering if the  background is different?  It seems to show more color, but I think that's because the camera is showing a lower part of the background than it did before.  We're seeing more of that red cushion on the bench.   Is she sitting further back from the camera?  She's not wearing her glasses, which I think she did in November, so perhaps that has changed how close she needs to be to the camera.  

Yes, I was a little concerned when I saw she was at home, hopefully she gets into the Studio tomorrow.  It looked, to me, like she was in the same room as before.

freddi

freddi

I figured there must be a snowmobile on the way to get her to a highway for tomorrow. 😁⛄️

There were a few badly lit moments where it looked like “Rachel Does Local Cable Access,” but I was really glad to see her.  

And yes, for the first second, I went “Oh, no, what’s wrong,” before realizing it must be snow.  (Not in the NE anymore, forget what it’s like!) 

Quilt Fairy

Quilt Fairy

19 hours ago, freddi said:

I went “Oh, no, what’s wrong,” before realizing it must be snow.  (Not in the NE anymore, forget what it’s like!) 

 

14 hours ago, FoundTime said:

I half expected to see the red BREAKING NEWS chyron when they put up that she was snowed in 😅

Brian Williams did a very cute bit to finish off his show last night apologizing to viewers who weren't in the NE for acting like the snowstorm was the most important thing in the world, but because all the networks were stationed in NYC, it was the most important thing in the world. Because hey, it's snowing here.  (I'm not paraphrasing him well, but it was funny.)

  • LOL 1
  • Love 5
freddi

freddi

That was a weird signoff with the new CDC Director—Rachel spending several sentences telling her that if anyone were trying to inhibit the consideration of science in the CDC work in the coming months, Rachel invites her back to tell ever about the shabby treatment the CDC might be receiving.  “You will get so much support!”  

It’s just so clear that this will not be an issue, and even if it were, there would be so much support for science in the administration for the CDC, that this was a strange scenario to propose.  

  • Love 3
GHScorpiosRule

GHScorpiosRule

(edited)
11 hours ago, freddi said:

That was a weird signoff with the new CDC Director—Rachel spending several sentences telling her that if anyone were trying to inhibit the consideration of science in the CDC work in the coming months, Rachel invites her back to tell ever about the shabby treatment the CDC might be receiving.  “You will get so much support!”  

It’s just so clear that this will not be an issue, and even if it were, there would be so much support for science in the administration for the CDC, that this was a strange scenario to propose.  

I agree, it was very odd and didn't make sense. It's like Rachel thinks the Biden administration doesn't believe in science and that they're going to continue to block the CDC and make them do what the previous administration did.

8 minutes ago, Robert Lynch said:

I didn't understand that last comment to the CDC director. Rachel, she is only there for only a couple of weeks now.. Give her some time. 

Seriously. There is no magic bullet or twitching of the nose a la Bewitched. It's going to take time to fix the mess; just like it took time to fix the mess of 2008.

Edited by GHScorpiosRule
  • Love 3
cynicat

cynicat

6 hours ago, Robert Lynch said:

Rachel seems so gleeful about that Trump trial. Just no, Rachel. Just no! Focus on the important stuff, please.

It's possible she's gleeful because this has to be, for want of a better phrase, fun as hell for a journalist to cover.  I feel like it's a 'buy your ticket and enjoy the show' moment for the country.  It is of course also incredibly tragic.

ScoobieDoobs

ScoobieDoobs

On 2/5/2021 at 1:18 AM, Robert Lynch said:

Oh, please, Rachel. No more clips of that woman. Her voice is nails on a chalkboard.

And that was a long, long, long clip of her, wasn’t it?  When Rachel makes me tune out, I get a bit annoyed with her.  And yeah, I tuned out.

I guess this can be some sort of tactic for Dems, to focus on this woman, but if she is ultimately someone with no power & no effect, then I hope Rachel realizes she is giving this awful woman a platform.

Please Rach, no more 20 minute clips of this woman, cuz I refuse to watch her — if your show is gonna be constant clips of this woman, then I’m out & I mean it!  The media has not come to grips with how to cover her.  But Rachel should avoid any clips of her crap, let alone 20 minute ones.

The last few nites she’s been starting her shows in a very long-winded way & it takes her almost a half hour to get to the important news of the day.  It’s really annoying.  What gives with this routine, Rach?

  • Love 1
shok

shok

On 2/6/2021 at 7:39 AM, ScoobieDoobs said:

The last few nites she’s been starting her shows in a very long-winded way & it takes her almost a half hour to get to the important news of the day.

Rachel's done this for ten years. It's a feature of her style and for the most part, I love that she does it. It is usually very informative. And on nights like tonight, it can break your heart. I had seen teeny mini-clips of Rep Raskin's speech where he talked about his daughter saying she never wanted to come to the Capitol again but thank you, Rachel, for playing more of his speech. Hearing the whole thing brought the tears and I could understand Rachel saying that after she had heard it in real time, she had to take a break from the coverage and collect herself. How could the Republican senators ignore that speech and sit there doodling on their yellow pads?  How dare they???

  • Love 13
Robert Lynch

Robert Lynch

8 hours ago, shok said:

Rachel's done this for ten years. It's a feature of her style and for the most part, I love that she does it. It is usually very informative. And on nights like tonight, it can break your heart. I had seen teeny mini-clips of Rep Raskin's speech where he talked about his daughter saying she never wanted to come to the Capitol again but thank you, Rachel, for playing more of his speech. Hearing the whole thing brought the tears and I could understand Rachel saying that after she had heard it in real time, she had to take a break from the coverage and collect herself. How could the Republican senators ignore that speech and sit there doodling on their yellow pads?  How dare they???

Well, that's the way they are. There are consequences for actions such as that. I doubt anything will change.

  • Love 1
ScoobieDoobs

ScoobieDoobs

6 hours ago, freddi said:

As soon as Rachel said "Emily Litella," I was saying, *please* play "violins on television," *please*.  I must have been good this week, because I got *this* wish!  

The one I remember was Emily asking why everyone was talking about making Puerto Rico a steak, cuz then we'll have to give out baked potatoes & then sour cream with little chives.  Hee!  But violins on TV was pretty good too.  At least she gave us a much needed chuckle on a day where I was thoroughly annoyed with the Impeachment.

Not sure I agreed with Rach saying Trump's lawyers were "weird" in their defense "strategy".  Lame?  Inept?  Relentlessly deflecting?  Lying liars?  Needlessly shouting?  Oh yeah, but weird?  Wasn't feeling that.

  • Love 2
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...