Rhodes Scholar Reporting the News Show Discussion

[jjj]

Living on the West Coast, I am so delighted that MSNBC is again repeating the Chris Hayes and Rachel Maddow shows on Friday evenings.  I was so disappointed when the cable box said it would be LockUp! all evening, so especially a treat to find Rachel on the air again for a repeat. 

 

Wow, Utah can caucus online.  I live in a caucus state, and would love to have that option.  We do not even have polling places anymore, but we still have the caucuses!  Yes, Rachel, it is a much more heavy lift, not just to get to the caucus, but because the caucus might not go my way.  At least when I cast my own vote, I know where it will land.   

 

ETA:  If Rachel liked the misty response from Judge Garland at his nomination, she will like this background video prepared by the White House: especially the part where he talks about his mother (alive) and his father (no longer alive).  It's a lovely short introduction to his background and family:   https://www.whitehouse.gov/scotus

Edited March 19, 2016 by jjj

[Egg]

I felt like Rachel was leading Sanders on, trying to get him to say something controversial so she could get a scoop. I hate when reporters do that, even when they do it to Trump or someone else I don't like. All Sanders really said is he would try to flip the superdelegates in states where he won by large margins. That doesn't seem all that unreasonable to me in the highly unlikely hypothetical scenario that Rachel was putting forth in which the delegate count will be close enough for the unpledged delegates to be a significant factor at the convention. I also think Sanders is dreaming when he says he's more electable, but of course he's going to say that. Rachel is trying to make things sound shocking when they're really not. And yes, I know that's what cable news people always do, but I continue to expect more from the Rhodes scholar.

I disagree completely. Earlier in this cycle, during the brief period when Bernie was ahead in pledged delegates but the supers made it look like she was winning, Bernie and co were clamouring about how unfair the super delegate system was, and railing against machine politics.

Then came his devastating losses last Tuesday, and all of a sudden Tad Devine and Jeff Weaver were talking about manipulating the rules to flip pledged delegates, and creating a narrative in which super delegates should switch their support to Bernie because he represented the will of "the people."

I'm totally okay with Rachel trying to pin the candidate down on it, because when confronted with what Weaver and Devine said, many supporters insist that it doesn't mean anything because it didn't come from Saint Bernie himself. I appreciate her trying to get him to say it, because it reeks of the back room establishment politics he rails against.

[Sesquipedalia]

I see what you're saying, but trying to flip the superdelegates in the states where Sanders overwhelmingly won the popular vote, which is all he said, is just another way to try to negate the power of the supers. Trying to flip pledged delegates is a whole different issue, which Rachel didn't ask about.

 

 

 

 

[shok]

 

I see what you're saying, but trying to flip the superdelegates in the states where Sanders overwhelmingly won the popular vote,

 

And besides Vermont, which states would those be? The only big state he won was Michigan and that was a virtual tie. The rest have been caucus states and even then, he hasn't won by big margins like Clinton has. That's why she's so far ahead in pledged delegates even without the super delegates that she sewed up very early in primary season.

[Quilt Fairy]

This is a little take-away from the election coverage: Boy, Rachel and Nicole Wallace really do not like each other!

[Sesquipedalia]

And besides Vermont, which states would those be?

 

He won by a pretty big margin in NH, and it's possible he will win by large margins in some western states. But that's not really the point. According to math, Sanders is almost definitely not going to win the nomination, so trying to "make news" by pressing him on "what if" scenarios related to the convention seems pointless to me.

[NextIteration]

He won by a pretty big margin in NH, and it's possible he will win by large margins in some western states. But that's not really the point. According to math, Sanders is almost definitely not going to win the nomination, so trying to "make news" by pressing him on "what if" scenarios related to the convention seems pointless to me.

 

But I don't think that was what Rachel was doing.  I think she was asking him about his planned way forward, for clarification.  I think she had information about what was being discussed on Sanders' campaign calls and pressed him about it.  They were very quiet for a day after his big losses this past Tuesday but this was the first time anyone from the campaign chose to speak publicly.  The plan doesn't just include flipping super-delegates, they want to go back and try to flip pledged delegates per Tad Davine and Jeff Weaver.  I think it's news, and maybe Rachel did as well because it's completely counter to their previous efforts to force super-delegates to flip if the state they came from voted for Sanders which also includes at least one widely circulated petition that addresses the super-delegates as being undemocratic.

[alias1]

This is a little take-away from the election coverage: Boy, Rachel and Nicole Wallace really do not like each other!

Really?  I guess I didn't see the coverage that led to your observation.  When Rachel used to have Nicole Wallace on as the only guest, she always seemed to kind of gush over her.  As in "your my favorite Republican strategist, blah, blah, blah"  which I always found strange because I can't stand Nicole Wallace.

[jjj]

Really?  I guess I didn't see the coverage that led to your observation.  When Rachel used to have Nicole Wallace on as the only guest, she always seemed to kind of gush over her.  As in "your my favorite Republican strategist, blah, blah, blah"  which I always found strange because I can't stand Nicole Wallace.

Yes, I also was wondering when that happened -- still have not seen all of Rachel's shows from last week, so would appreciate knowing which day that was.  And I also am not a NW fan!

[nowandlater]

I never noticed any tension, but a reminder: Wallace annoying spells her first name "Nicolle."

[Quilt Fairy]

I never noticed any tension, but a reminder: Wallace annoying spells her first name "Nicolle."

It was during the primary coverage the last couple of Tuesdays. Maybe it was a heat of the battle type of thing because they're on different ends of the political spectrum but Wallace wouldn't let Rachel finish a comment and then they were talking over each other constantly.  I just  felt there was a lot of animosity under the otherwise on-air civility.

[alias1]

Rachel has always called Nicolle her friend, and I think they talk over each other in a way that seems like they are comfortable with each other, even though they are on opposite sides of the political spectrum.  I wish I had seen the confrontation you saw.  I would love for Rachel to finally be over the smirking, smug Nicolle Wallace.

[M. Darcy]

I want to know just how many cocktail shakers the show ordered - they are still giving them away.

[alias1]

I want to know just how many cocktail shakers the show ordered - they are still giving them away.

I know.  Didn't they used to say this was some old junk they had lying around?  Well, they couldn't have had that many.  If they are actually going to order something for these Friday Night shows, I'd like to see them give away TRMS mugs, or something similar.

[Wax Lion]

I didn't really notice a different dynamic between Rachel and Nicolle. This might have been a little more firey than usually but not by much.

[stormy]

Thank you Rachel, for being the only journalist on the air, to cover the President's historic visit to Cuba yesterday with your outstanding report on the history, since 1963, of presidents trying to neutralize American/Cuban relations.

If you watched anything else prior to Rachel, it was the usual non-stop what is Trump doing now?  What's Trump saying? What will he be doing or saying next?

He's giving me nightmares.

Edited March 22, 2016 by stormy

[jjj]

This occurred in the hour after Rachel's show, but Nicolllle Wallace (I also have a hard name to spell) just ingratiated herself to me by saying that Kasich was living "in the dignity lane".  Yeah. 

[M. Darcy]

They could waited until 10 for Brian Williams to show up - not 9:57 pm.  Grr.

 

I did last until 10:05 when Matthews said we all brush our teeth on the day we die.  Which has to be one of the stupidest things I've never heard.

[jjj]

They could waited until 10 for Brian Williams to show up - not 9:57 pm.  Grr.

 

I did last until 10:05 when Matthews said we all brush our teeth on the day we die.  Which has to be one of the stupidest things I've never heard.

Over on the Network Talk thread, I commented on Brian impinging on Rachel's show, purely to be able to make the Big Reveal of the results right at 10:00 -- and in each case of course, the monitor showed "TOO CLOSE TO CALL"  -- what a letdown! 

 

Yes, I've thought about "we all brush our teeth on the day we die" too much since last night! 

[M. Darcy]

 

Yes, I've thought about "we all brush our teeth on the day we die" too much since last night!

Seriously! I get up at 7 but don't brush my teeth until about 7:15.  I could die in the shower...or walking from my bedroom to the bathroom!  Hee, and if I do, my dying words will be - told you so Matthews. 

 

Oh, well, at least we got 57 minutes of all Rachel. 

[represent]

Oh, once again, thank your Rachel and staff.

 

Politics, the gift that keeps on giving.

 

So saucy... sex, lies and video tape all on the tax payers dime.

 

Actually forget saucy now that I've heard the tape, it's just gross. 

 

But the hypocrisy of these Republican political figures when it comes to their bullshit "wholesome family values" stance is what these stories are all about for me.

Edited March 24, 2016 by represent

[alias1]

Thank you Rachel for bringing us something besides wall to wall Belgium coverage.  These politicians are skanky (mostly republicans, of course, but I can't forget John Edwards).   That sex tape was so gross. 

[Rhetorica]

Was the woman shown with the governor his wife or mistress? I just cannot imagine... just eww.

[M. Darcy]

It always amuses me when Rachel uses the word shtup.  Not that this entire story is that funny because basically the residents of Alabama are really going to be paying for this for a while.  Those reporters though at the press conference- I think they were one question away from asking if he thought that they were stupid.

[NextIteration]

Whenever I hear Governor and Alabama I think of Don Siegelman. I still feel like this was a Karl Rove/Alberto Gonzales hit job.  Gotta love those family values!

[jjj]

Oh, boo, I was watching the second viewing of TRMS this Friday evening, when it cut away in the middle of her segment about rewards leading to the capture of terrorists.  It was six minutes before the next hour, but all we got were random commercials all that time, and it never returned to TRMS.  I'll catch it OnDemand, but still...

 

Loved, loved, loved the bird at the Sanders rally -- almost as much as Rachel leading with it, and tying it to Portlandia!  It really was pretty magical (and I'm not a Sanders supporter, although I like him and his message).

[stormy]

Rachel's coverage of the Cruz vs Trump fight and the rewarding of delegates was well done.

I'm beginning to feel sorry for Cruz and wish he would just ignore that immature idiot.

If, God forbid, Trump would ever become president (shudders), what's he going to be tweeting at 3 am? Lyin' David Cameron, Merkle, look at that face, who's going to vote for that face and the Pope, how do we know he's Catholic?

Edited March 27, 2016 by stormy

[alias1]

I absolutely loved Rachel's delight at the little bird making an appearance at the Bernie rally.  It was the best thing ever!.  

 

I read complaints about MSNBC cutting the end of Rachel's program in later viewings and what they cut was her segment about the RNC sending out past due notices to some republican voters.  They made it look like you hadn't paid your dues for some membership you belonged to.  But it was just a thinly veiled request for a donation to the RNC.  I guess some elderly people might fall for it.  It is underhanded but I thought most people would see through it. Although people are sending money to a bogus IRS, so I could be wrong.  She was angry about it.!

[jjj]

I read complaints about MSNBC cutting the end of Rachel's program in later viewings and what they cut was her segment about the RNC sending out past due notices to some republican voters.  They made it look like you hadn't paid your dues for some membership you belonged to.  But it was just a thinly veiled request for a donation to the RNC. 

She actually got through that segment before her show was cut off (cut off during the reward money segment).  But this is the scam that she was railing against:

http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/overdue-bill-hype-and-fear-cross-the-line/

[EarlGreyTea]

I know.  Didn't they used to say this was some old junk they had lying around?  Well, they couldn't have had that many.  If they are actually going to order something for these Friday Night shows, I'd like to see them give away TRMS mugs, or something similar.

 

I have waited for YEARS for someone at MSNBC to realize what a potential gold mine they're sitting on with those TRMS mugs. I've wanted one ever since I first started watching the show. I'd pay actual money for it.

 

EDIT: Apparently I put the idea out into the universe since they are now available on the MSNBC site. Woohoo!

Edited March 29, 2016 by EarlGreyTea

[BennyB]

 

they are now available on the MSNBC site

Wow!  I loves me some Rachel....but $19- (incl. shipping) for a mug is a tad steep for me.  :-(

 

http://www.nbcuniversalstore.com/the-rachel-maddow-show/index.php?v=msnbc_the-rachel-maddow-show&icid=msnbc_deskslider1_rachelmaddowmug_08142015

[M. Darcy]

It has to be Cruz.  Trump would hire hookers in NY, Kasich has no chance of winning so it wouldn't hurt his campaign, Hillary is smart enough to use an untraceable phone number and honestly, I don't think it would hurt Bernie's campaign at all if it turns out to be him.  I don't think its Bernie anyway but I don't think it would make a difference (unless he used House funds in some way). 

[Ohwell]

I felt uncomfortable at Rachel's glee when she was playing the Alabama Governor's sex tape.   I mean, I don't give a shit about him, and I realize this is news, but I never like it when someone's personal business is put out there on blast.  She just seemed to be having too much fun with it.  I'm sure she would be horrified if someone put out a tape of her talking lovey dovey to her partner. 

[M. Darcy]

I can't speak for Rachel but her glee might be because the Alabama Governor ran for office on family values and are part of a group that are trying to take rights away from people like her and Susan.  The hypocrisy is a bit delicious. And, its an affair with a state employee, its really no longer personal business.

[Ohwell]

Oh, I know he's a hypocrite and, as I said, I don't give a shit about him.  However, my point is that no one should take glee in exposing someone else's personal life, state employee or not.  Now if he was using state funds for his mistress, then that's another story and he should be exposed.  (I haven't been playing close attention, but I've heard that the money for her salary came not out of state funds but from somewhere else?)  

[represent]

I can't speak for Rachel but her glee might be because the Alabama Governor ran for office on family values and are part of a group that are trying to take rights away from people like her and Susan.  The hypocrisy is a bit delicious. And, its an affair with a state employee, its really no longer personal business.

Well in this case, you're speaking for me. This exactly why I too take if not glee, a lot of satisfaction in these stories. I can't stand a hypocrite especially one on as high a horse as these politicians place themselves. People like this governor use their powerful positions to sit in judgement of others all the while fucking around left and right. It's the hypocrisy, with his family values platform and everything LGBT seen as a threat to his "wholesome" values, yet he's fucking around, LOL. OMG, just dry up already...dirty, old man.

 

The only thing that nauseated me was having to listen to what he wanted to do with his old, nasty balls, ugh. His ass should be out to fucking pasture, yet he's still getting ass. Come on women, come on... 

 

These jerks could have one damn tooth in their mouths, sit on a couch smelling and scratching themselves and still have a decent pick from my species pool wanting to be with them. It's always unbelievable to me.

[M. Darcy]

 

Now if he was using state funds for his mistress, then that's another story and he should be exposed.  (I haven't been playing close attention, but I've heard that the money for her salary came not out of state funds but from somewhere else?)

Rachel said when she first reported on this story that no one seems to know who was paying her salary...which is an entire other kettle of fish.  And my guess, state funds were used for the affair - if you are living in housing provided by the state, using state funds to get around and basically do everything, I don't see how state funds money wasn't used.  But maybe he had a secret mistress account and reimbursed the state for that time.

 

I'm glad she is covering the antics of Governors.  I don't think the rest of the media gave the same amount of time for McDonnell. 

Edited March 30, 2016 by M. Darcy

[Ohwell]

If it's truly personal, then I don't take any glee in hearing about it, even if the person is a hypocrite.  It's between the two spouses.  I still get the shudders whenever I see Bill Clinton because all I can think about is the cigar-diddling.  

[M. Darcy]

Well....I'm guessing next time Rachel will have a staffer sitting outside with their phone on just in case.

 

Ok...I only saw Rachel's brief bit about the interviews since it was watching the midnight repeat and then fell asleep.  Did Bernie really say to her that he didn't think that the media should cover what Trump said about abortion and only cover the "important "issues or did I misunderstood what she said.

[alias1]

Bernie did initially call it just another stupid statement from Trump, but I think that was his total frustration with all the Trump coverage in general and reporters hanging on his every word.  All these interviews run together for me, so I don't know a time frame but he did later call Trump's comments deplorable or disgusting (or something like that).  I don't know if Bernie initially saw the interview with Trump and Matthews and I think having someone tell him about the comments probably isn't the same as actually witnessing the squirming that Trump did in trying to come up with a coherent answer to Matthew's probing.

[tenativelyyours]

I'm taking so much glee I think I've rubbed the outermost layer of skin off my hands entirely. 

[attica]

he did later call Trump's comments deplorable or disgusting (or something like that).

 

IIRC, "beyond comprehension" is a very sardonic Bernie way. If that's not redundant.

[M. Darcy]

Thanks - that makes more sense!  Trying to listen to hyper Rachel at midnight is never good for comprehension.  Because both are true - they do report on everything stupid thing he said but they can't ignore dangerous statements when he says them.  Heh (or else you cry) the headline on MSNBC this afternoon - Trump has three different statements on abortion in three hours.

 

The "mistress" resigned her job yesterday so we should get an update from Rachel tonight on AL.

Edited March 31, 2016 by M. Darcy

[stormy]

Rachel will be happy to know that this afternoon CNN finally got around to the Alabama governor story.

[alias1]

The "mistress" resigned her job yesterday so we should get an update from Rachel tonight on AL.

Why is it always the female who gets punished?  He's the power player and he's the one who should have resigned.  (Maybe it will still happen.)  I hope we find out where the money was coming from to pay her, though. 

 

This sort of parallels Trump's statement that the woman should be punished for having an abortion but nothing should happen to the man who got her pregnant! 

[NextIteration]

This sort of parallels Trump's statement that the woman should be punished for having an abortion but nothing should happen to the man who got her pregnant! 

 

So maddening, there are no words.

[represent]

Sing it Rachel, sing it!  Oh does she do her job.

 

YES Ted Cruz is the devil and the entire Republican party is full of shit, Donald Trump's platform is their platform. His ass didn't come out of nowhere, he grew from them. I for one am glad that Rachel won't let them separate themselves and act like any of them especially Cruz are any better than Trump.

 

By the way,  I can't believe that Rachel's boss is the same boss that employs the incompetents on Morning Joe, or any other show on this network, except for Hayes, he does his job as well....but the rest won't pick up any of it.

Edited April 1, 2016 by represent

[Rhetorica]

I loved Rachel's hook about the airport "bomb" and then weaving that to the true consequences of the pro life campaign if abortion becomes illegal. Also great to hear her call Trump's lies out. He would never be able to handle an interview with her.

[Quilt Fairy]

The piece that Rachel did on what it would mean if we had a pro-life anti-abortion government should be required watching for every U.S. citizen. It was priceless. When you take every sound-bite and catch-phrase ever uttered by an idiotic "family values/less big government" politician and draw it out to it's logical conclusion, it's horrific. Truly a war on women.

[Sesquipedalia]

I just listened to last night's super-sized show. Wow, Rachel has gotten a lot more access. Just last year she couldn't get any of the Clintons to speak with her, and now she's able to track Hillary down in her office for unscheduled interviews. She has come a long way!

 

Hillary crushed her interview. I hate horse race questions, and Rachel asked quite a few of them, but Hillary handled them well, as well as the more substantive questions. I liked how she stuck to her talking point that, even though Trump has a more "colorful personality," the differences between the Republican candidates are "of degree but not of kind." I agree with that.

 

I was very skeptical when Rachel asked the question about Bernie's response to Trump's comments about abortions. It felt like she was just fishing for a scoop, and I thought she was probably twisting his comments. But although he did condemn Trump's statements--and I have no doubt that a Sanders presidency would be very pro-choice--he was somewhat dismissive of the issue. He brought it back around to "but what are Trump's positions on economic issues--the *important* issues"--almost immediately. I guess it's not surprising that a woman would see the idea of punishing women for seeking abortions as a more crucial matter than even the most pressing economic issues.

Edited April 1, 2016 by Sesquipedalia