Rhodes Scholar Reporting the News Show Discussion

[Wax Lion]

I can't get MaddowBlog to load. Can anyone tell me who Rachel challenges?

 

What I find amazing about the McDonnell scandal is how Mrs McDonell just can't help herself. You'd think if you knew you were being investigated for this behavior and on the verge of an indictment, you'd pull back. Maybe you'd alter your behavior with your future defense in mind. She just can't turn it off, it seems. It's like she stepped off the set of The Real Housewife of the Virginia Governor's Mansion.

[Dagny]

But she couldn’t let it go without naming three people of her own to continue on the challenge in the name of her charity, the Andi Leadership Institute. Maddow called out Paul Rieckhoff, the head of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, a local Massachusetts politician named Bill Dwight, and… Liz Cheney.

 

http://www.mediaite.com/online/rachel-maddow-accepts-shepard-smiths-ice-water-challenge/

 

Because I didn't want to sit through the video again and get teased about watching the program.

 

Hey Wax Lion - "Make me a match". Heh.

[jjj]

Mediaite did not understand that the challenge was to be doused, plus to name three more people; so a charity either gets their money or the challenger's money (Rachel in this case). 

[Wax Lion]

Considering the weird right wing turn Mediaite has taken, I suspect it's not a misunderstanding as much as a deliberate distortion.

[Lillybee]

I really would like to know what Rachel thinks of the Israeli-Gaza mess.

[renard]

In the latest false equivalency outrage, the Right/Fox News last night and this morning has been questioning why "The Media" is not covering the Gov. Andrew Cuomo integrity/ethics commission scandal. Sorry guys, you're late to the party. Rachel covered this about 3 weeks ago and did NOT spare Cuomo. I've never been that big a fan of his, although he did do a reasonably good job as NYAG based upon reports. I was also disappointed by his lack of involvement with Bridge-Gate after the reported call from Christie seemingly seeking his help in shutting down the initial problems within the NYPA before it hit the media.

[attica]

Picturing Jeff Bridges in Congress was blowing my mind.

 

Tangent: I once sat behind JB in the theatre. He's much prettier in person than in most of his roles. His hair is very glossy. I remember there being a shaft of light falling just on him like a beam from heaven, but that might be a lie I tell myself. ;)

[Dagny]

Picturing Jeff Bridges in Congress was blowing my mind.

 

The Contender was just on Sundance Channel (?) last night. I loved him in that movie.

[Lillybee]

Rachel and the MSNBC gang are doing a great job covering what is happening in Ferguson. I have been watching for hours.

[jjj]

I saw Rachel's amusing and touching farewell to Bill Wolff, Rachel's founding executive editor of the show -- and she did not say where he was going, which made me curious.  To "The View", which will, uh, be different.  I'm sure it is a lot more money, and according to this article, will give him time for dinner with his children, as Rachel noted:

 

http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/07/showbiz/tv/the-view-rachel-maddow-producer-bill-wolf/

[attica]

The View?!?  That gives me some hope for the smartening-up of that show. Maybe that's unfounded, but he doesn't have a history of working with dummies.

[shok]

That was my thought too attica. Now that they've gotten rid of the blithering idiot Bitsy and airhead Shari, maybe that show might now be watchable for someone with an iq higher than their age.

[jjj]

I saw that MSNBC starting rerunning the news shows again in the wee hours of weekdays after a few weeks of Lock!Up!.  I hope they keep it up, and that it is not just part of the current news coverage.  It is so helpful to be able to catch Rachel on the 1:00 AM slot on the West Coast.

[shok]

Sure would be nice if they'd do even one round of re-runs on Friday night for those on the west coast. It sucks that they go to their prison crap at 7:00 pm.

[jjj]

I completely agree, and from time to time, they have done a rerun of Rachel and whatever show preceded hers.  But others have pointed out that Lock!Up! generates many $$$ for MSNBC, hard as it is for me to understand!

 

There is a 3:00 AM rerun of Rachel's Friday show, although I have noticed it has been pre-empted a few times recently.  It can be hard to get home before 7:00 (the end of her show) on Fridays.  And for some reason, the podcasts of the Friday show sometimes never appear. 

[attica]

I swear I am not making this up, but when I first heard about the Bob McDonnell defense, I immediately thought of that LA Law ep. Because I am an Old. And then Rachel goes and shows the clip! (Lawsy, young Jimmy Smits!) I hope the prosecutor shows that clip to the jury; that would be awesome. 

 

And I'm still waiting for the former governor to enjoy his legally mandated internal ultrasound. You know, for his health and safety.

[jjj]

I saw that great Jimmy Smits clip around 1:40 in the AM, so hurrah for the repeat!  And somehow over the years I had thought that scene was from a L&O episode, so I am doubly glad that Rachel reminded me where it appeared!  I also thought back to that scene (in the wrong show, but whatever) while watching this Guv v. GuvWife tango unfold.  I would have thought Rachel was a little young to have seen that LA Law episode on first run... but good news if it is not as old as I thought! 

[jjj]

Thursday evening show -- if you blinked, you missed this, at around 9:56-9:57, when Rachel was showing tweets of  the president's tan suit, then the camera came back to her and she said:  "There's a reason no one takes fashion advice from me"  I'll try to get a screen shot of her as she said that. 

[Dagny]

Good timing. They are re-airing the proof behind the reason we went into Iraq. OIL. We knew it, but like a good math student, they provided the proof.

[jjj]

So, was there no new Rachel Maddow show on Friday?  I was going to set the DVR for 3:00 AM rerun, but see a different title there, which looks like the Iraq special. 

[Egg]

Did Rachel and show make an embarrassing geography mistake during tonight's debuntion junction? She went from talking about Obama's trip to Estonia and segued into debunking the story that the last time a US president went to the Balkans his (Bush's) watch was stolen. She didn't expressly state it, but it seemed pretty strongly implied that it was to contrast it with this time a US president is going to the Balkans. Except, Estonia isn't in the Balkan Peninsula. It's one of the Baltic States. And from what I can tell, he has no plans to go to the Balkans during any part of the upcoming trip. Whoops.

[Dagny]

Did Rachel and show make an embarrassing geography mistake during tonight's debuntion junction?

 

I think she fessed up on Twitter. Hopefully, she'll make a comment about it tonight.

[jjj]

I think she was not trying to say they were the same thing, and that is what she clarified in the tweet:  "did not mean to imply you [Estonia] are in the Balkans".  More of a clarification than a correction, but maybe she will mention it? 

 

ETA: I think you are completely right in your interpretation, egg -- I listened to the podcast on the treadmill and it was clear that her writers, or Rachel herself, were comparing the Obama visit in Estonia to the George"W" Bush visit to the Balkans, when his watch was NOT stolen.  The intro to that section, "if you Google President and Balkans, you basically only get this story of the 'stolen' watch", led to her conclusion that perhaps there would be different Google results after the Obama speech.  It's clear that someone thought these were all the same place, and the tweet does not excuse it.  Plus, there was no other reason at all to dredge up the Bush/watch story and show us eleven pictures of Bush in the Balkans! 

Edited September 3, 2014 by jjj

[Wax Lion]

Sometimes I get the feeling Rachel looks forward to holidays not because she wants time off but because she's hoping to a holiday weekend news dump.

[Moose135]

I think she fessed up on Twitter. Hopefully, she'll make a comment about it tonight.

She did...

[jjj]

I thought it was a surprisingly non-correction correction. Usually she owns up to mistakes more directly.

[M. Darcy]

Rachel's show should be awesome tonight - they just found Gov and Mrs. Ultrasound guilty!  On multiple counts! 

[attica]

Setting the dvr NOW! I have a feeling this show will need a watch and a re-watch.

 

Also, too: "Governor & Mrs. Ultrasound" is made of win.

[M. Darcy]

I started calling him that after Rachel started.  Well, he took away my rights and it probably cost him the vp spot. 

 

Wow, the final count is he is guilty on 11 corruption counts and she is guilty on eight corruption counts.  And, they were sobbing as the counts were read.  Why isn't it 9 pm yet!! 

[Sharpie66]

I just read that he was the first governor in Virginia to be convicted.

 

Amateur. (Says the Illinoisan--four of our last seven governors have done time! Yes, we take a weird not-pride-but-more-resigned-acceptance to our corrupt officials...)

[attica]

OMG, if there is recording of the courtroom sobbing (audio or video, I care not), I will know the universe loves me and wants me to have nice things.

[jjj]

Alas, no courtroom sobbing has been heard on MSNBC today.  But yes, my first thought was:  how many hours until Rachel?  I had to switch to CNN, because they had the twit Luke anchoring Alex Wagner's show.  I thought I could stand it until he told the female reporter who is older than him: "Bless your heart" for getting to the camera from the courtroom. 

[netlyon2]

Delurking to give a heads up:  I'm watching "All In" and Chris just said that Rachel will be joining him to give her reaction to the McDonnell verdict.  You don't even have to wait until 9 for the shenanigans to begin!

[QueerGirrl]

I just read that he was the first governor in Virginia to be convicted.

 

Amateur. (Says the Illinoisan--four of our last seven governors have done time! Yes, we take a weird not-pride-but-more-resigned-acceptance to our corrupt officials...)

We are aren't we? Just another day in Illinois!

[renard]

I just read that he was the first governor in Virginia to be convicted.

 

Amateur. (Says the Illinoisan--four of our last seven governors have done time! Yes, we take a weird not-pride-but-more-resigned-acceptance to our corrupt officials...)

 

No disrespect to Illinois but Louisiana must be given its due also.

 

I had steeped away from all this for a while during Ferguson, etc. It's 5:30AM here and I just realized, "What did Rachel say last night?" Going to get the podcast now; will be somewhere this afternoon/evening thta I can go of in the corner and enjoy and will have a full hospitality room at my disposal. Can't wait.

[attica]

Ah, well. It turns out the universe is an endless void, utterly indifferent to its inhabitants. No recording of the sobbing. Rats.

 

I like how Rachel kept coming back to the point of Gov U making his wife the bad guy. Because blaming the chick is the last resort of a family values dude. (I'm shocked he's only 60. I'd'a put him older.)

 

[shallow] Claire McCaskill looks well. I think she's a bit thinner, and maybe had one of them there lifestyle lifts. Plus her new hairdo makes her look like Miranda Richardson, I think.[/shallow] I'm glad to hear her say 'I don't wanna run for POTUS' as directly as she did. I hate it when they're coy. 

[ktwo]

(I'm shocked he's only 60. I'd'a put him older.)

I was watching a retrospective on his career on Morning Joe today and decided that he stopped dyeing his hair following the indictment. Possibly as a play to look more sympathetic. He has aged a lot since leaving office but I think it was on purpose.

Back on topic, Rachel's 30-minute excoriation of Bob and her plea to everyone to keep supporting local journalism were both fantastic.

[M. Darcy]

I saw her on Chris Hayes also - the sound of utter disgust in her voice when she talked about how Gov Ultrasound not only threw his wife totally under the bus but also dumped her during the trial was amazing.  And, she pointed out that this was his choice to use the crazy slutty wife as his defense.

 

Plus, her connecting the dots on how he used the 700 Club and his Christian family values to get where he was and the moment he became Governor - it all went out the window.  And, his emphasis on how evil gay marriage is and then what his marriage turned out to be.  Beautiful.

 

Here's the thing IMO - Maureen is guilty.  But I cannot honestly believe she did any of this without her husband knowing exactly what was going on.  And, apparently that jury felt the same way.  I hope she is divorcing him - as much as I dislike her, no one deserves to be treated as she was treated by her husband and his defense team.  And, it is obvious that Rachel feels the exact same way.

Edited September 5, 2014 by M. Darcy

[DXD526]

Rachel was on fire last night! She was downright giddy when she was on with Chris Hayes, and so was he, actually. She was so animated when she was talking, and he could barely sit still as he listened! So much fun to watch.

 

Add me to those who love how Rachel kept coming back to the same point: how when he had his back against the wall, this passionate defender of 'traditional marriage', family-values Christian chose to toss his wife under the bus and claim his marriage was a sham. Bravo!! Way to perform under pressure, dude. Holier-than-thou guys like McDonnell publicly judge people like Rachel on a regular basis, and it's obvious she relishes having the opportunity to return the favor!

[attica]

I cannot honestly believe she did any of this without her husband knowing exactly what was going on.

 

Because you are a person of sense. He wore the Rolex, he drove the Ferrari. Case closed, done & dusted.

 

ETA to add a link to sometime-guest Dahlia Lithwick's piece on the verdict. Money quote:

As the jurors begin to talk, we may begin to get some insight into why they came down so hard on the former first couple. But one possibility is that you just can’t explain lies with lies. And the McDonnell strategy always seemed to be just that: “We couldn’t have been lying to you about our finances, Virginia, because we were too busy lying to you about everything else. We lied about our marriage for years. We lied about our values and our integrity. We lied about our political and economic convictions. We lied about the centrality of family and marriage to our vision of governance.” In the end, when the jurors were asked to believe one more lie—that the McDonnells’ whole life was an “act” (a lie that may or may not now come true, if the McDonnells’ marriage fails to survive this spectacle) to explain the other lies—it may have been too much to sanction.

 

 

Edited September 5, 2014 by attica

[jjj]

I've been following this generally from the outset (not obsessively!), and the points Rachel made so beautifully pulled together the hypocrisy of the long-term quid pro quo and sell-out-of-family-values scenario.  This is not just corruption, but someone (maybe two someones) who sold his soul, the deeper this got.  It's one thing to be corrupt and human, another to throw your stated values and spouse under the bus to try to cover the corruption.  She may well have been complicit in this approach to a defense; I have read several versions of her willingness to go along with this "we never talked/ our marriage was a sham" defense.  Either they were lying then (failed marriage privately, family values publicly) or they were lying in the trial (real marriage now conveyed as failed) -- but whichever it was, these are significant deceptions, on top of the corruption.  And how humiliating for her:  all that denigration, and still convicted. 

Edited September 5, 2014 by jjj

[shok]

I liked Rachel's line about McDonnell's extreme rightwing conservative views getting him elected and then he set out to impose those repugnant views on the rest of Virginia. Pretty scary stuff what Koch and the rest of the right wing extremists are doing to the country.

[attica]

I am willing to believe that 'extreme right-wing views' are only actually held by a few people. The rest of them that espouse (and legislate or agitate) are just using them as tools, as a means to an end. In a lot of cases, they're tools to power. Red meat to the rubes. A chance to hippie-punch. I think in Gov. U's case, the end was cash and prizes.

 

As I've said before, Grifters gotta grift.

 

The McD's are grifters, both of them. Seen that way, all lies are in play. No lie is a lie too far. Theirs is a scam that has worked so well for so long that it's downright shocking when 12 jurors don't buy it too. Hence the sobbing. (Imo.)

[jjj]

The McDonnells are tools for sure.  On the day of the verdict, Chris Hayes made a reference to an essay by David Brooks (NYTimes) about the titled versus the wealthy classes, and how hard it is for people with big titles (Governor, in this case) to be around people with great wealth without having true wealth themselves.  I've seen it happen, and it was a brilliant analysis.  Some people who earn the big titles think they have become entitled to the lifestyle of the people they associate with who have the big money; the vacations, the cars, the private jets, the not thinking about the price of anything.  I found a link to the essay itself, and will try to find it again and add it here.  That analysis, combined with Rachel's insight about fall from the family values in this case, are a powerful set of arguments.

 

On a brighter note -- hurrah for the Friday cocktail!  She puts ingredients into glasses that I never would have thought of combining. 

[nowandlater]

I'm so disappointed in Rachel's backhanded compliment of TMZ, equating it with tabloid trash like The National Enquirer and saying it occasionally breaks big news.

 

TMZ is a legit 24/7 news operation. And like legit news operations like NBC News, it pays for video footage.

 

But TMZ also is diligent in searching through every court record filed, being well-sourced on every arrest, nearly every death.

 

They break news often -- and take bigwigs down -- because, unlike MSNBC or NFL reporters, they aren't beholden to the ones they cover.

 

You may not like certain aspects of TMZ (the celeb Z-lister gossip pays the bills), but you can't doubt the impact it has had on the news business.
 

(For those who don't know, TMZ has never lost a libel suit.)

[Wax Lion]

It also came out recently that TMZ used the video of Justin Bieber using a racial slur to push him to give them exclusives. And someone who pays close attention to the industry can break down which gossip site/magazine is coordinating with which celebrities, including TMZ.

 

I'd like to think that if Rachel found something damaging on President Obama, she wouldn't offer to suppress it providing he keep giving her exclusive interviews.

 

They do break news but their ethics are questionable. Our media ethics have slid to the point where we're okay with checkbook journalism but I think demanding access to suppress a negative story is still out of bounds.

 

But at least they're not as bad as Page Six. I don't get why anyone bothers with their stories. They make the National Enquirer look like Edward R Murrow.

[M. Darcy]

I think the true lesson that people should learn from Scott Brown is don't lie about Rachel because she will never ever forget it.  Every time that you do something stupid, she will cover it. I think she still would have pointed out what a tool he is but I think we probably get a bit extra.  Like pointing out he will be the first to lose two elections to women. 

 

This is from Friday's show but Rachel's expression when that woman compared Gov Ultrasound to Jesus.  That said it all - she didn't have to say a thing.

[jjj]

I'd like to think that if Rachel found something damaging on President Obama, she wouldn't offer to suppress it providing he keep giving her exclusive interviews.

That is a great point, Wax Lion -- sometimes these lines do get blurry, when the major networks pay for information, but I'd hope none of them engage in what only can be viewed as a form of extortion.  "What would Rachel do?" would be a guide to where the line is!

 

M.Darcy, did Rachel say anything about her past difficulties with Scott Brown last night?  I was distracted in that segment, but will listen to the podcast.  What happened back during his first election -- did he say Rachel was going to run for Congress in Massachusetts?  I forget the details.

[M. Darcy]

She didn't mention that past history but even without it, he is stupid enough that she would keep talking about him.  Even Colbert last night was mocking those stupid women awards.

 

Hmm, I'm trying to remember.  I think as part of raising money when he ran for Senate he was saying that vote for him - other wise you are going to get liberal commies like Rachel Maddow running for the Senate. Or actually I think he actually lied and said that she was.  Heh, and then for his re-election he was racist against Elizabeth Warren.  I wonder why women just don't like him.

Edited September 10, 2014 by M. Darcy

[attica]

Yeah, he said in a fundraising letter 'give me money so I can beat Rachel' and wouldn't retract the lie about her running. Rachel is enough of a wingnut bogeyman that it scares the cash right out of your wallet, apparently.

 

OMG, I loved that 'phony from New Hampshire' clip so, so much. And that it was given no commentary, just a 'that was a thing that happened' title card, made me howl.