Rhodes Scholar Reporting the News Show Discussion

[jjj]

2 hours ago, M. Darcy said:

Rachel should have also warned us to get some tissues before the Senator Murray piece.  I had never heard the story before that he told to finish his filibuster. 

I actually had not heard that segment until almost 2:00 AM -- and that story was just heartbreaking.  And he told it so well, with passion, but not maudlin, knowing the story had its own impact that was fully conveyed in the way he told it. 

[M. Darcy]

That clip should also be shown every single time a politician goes on a rant against teachers. 

[BuckeyeLou]

5 hours ago, jjj said:

I actually had not heard that segment until almost 2:00 AM -- and that story was just heartbreaking.  And he told it so well, with passion, but not maudlin, knowing the story had its own impact that was fully conveyed in the way he told it. 

That was powerful!  Every American should watch this.

[jjj]

Confusing the Henry Cabot Lodges was funny.  Not so much with confusing Eugene McCarthy and Joe McCarthy this evening.  I can't tell if she was reading from a script or improvising. 

I'm not at all surprised that a former Islamic militant/acknowledged radical-in-training was not admitted to the U.S.  And not just because of the horrific attack in Orlando this week.

The tiny hands PAC is weird.  But amusing.  I agree with Rachel's gag reflex. 

[NextIteration]

Heh, I didn't even catch the Joe/Eugene issue, as a Minnesotan.  I'm sure she was appalled with herself.

Her interview with Sohail Ahmed was captivating and helpfully informative; I wish him all the best in educating the world.

[M. Darcy]

We really did see the Tiny Hands PAC ad air in the DC market the other day.  They weren't kidding about that.

I'm guessing that since Sohail Ahmed never answered her question about how his family handled his coming out, it didn't go so well.  Unless he was being nice, I'm glad his 8 hours spent with US officials went well.  It sounded like everyone was well, we're sorry about it but that's the rules but as long as you are here, its a good opportunity to talk to you and get some good information.

[represent]

The ad. was priceless, I laughed and laughed. The best part was the little hand repeatedly slipping off the red nuclear button, followed with it caressing Trump's face at the end. And it didn't help me regain my composure when Rachel decided to mock it by signing off with her hand caressing her face.

The Sohail Ahmed interview was interesting to me not because he said anything that I hadn't already heard from all the speculation that was already out there. It was just interesting to see someone like the terrorist, who once had that mindset,  who brought himself back from the brink of destruction.  Seems to me that if he's legit, it had to be something in his personality make up coupled with the fact that he seems  intelligent. It seemed like the "cult"  that some turn the practice of this and any religion into, wasn't fully able to take him over because there was a part of him that was still able to choose to read other texts and ask himself questions. I know I heard him saying that he started to read the more liberal interpretations of Islam.

Because I do see DAESH as a cult and once that cult takes over in a way  that you don't ask any questions and only read if you are even allowed to read, what they give you, then...you're more than likely done. You can't come back. I think the less educated you are, less worldly,  the more insulated you are in life, the more likely you are to fall prey to a cult. He's lucky, because I just think it was his natural make up, because he was insulated.

Edited June 20, 2016 by represent

[jjj]

This fascinating NYTimes story about Roy Cohn's work as Donald Trump's  lawyer would be a great segment on TRMS, if she can get one of the authors.  But when I went to the Twitter accounts to see if there were any alerts about tonight's show, I saw Rachel in her "Field and Stream" outfit with a trout, so maybe "Rachel has the night off"?  But the article will still be riveting later this week:

"What Donald Trump Learned From Joseph McCarthy’s Right-Hand Man"
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/21/us/politics/donald-trump-roy-cohn.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

[shok]

5 hours ago, jjj said:

"What Donald Trump Learned From Joseph McCarthy’s Right-Hand Man"
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/21/us/politics/donald-trump-roy-cohn.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

Some quotes in there from first wife Ivana. Her divorce deposition must be fascinating reading for oppo researchers. I read somewhere else that she said he kept a book of Hitler's speeches in his bedside table and he didn't deny haven't gotten the book as a gift from a friend but said he never read it. Rachel could have a field day with all of it.

[jjj]

10 minutes ago, shok said:

Some quotes in there from first wife Ivana. Her divorce deposition must be fascinating reading for oppo researchers. I read somewhere else that she said he kept a book of Hitler's speeches in his bedside table and he didn't deny haven't gotten the book as a gift from a friend but said he never read it. Rachel could have a field day with all of it.

Was very glad to see she was back from the trout stream this evening; and have to hope that this topic will be on a show in the near future.  She would indeed have a field day (field and stream day!) with this. 

Watching the breaking news at the end of the show about the Trump fundraising -- I have to wonder how significant the low numbers are?  How much can he afford to contribute (i.e., thrown away), and how much is sitting in the RNC and SuperPAC wings, waiting to be spent?  Do not get over-confident, MSNBC! 

Edited June 21, 2016 by jjj

[BabyVegas]

Rachel. I heart your show. I DVR it even though it's on three times a night just so I can watch it as soon as I get home from work and not miss the first few minutes, no matter if it'll air again in an hour or two. But to make a five minute point about how little Donald Trump has spent and yet not bring up how much free media coverage seems a bit obtuse. The New York Times had that article on it. It was not a minor passing news story. Honestly, I was really disappointed that she spent so much time discussing how little Trump has spent (which reinforces his message) while ignoring the the larger context to the numbers.

Edited June 21, 2016 by BabyVegas

[kassygreene]

Considering the report was released about 10-15 minutes before the end of Monday's show, that isn't a lot of time.  In fact, she was still re-reading to make sure the numbers were really as low as she seemed to be seeing...  I expect lots more tomorrow.

Especially if Bernie somehow has more cash on hand then Trump.

[M. Darcy]

Quote

I have to wonder how significant the low numbers are? 

Of course, we won't know for sure until the actual election, but I think very significant.  He won't be able to have anyone in the field and that's yuge as he would say.  Elections depend a lot on people on the ground and he won't have any.  Even if he gets volunteers, you need paid staff to organize them and money to pay for offices, equipment, handouts, phone banking etc.  Charlie Pierce said on Chris Hayes that Trump has less people than a normal staff at a Chipotle restaurant.

[Sharpie66]

Steve Benen over at MaddowBlog has a great article about Trump's money troubles here: http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/more-ways-one-the-trump-campaign-broke

One point he makes:
 

Quote

 

As June got underway, Trump had just $1.29 million in the bank (or “cash on hand”). That’s a joke. When Rachel noted this on the show last night, she had to check to make sure the decimal point wasn’t in the wrong place.

To put that in context, at the same point four years ago, Mitt Romney had $17 million in the bank. Hillary Clinton started June with $42 million.

Heck, Ben Carson – remember him? – ended May with $1.7 million cash on hand, and he ended his campaign in early March.

 

[attica]

The detail that the bulk of the campaign's expenditures are going to Trump-owned businesses will make many and lovely attack ads all summer long. I mean, I've suspected this was a grift, but boy-howdy.

[jjj]

"THAT'S RIGHT!"  "THAT'S RIGHT" -- Rachel's glee in comparing Trump's "first" fundraising letter to scams from Nigerian princes was wonderful.  "If you get a letter in ALL CAPS and UNDERLINED and saying 'THAT'S RIGHT!', do not click!"  Good advice, Rachel! 

Edited June 22, 2016 by jjj

[Grommet]

"Do not click" made me laugh.

The idea that this is a deliberate grift is interesting. I'll be curious whether his total outside donations exceed his self dealing expenses. And I suppose we should factor in other revenue like book sales, to see if this whole thing ends up making him money. I hope not. I hope the big republican donors tell him to piss off. He's not getting any Koch money, is he?

[Hanahope]

Hillary has a pretty good speech writer/researcher, with all the Trump quotes.

I'm sure that Trump did enter the presidential race solely as an advertising bump initially.  And now that he won so many primaries, he can't stop the self-promotion.  And I love how he uses all his own businesses to cater his team.

[jjj]

Wow, a side bonus of the dramatic sit-in in the House, is that it drove away coverage of the Trump speech from this morning.  I have the feeling an entire show got jettisoned by Rachel to stay on the story -- rightly. 

And this article includes a story from Rachel -- both touching and funny, like her:  http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/23/fashion/my-first-gay-bar-rosie-odonnell-rachel-maddow-alexander-wang-andy-cohen-share.html

[Sesquipedalia]

So Rachel mentioned that Clinton and Warren were tag-teaming against Trump yesterday, but she didn't mention that Clinton also name-dropped Warren twice in her economy speech. I'm probably reading too much into it, but I'm so obsessed with knowing who the VP nominee will be I scrutinize every move like a fortune teller reading tea leaves.

I'd never thought about it, but Rachel's piece on the scammy nature of the Trump campaign made me realize the Republican party may now be paying for the greed of its members. Arguably Trump could have never gotten the nomination if the field hadn't been so huge. The gravy train is getting too crowded to sustain itself.

[Lillybee]

The congressional sit in is fascinating. I hope that it is not in vain.

[jjj]

They kept Chris Hayes around to continue live coverage in the hour when his show normally repeats -- had hoped Rachel would be back!  It is historic.  But even if they get the vote, they will not get the majority outcome they want; but will have put Republicans on record as voting against the gun bills.  It is remarkable, and now that I am home, I see that C-SPAN really is running the live feed from cell phones.  I did not even know that was possible (that C-Span could broadcast live feed from a phone).  Hope there are plenty of chargers in the room.

Edited June 23, 2016 by jjj

[shok]

2 hours ago, jjj said:

Wow, a side bonus of the dramatic sit-in in the House, is that it drove away coverage of the Trump speech from this morning.  I have the feeling an entire show got jettisoned by Rachel to stay on the story -- rightly. 

I think I'm very glad that it did because the short segment she did do on it pissed me off. They took the time to replay lots of video of Trump's lies and insults yet all the rebuttal that Clinton got was a graphic from her campaign that said Trump was full of it. Then she mentioned that Hillary gave a speech but of course didn't show one second of it. I watched a lot of the speech and it was terrific and full of policy goodies and great ideas about how Hillary wants to boost the economy. I guess since she didn't get down in the mud and call Trump names, Rachel wasn't interested in covering it.

She still managed to give Bernie more air time than Hillary though with a clip of him moping and talking about how he was still running his campaign even though he conceded he had no chance of winning. Ding ding. Bernie, you were comprehensively beaten a month ago. Now get off my tv, and Rachel, how about covering some of the issues that actually matter.

[NextIteration]

7 hours ago, shok said:

Ding ding. Bernie, you were comprehensively beaten a month ago.

A mere quibble of course, but it was more like three months ago. ;)

[Deputy Deputy CoS]

I am personally rooting for Xavier Becerra to be VP. He covers all bases. Experience, fluent in Spanish unlike Castor, has gravatis and is young and handsome.

 

11 hours ago, Sesquipedalia said:

So Rachel mentioned that Clinton and Warren were tag-teaming against Trump yesterday, but she didn't mention that Clinton also name-dropped Warren twice in her economy speech. I'm probably reading too much into it, but I'm so obsessed with knowing who the VP nominee will be I scrutinize every move like a fortune teller reading tea leaves.

I'd never thought about it, but Rachel's piece on the scammy nature of the Trump campaign made me realize the Republican party may now be paying for the greed of its members. Arguably Trump could have never gotten the nomination if the field hadn't been so huge. The gravy train is getting too crowded to sustain itself.

 

I think Warren is a Sanders stand in. She's playing the role, for the party and Hillary Clinton, that they hoped Sanders would play but have yet to concede, let alone endorse HC. They can't rely on him, and the campaign must go on. Elizabeth Warren has stepped up to the plate big time.

[Sharpie66]

I hope at least one of the talking heads that will definitely be on MSNBC tonight analyzing the sit-in will point out that the ultimate goal of the protest wasn't necessarily to get a winning result on a vote (that just ain't gonna happen in this Congress), but to make the Republicans vote at all, thus giving their Democratic opponents some great talking points for November. Of course, it would be nice if Collins' bill passes both houses, but not likely.

Kornacki tweeted something about what all the Dem supporters of the sit-in will do if a Repub minority does the same thing this time next year to protest something on Pres. Clinton's agenda. Another tweeter replied that they will most likely not be protesting something that has the support of 90% of the American public. Damn straight.

[NextIteration]

Now that Kornacki has his irritating delegate board/election coverage lane, I wish he'd just stay in it.  I didn't like him on Up and I don't like it when he takes on the roll of pundit filling in for anyone.  Leave the filling in to Ari and Joy, invite Keith back for Chris H and Rachel, heck I don't think I'd even mind Michelle Bernard in for Chris M.

Edited June 23, 2016 by NextIteration
maybe this should have been in the MSNBC thread, but oh well.

[jjj]

Learned such great things tonight from Rachel:
  MI-5 = FBI/Five
  MI-6 = CIA/Six (sound is the significant element!)

And we learned Icelandic.  That was a terrific final segment, and I do not follow La Futbol.

[Egg]

1 hour ago, jjj said:

And we learned Icelandic.  That was a terrific final segment, and I do not follow La Futbol.

That was amazing! I was howling with laughter, and once it ended I cried a little thinking of what an exciting moment it must be for Iceland. Such a great burst of emotion. 

[shok]

What got me on her show tonight was that there were two examples of journalists committing journalism! Of course, both examples were British. *rollseyes*

They made Scott Walker very uncomfortable with their questions but the best was that guy interviewing Jindal. He wouldn't let him get away with any bullshit. See Rachel? That's how it's done.

[M. Darcy]

I had totally forgotten about Mitt's trip to London.  Ah, good times.

[jjj]

2 hours ago, M. Darcy said:

I had totally forgotten about Mitt's trip to London.  Ah, good times.

Me too!  I was going to rewatch that on the re-airing, but of course the show never re-ran last night.  Will find it OnDemand.

[represent]

Of course Larry the cat is still fine, because unlike the rest of us, he has nine lives.

Oh he's going to be OK, LOL.

[jjj]

16 minutes ago, represent said:

Of course Larry the cat is still fine, because unlike the rest of us, he has nine lives.

Oh he's going to be OK, LOL.

I knew Rachel would have her own lens on the big story, just did not think it would be "cats"!  I was watching the news waiting for the Prime Minister to appear in the wee hours, but did not see Larry the Cat then -- so glad Rachel showed that footage.  And has she ever had a cat on the show previously?  I remember the dog (forget his name, but adorable [beagle?]).  Both Larrys were remarkably composed in the face of all the cameras. 

Edited June 25, 2016 by jjj
Numpty alert - and the site won't let me edit! "Clueless numpty" -- fantastic

[represent]

Bwaah, Rachel is hilarious sometimes, Trump back from his trip, selling deck chairs on the Titanic...LOL.

You have to find a chuckle where ever the hell you can in this world and that was funny. 

Edited June 25, 2016 by represent

[jjj]

Oh, no, the cat was CGI -- I was watching on an iPod, so can't be blamed for being fooled! 

The tweets about Trump in Scotland were fabulous!  

[Sharpie66]

She didn't even include the ones with non-broadcastable language...

[Quilt Fairy]

The Brits have so many colorful synonyms for "asshole". "Numpty" is one of my favorites. It pops up on some of the British shows I watch. 

[attica]

I thought 'numpty' was 'idiot/moron', not asshole. Have I been wrong all this time? Or is that a distinction without a difference? :)  Still, that was a clever way for TRMS to colorfully insult the candidate without doing so explicitly. I approve this message! 

[jjj]

1 hour ago, attica said:

I thought 'numpty' was 'idiot/moron', not asshole. Have I been wrong all this time? Or is that a distinction without a difference? :)  Still, that was a clever way for TRMS to colorfully insult the candidate without doing so explicitly. I approve this message! 

Yes, the literal meaning is a stupid, stooopid person.  "Clueless numpty" (because it cannot be said enough).  Chris Hayes also had a segment on the golf course infomercial/Scotland incident, and he could not even finish his sentences. 

Edited June 25, 2016 by jjj

[Quilt Fairy]

You're undoubtedly right and idiot or moron makes more sense. I was just having a senior moment and used the word that I think of in connection with the Donald.

[attica]

Under the heading of It's Good To Have Friends in High Places, Governor Ultrasound's conviction was just overturned by SCOTUS (unanimously). Maybe now he can be Vice President!

On the upside, they kicked the Texas TRAAP law to the curb and stomped it some. 5-3.

[M. Darcy]

The Supreme Court ruled on McDonnell.  The Court vacated the jury instructions and is requiring a retrial.  But that seems to me that he still could go to jail someday so the dream is still alive.

[attica]

But what happens to the missus? Is she still on the hook?

Oh, scotusblog sez her appeal is still in the 4th circuit, waiting on today's outcome. Which if my tea-leaf reading skills are up to snuff, suggests she'll get the GOOJFC too.

(get out of jail free card)

Edited June 27, 2016 by attica

[M. Darcy]

I'm not sure.  I think it was just his case that went before the Court....her case was a separate appeal. 

[jjj]

1 hour ago, M. Darcy said:

I'm not sure.  I think it was just his case that went before the Court....her case was a separate appeal. 

Yes, but her team could argue the precedent of his decision.  Wow, friends in high places indeed.  Came here because I knew Gov Ultrasound has been such a topic of high interest on TRMS!  I expect some scorn this evening.  Along with the Texas decision and the day of Clinton/Warren in their and aligned politics and aligned blue jackets!

[M. Darcy]

I'm sure Rachel will explain it better but I just saw Pete Williams on MSNBC explain what happened.  It was a major victory for McDonnell- the Court basically did away with much of the case against him so its more difficult now to convict him.   He got away with it basically.  Hopefully at least his political career is over but who knows.

[numbersix]

I am a political scientist. Rachel Maddow, like me, has a PhD in political science. I cannot, for the life of me, understand why she keeps babbling nonsensically about this "poli sci model" for picking a vice president. This is the type of crap that a journalist of slightly above average intelligence comes up with to create a vaguely interesting "frame" for an election story in the lull between the primaries and the conventions. I'm embarrassed for her.

[jjj]

I loved that the Icelandic announcer was back again.  And aside from the "poly sci model," appreciated hearing *her* coverage of the news that has been covered all day.  I also love it when her coverage from way back connect to the news again -- and the Texas legislator in addition to Guv Ultrasound gave us two of those. 

[attica]

One of the fun details in Roberta Kaplan's (DOMA lawyer) book was her description of picking her ensemble for arguing before SCOTUS. What color suit, which style of shoe, and not least, how to wear her hair. She ended up opting for what she called a DC Blowout, which was meant to mimic  the conservative style favored by lady power brokers throughout the district (and one of her friends solidified the concept by approvingly noting her Argument Hair looked just like Nancy Pelosi's). So when Dahlia came on tonight, i immediately thought: Oh! Dahlia has a SCOTUS blow-out today! How appropriate!

I would frame a Warren VP pick as an echo of Bill's pick of Al Gore. Same age-ish, same demo, complimentary skill set.