Jump to content
Forums forums
PRIMETIMER
maraleia

Rhodes Scholar Reporting the News Show Discussion

Recommended Posts


Thanks for the clarification about the past history of Scott Brown using Rachel as a fundraising tool!  I think that got her goat more than anything.

 

As I watched that awful elevator video today on ESPN for the umpteenth time -- in an auto repair shop -- I had to think that if I were that woman, I would be feeling violated more by the millions of people watching the hundreds of airings of that video than by the actual incident.  I wish Rachel could have pixilated or zoomed in some way to avoid exposing her again.  I think it is possible to have the necessary discussion without the constant re-viewing of the video. 

 

ETA: Tonight, Thursday, Rachel showed an image from the video from the hallway outside the elevator, and completely blurred the image of the woman unconscious on the floor.  That's how to do it -- plaster his face and the other convicted NFL abusers everywhere, but stop the victimization of showing the injured women.  I hope other programs will try this approach. 

Edited by jjj
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post

IIRC, Brown's fundraising used the extra sleazy tactic of saying that MA Democrats were recruiting Rachel to run against him, so she could deny it and he could still say that Democrats just didn't manage to convince her yet. Even better, it was all based on an idiotic story about a politician from MA tweeting Rachel instead of DMing her saying he wanted to talk to her, some paper turned that into "OMG, is she going to run against Scott Brown?"

 

After Rachel's classy handling of the Rice elevator video, the next morning my local news used it as b-roll. Seriously, It played again and again as the anchor discussed the story.

Share this post


Link to post

Last time I saw Judge Clay Jenkins of Dallas County on TRMS was in early July, when he was calmly describing how his county was helping undocumented children who essentially were being incarcerated.  His stance then was, "how would I want my own children to be treated?" and proceeded compassionately to provide better care for those children.

 

Tonight, I was again so impressed with Judge Jenkins calm recounting of how he visited the family of the Ebola patient in Texas, and how he found them a place to live in his self-described "faith community", which is providing them with an apartment.  I'm guessing his politics and mine are far apart on the spectrum, but I'd love to see more public officials lead with such pragmatic compassion.  I hope Rachel has him back again. 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post

 

I'm guessing his politics and mine are far apart on the spectrum

He's a pretty liberal democrat and Dallas County is a pretty blue, liberal place (at least for Texas I guess)-I don't know your politics, but I doubt you and he would clash much. His family was close friends with Ann Richards. The big cities in Texas are more liberal, far more, than people think.

Share this post


Link to post

Well, thank you, yourstruly -- I fell victim to stereotyping (had no idea he was a liberal Democrat!), and honestly did not care what party or politics support him, because the public good he is providing rises above partisanship.  His lack of interest in preaching, apparent lack of interest in thanks, and attention to "what is best?" make him like a mask-free Lone Ranger -- do good, tip your hat, and move along. 

Share this post


Link to post

This was not said on TRMS as far as I know, but here is today's quote from my current favorite guest:  Judge Clay Jenkins, talking about the dog belonging to the nurse who has the Ebola virus:

 

"When I met with her parents, they said, 'This dog is important to her, judge. Don't let anything happen to the dog,' " Jenkins said. "If that dog has to be The Boy in the Plastic Bubble, we're going to take good care of that dog."

 

Surely Rachel can have him back to talk about events in Dallas and the *dog*!  She likes the dogs! 

Edited by jjj

Share this post


Link to post

I'm so glad Rachel pulled out an old clip of Fox & Fools panicking over all the people whose job is nicknamed as a Czar. The only thing missing was another Fox News clip where they played some Russian anthem in the background as if all these "Czars" were a sign of the communist marxist Kenyan's love of Soviet Russia and its Czars. I've been thinking about it as the Republicans have screamed for an "Ebola Czar".

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

I don't think I like the Friday News Dump game concept. I endorse lighter-hearted segments to close out the week, but maybe not the game show schtick. It may grow on me, who knows.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I am with you, attica -- I want to see Rachel amuse us or mix a cocktail (preferably both).  Game show with random guest on Skype is not a winner. 

Share this post


Link to post

I have to take a moment to defend my state. The tone of Rachel's segment re: the Washington gun laws was a bit flabbergasted, but having read the text of both proposals, one asks you to vote yes or no on a measure where guns cannot be seized without due process and only federal background checks apply and the other measure says to vote yes or no on whether strict background checks should apply. Having read both, I can see how someone might say that they were for both if they didn't know the exact ins and outs of each law and thought they were actually separate. I'm guessing the drop in voters who favor both measures is in some part that people actually understand what in the heck those two measures actually mean. 

Share this post


Link to post

Oh, Please Stop the Friday News Dump!  That was awful this week (Friday).  The person had either terrible recall or had not seen the news.  Rachel "helping you cheat" (as she said) to win the shaker on the last question did not help.  Bring back the Cocktail Moment! 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

I like the premise of it but their execution is sorely lacking. I'm a big game show flunkey though. I like the idea of testing a member of their viewing audience to see how well they remember various news stories but the "hostess" with a stupid cheap tinny cocktail shaker and a voice from the sky with the answers is all too hokey for me. Just do your quiz and use a video snippet to show the correct answer.

Share this post


Link to post

And I'm guessing the proposal that would limit checks is written purposely to be vague and to confuse voters.

Yes, I just submitted my ballot tonight and I'd just like to say that I thought it was really rather confusing.  Or maybe reading is just hard.  But I don't think things should be just unilaterally searched and seized.  However, I do fully support background checks.  Ultimately, I went with background checks over seizures.  And then I had wine.  No one is getting my wine.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

I enjoyed Rachel's trip to Denver. Although I find the whoo-whooing of the crowds to be tedious, I liked the interview with Candidate Irv. Plus, I know nothing about weed, and seeing the inside of a weed emporium from the protection of my tv was informative without the feeling of colossal self-consciousness I'd feel in person.

Share this post


Link to post

I really enjoyed last night's show too.

 

No matter if you think making weed legal or not is a good idea, how is it a good idea not to let them actually put the money in the bank?  IMO, that's just stupid and dangerous.  I wonder if Rachel actually bought some weed - I doubt it though. 

 

Also, IMO what is also stupid (and this is not unique to Colorado and we won't know until Tuesday if it actually makes a difference) not voting for someone based on the fact that they are too serious.  Being a Senator is a serious job - I would want someone to seem to take it seriously and not a giggling idiot. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I would want someone to seem to take it seriously and not a giggling idiot.

 

Unless, of course, it's Al Franken, who is both serious and hilarious. I wish he'd be funnier; the Senate could use some making fun of from the inside.

Share this post


Link to post

 

I wish he'd be funnier; the Senate could use some making fun of from the inside.

I think once he wins reelection, the gloves come off and he can be openly funny again.  And do more media appearances.  I think he was on Rachel's show at least once before. Or at least one of the MSNBC shows.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Franken has only done very few "national" television appearances (one with Rachel and one with Lawrence) which is fine with me because he's my senator and is doing a wonderful job.  I'm not sure that he'll change after the election, it's just way too easy to take shots at him if he reverts to comedy.  He has let loose a few funnies in the Senate and other senators have said he's hilarious behind the scenes.  He takes his role very seriously and this role will always be his tribute to Paul Wellstone.

 

He is hysterical in person, and I'm honored to have been able to work to get him elected and keep him in office.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

He said he's only done a few national because he wanted to concentrate on local appearances (if I remember correctly). He is my favorite Senator (yep, I'm nerdy enough to have a favorite Senator - I have a picture of the two of us in my office).  

 

Speaking of Senators, I still can't believe that woman on Rachel's show Friday forgot Kay Hagan.  Easy question. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Last night's show was one of the scariest things I have ever seen.  The fact that people have to have the fact that birth control is not abortion explained to them is just scary beyond belief.  Its just basic human biology.  Back in the olden days when I was in school, they split the girls and boys up to explain to them what is happening with your body.  Maybe they need to give the female talk to both groups.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

Scarier is the fact that Supreme Court justices also believe that birth control = abortion--"abortifacients" was a key word in the Hobby Lobby case. Tracking ACA-related stories is part of my job, and I had to explain the term to my boss when we were going over keywords to look for when searching out stories.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

I'm still giggling over "IUD isn't an abortion clinic in your body!" (So I guess I have to figure out another reason there are so many protesters around my vag...)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

 

Scarier is the fact that Supreme Court justices also believe that birth control = abortion--"abortifacients" was a key word in the Hobby Lobby case.

 

Didn't they actually say something like "It doesn't matter what the facts are, the main thing is if its their sincerely held beliefs."? In some ways that's scarier, since at this point we've got the conservative wing declaring that they don't need facts to back up their decisions.

 

That segment was useful because I didn't know how the IUD worked. They were brought up in sex ed but just the general idea of how they were inserted and how they offered long term birth control. (In hindsight it's not like they skipped over the complicated part.) I kinda wish there was an explanation of how people think IUDs are abortifacients because I can't figure that out. At least Plan B involves rejecting a fertilized cell (which is still ridiculous but at least I can figure it out the crazy thought process).

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

The Great Mushroom Canister Correction was fantastic! Catch the final five minutes if you did not see it. I'm sure the canister lovers have a Facebook group by now.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I kinda wish there was an explanation of how people think IUDs are abortifacients because I can't figure that out. At least Plan B involves rejecting a fertilized cell (which is still ridiculous but at least I can figure it out the crazy thought process).

 

See, I was always under the impression that the IUD being a foreign object disrupted the ability of a fertilized egg to implant (which would sort of be like Plan B), this is true of IUDs that don't have other properties like copper or hormones.  Until now, i never really understood the role of copper, or hormones that compliment the device itself.

 

I get how anti-abortion folks conflate the non complimented IUD and use the abortifacient title against it, I don't agree with it, but I understand how it fits into their twisted logic on birth control.  And really, let's be honest, they want to take away all birth control in the long run.

 

Thanks to Rachel for a segment that taught me something new, that I'd never really thought about until now!  I also really appreciated the new view on the devices on the whole, they really do make a ton of sense for teens/young adults when you take the risks of missing pills etc, into consideration.

Edited by NextIteration
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Hee, that was hysterical last night.  When she said that she went too far, I kept going over Wed's show and trying to figure out what she said that caused so much drama.  It never occurred to me that it was the canisters.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I only watched some of the coverage last night but Rachel was getting pretty angry around midnight - I could hear her sputtering in the background when Steven Schmidt and Michael Steele were saying that the President now has to work with Congress (like he was the problem)  and that he is going to turn into a Dictator. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

I missed her sputtering -- but that is sure the narrative this morning:  the Republican majorities will finally end the Obama gridlock.

 

And about those gun initiatives in Washington State that Rachel mentioned as being so confusing:  they turned out "right", with the one on extended background checks passing, and the one that would have created more latitude about background checks failing, by big margins.  So, the voters did figure out what they meant.  (The nightmare would have been if both passed, probably starting years of court battles.) 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I only watched some of the coverage last night but Rachel was getting pretty angry around midnight - I could hear her sputtering in the background when Steven Schmidt and Michael Steele were saying that the President now has to work with Congress (like he was the problem)  and that he is going to turn into a Dictator. 

 

I fell asleep pretty early due to the overall depressing nature of the evening, wish I hadn't missed angry Rachel, though for a Progressive, there is a lot to be angry about.

 

Good to hear the gun thing worked out in Washington!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Rachel's been positively giddy over the Kentucky law that won't let a candidate be on two ballots for federal office at the same time.

But I'm pretty sure she knows Rand Paul's going to the State Supreme Court or higher if he has to.

Share this post


Link to post

I'd say she's much more giddy about how extreme the efforts will get to find a way for Paul to get to run for both offices. I think this is where we get the Rachel that loves it when politics reaches reality TV levels of crazy. So much better than reality TV crazy, because the crazy is real and not scripted by producers.

Edited by Wax Lion

Share this post


Link to post

I actually was surprised that Rachel did the Friday show -- I thought with such a strenuous week, she would have taken a long weekend.  (Still wish they would stop the non-funny News Dump, although this week was the first person who actually was prepared -- in *Switzerland*! )

Share this post


Link to post

Sheesh. Mary Landrieu trying to save her seat with a vote supporting the Keystone Pipeline really does sum up why the Democrats deserved to lose in this election. If she's so afraid of the oil industry, she apparently can't change to topic to something that positively differentiates her from her opponent. As Rachel put it so well, it's not about ideological purity but about having something to use in the campaign. What good is it to spend the little time you have establishing that you have the same position as your opponent?

 

I'm not happy with the Republicans taking the Senate but the more I look at the Democrats who lost, the more I get a "Good riddance to bad rubbish" feeling, like I did in 2010 with people like Blanche Lincoln who just got in the way of the ACA to establish they weren't real Democrats.

 

Have we gotten rid of the DLC Democrats yet? (Or as Rachel called them the Conservadems) They really need to have a Red State strategy other than hoping to run against the next Richard Mourdock/Christine O'Donnell or adopting Republican positions with unconvincing sincerity.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

Sigh, I just don't know what to think anymore as a progressive.  I'm pragmatic enough to understand the Blue-dogs in a 50 state strategy, but what I do not understand is this whipped dog stance for the lame duck.  The Attorney General is a key cabinet position and Reid isn't allowing that, but we are getting the freaking Keystone Pipeline vote?

 

And why in all that is holy, do these congresscritters not work more than a flipping week a month?

 

Maybe I should just take a two-year nap.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

I get that they need to elect Democrats in red states to be able to get the influence of the leadership positions, but as Rachel puts it, I don't get how having the same position as the GOP opponent makes one electable anymore. Because Fox News has been able to nationalize all these elections, to some degree you're going to be tied to Obama, Reid and Pelosi. So at that point, you're the candidate that has the positions of the Republican but at best you can promise to slow down the Democratic leadership... while the GOP is promising to full-on stop them.

 

The solution isn't obvious but it seems even more obvious that the current model just doesn't work.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

The Attorney General is a key cabinet position and Reid isn't allowing that, but we are getting the freaking Keystone Pipeline vote?

 

The Keystone vote totally perplexes me unless they feel they have enough votes to ensure it doesn't pass but the Attorney General confirmation I do sort of understand. They have hundreds of other judicial positions that they need to confirm and in the long run, it's more important to get liberal judges into place around the country or the Democrats will never win another election. The Republicans could probably tie up the senate for weeks over the AG vote and in the meantime, they have to live with Eric Holder as AG and that is making their heads explode. Insert evil Joker laugh in here. :D

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

You're right. The AG post is high profile enough that the media will notice if the GOP drags out the decision. All those other open positions have barely been noticed by the media. Heck, outside of MSNBC, I barely saw anyone mention that we didn't have a Surgeon General amid all the ebola scaring.

Share this post


Link to post

@shok point very well made, and it has been reported that the Administration has signaled that it is happy to wait with AG hearings/confirmation.

 

The Surgeon General situation is pitiful, as well as ATF?  I think.  All this obstructionism has been terrible all around.

Share this post


Link to post

Rachel portrays the republicans as running around with their hair on fire. They're so out of control is hilarious.

And their new leadership? Five white guys, three named John.  What diversity!

I don't think she's on tonight, but man, I wanted an update on the tiger. The picture alone was worth tuning in for an update!

Share this post


Link to post

Was the tiger on Thursday's show?  I've missed Wednesday (have podcast) and Thursday this week.  Thanks for the alert that she might not be there -- I try not to get my expectations too high for her appearances on Fridays, although she is mostly there! 

Share this post


Link to post

Rachel gets the Ferguson grand jury announcement tonight since the prosecutor decided to reveal the results at 9 pm tonight - dumbest decision ever IMO.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Rachel's final segment tonight was a thing of beauty.  Glow-in-the-dark toilet paper, cat hoodies, duckie pajamas with feet, and a Texas legislator wearing them.  And that was just the lead-in.  Hmmmmm, what website rhymes with "throw-me.org," "flow-me.org," that Rachel is too uncomfortable to say on the teevee?  And *drink* every time she works the word "blow," blows," or "blown" into the three-minute segment.  Wonderful. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

I thought the best thing, other than the not-too-subtle references to "blow" throughout, was the fact that the duckie pjs with feet also had a flap in the back. Really?!?

 

I also appreciated her segment on Tom Coburn's asinine block of the military suicide bill--her fury was so righteous, it was wonderful to behold.

Share this post


Link to post

Tom Coburn has blocked and voted against veterans issues for years.

I love Rachel when she gets emotional. Her personality shines through all the time, but when she started crying about the Clay Hunt Veteran Suicide bill, I teared up as well. Damn him.

 

I also love her because she explains things so well. Of course, she has a liberal bent but I WANT a liberal bent. Her piece about how the Newtown families might have a good loophole to sue the gun manufacturers was a thing of beauty.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Customize font-size