MSNBC: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (Vaulted)

[jjj]

All the shows are now running together in my head, but I only watch MSNBC, so somebody said this on some show this morning (Joy's?):  that there is always something that overtakes the previous outrageous statements/tweets of Trump:  Khan overtook the Hispanic judge issue, and it has been one thing after another since then.  It is too much to keep in front of everyone all the time.  The real point is that there is SO MUCH.  I was thinking this week that if Mitt Romney had tweeted at 3:00 AM, "watch the sex tape (of a 1996 pageant winner)", everyone would have thought he had lost his mind.  Because he would have. 

1 hour ago, Padma said:

I don't think Clinton said anything about him not paying taxes that wouldn't be obvious to anyone following the Wash Post stories.... Even if he showed he -did- pay taxes (as if), HRC wouldn't be in any legal trouble for suggesting otherwise. 

I did not mean she would be in legal trouble -- not at all, as you note.  I meant she would not have said "maybe he doesn't pay taxes" unless she had information that allowed her to know he could not refute the statement.  The PR war is hers to lose at this point -- if she attacks, she needs to know she can back it up.  Of course, he can say any damn thing.  Double standard?  You betcha!  (To quote a recent VP candidate.) 

28 minutes ago, ruby24 said:

Rudy Giuliani has become quite something. Watching him on these shows this morning...what has happened to this man? Does he really believe what he says? Why would he say this? 

See my note from earlier this morning.  He must have high hopes of a high appointment in the Trump administration. 

Edited October 2, 2016 by jjj

[rcc]

Rudy says Trump is a genius! Trump must have either paid him a hefty sum or he promised him a cabinet post. Whatever goodwill he had as mayor during 9-11 is gone down the drain with his defending Trump every chance he gets IMO.

[stormy]

Yes of course no matter what Trump does he's proclaimed a genius. If Hillary did the same things she's called crooked and the basket of deplorables start their sickening chanting of lock her up.

[Padma]

Yes, for anyone else tweeting at 3 a.m. to "watch a sex tape" would have been unpresidential and on the verge of a breakdown!

The news people couldn't even get the follow up right that there wasn't even any sex tape! (Just a reality show moment under the covers--haven't seen it but it didn 't sound worse than some of The Bachelor.  And then they found that clip of Trump at the (clothed) beginning of a Playboy soft core porn. Yet he's still got "the Evangelicals"!  Meanwhile, Muskie shed a tear, Dean let out a scream, Rubio repeated himself four times, and Jeb was just too boring and it's --"You're OUT!". Unbelievable!

And then the clip on MSNBC this a.m. from PA where Trump speculated that Hillary cheats on Bill! And Giuliani apparently backed him up this morning, including that it was fine to say it even if there was no reason to think it was true at all!

Giuliani is a fascinating case. He is so in the tank for Trump, sounds so completely unhinged (esp. at the rallies). Is it just naked ambition or is he off his rocker?  At least Christie--another embarrassing lapdog--has moments of lucidity as he did with the Khan situation where he didn't support the talking points. Watching them both go for them today, "He has six bankruptcies! Stiff small business owners! Lives like a king and doesn't pay a penny in income tax!  He's a GENIUS!!!"  And yet, his supporters continue to buy every word. Yes, he's "the only one who can fix it because I've used all the loopholes myself!"  Problem is, we've SEEN his tax  plan and he doesn't fix anything! It's more for the rich! No way is he getting rid of all those advantages he (and others like him) enjoy. Why do his supporters keep thinking he will? It's beyond naïve now. Can they really be that STUPID? 

[atomationage]

AM Joy is so much better than Mika and Joe Scar.  I get sick of Mika's sourpuss, and Joe's pretentiousness. 

[shok]

17 minutes ago, atomationage said:

AM Joy is so much better than Mika and Joe Scar.  I get sick of Mika's sourpuss, and Joe's pretentiousness. 

What I loved from those latest ratings that were linked a few days ago is that Joy is getting equal or better ratings than Moaning Joe, on the WEEKEND! That's just unheard of.

[sereion]

Add to the Joy Ann Reid love train! I catch her show Saturdays AND Sunday!

[jjj]

I mentioned (above) Rudy's remarkable comment on Meet the Press this morning that "everyone is unfaithful,"  and therefore he considers himself a fine messenger for critiquing the Clintons' marriage.  This NY Times piece followed up on that by noting the fallacy of saying "everyone does it" while attacking the Clintons (the exact target fluctuates [Bill? Hilllary?], although when pressed, he always says Hillary is the target), and the article observes that Trump/Guiliani have six wives between them, while the Clintons have been married for 41 years:  http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/03/us/politics/rudy-giuliani-presidential-race.html?action=click&contentCollection=N.Y. %2F Region&module=Trending&version=Full&region=Marginalia&pgtype=article 

Edited October 3, 2016 by jjj

[MulletorHater]

I absolutely LOVE Joy's show!  

I have to admit that I vacillate on whether MSNBC--or any other form of media for that matter--should be covering the mad rantings of vile hypocrites like Ghouliani or Gingrich.  Both of these men shamelessly humiliated their former wives and went on to marry their respective jump-offs.  I would prefer that serious policy issues be focused on, particularly with how close to the election we are.  Not to mention a vice presidential debate tomorrow night.  However, I also don't mind these clowns being exposed for what they are especially when even Stevie Wonder could clearly see how stupid this strategy is.  As LOD reminded one of the Drumpf boys last week, his own mother was publicly humiliated by Drumpf.  So, why in the bloody hell would he think President Clinton's infidelities, and his wife's responses thereto, are fair game?  And, expecting a wife to be charitable or empathetic toward her husband's hoes is downright ridiculous.  It's bad enough that a woman is publicly shamed by her husband's infidelities, but she has to also be criticized for her coping mechanisms on top of it.  What wife has a kumbaya moment with a mistress?  Isn't fury toward both the cheaters a typical response?  Speaking of which, Marla Maples should have been picking her ass up out of the snow and still looking for all 32 teeth on every continent!

I guess anything is better for this bunch than discussing Drumpf's tax issues or the fact that his so-called foundation wasn't certified to collect funds and was nothing more than a slush fund for his personal expenses.

[Medicine Crow]

1 hour ago, MulletorHater said:

I absolutely LOVE Joy's show!  

I have to admit that I vacillate on whether MSNBC--or any other form of media for that matter--should be covering the mad rantings of vile hypocrites like Ghouliani or Gingrich.  Both of these men shamelessly humiliated their former wives and went on to marry their respective jump-offs.  I would prefer that serious policy issues be focused on, particularly with how close to the election we are.  Not to mention a vice presidential debate tomorrow night.  However, I also don't mind these clowns being exposed for what they are especially when even Stevie Wonder could clearly see how stupid this strategy is.  As LOD reminded one of the Drumpf boys last week, his own mother was publicly humiliated by Drumpf.  So, why in the bloody hell would he think President Clinton's infidelities, and his wife's responses thereto, are fair game?  And, expecting a wife to be charitable or empathetic toward her husband's hoes is downright ridiculous.  It's bad enough that a woman is publicly shamed by her husband's infidelities, but she has to also be criticized for her coping mechanisms on top of it.  What wife has a kumbaya moment with a mistress?  Isn't fury toward both the cheaters a typical response?  Speaking of which, Marla Maples should have been picking her ass up out of the snow and still looking for all 32 teeth on every continent!

I guess anything is better for this bunch than discussing Drumpf's tax issues or the fact that his so-called foundation wasn't certified to collect funds and was nothing more than a slush fund for his personal expenses.

My bold.  Sorry to seem dense, but what does this mean.

[sereion]

I think what the orginal poster is trying say that Marla needed nice beatdown from Ivana that she'll never forget.

Is Guliani loosing it??? Seriously, he has been saying some very off the wall things, notably the 9/11 comment, and I'm beginning to think  that he has organicity issuses.

Edited October 3, 2016 by sereion

[car54]

Rudy will never get over Hillary getting that senate seat when he had to drop out for health reasons.

[Moose135]

14 minutes ago, car54 said:

Rudy will never get over Hillary getting that senate seat when he had to drop out for health reasons.

Agreed, but if he read anything about New York City history, he would have not bothered running - the last New York City mayor elected to higher office was John Hoffman, elected Governor of NY state in 1869.

[Padma]

I must admit Chuck has won me over.  I loved how, after Giuliani tried to attack Hillary, defending Trump's "unfaithful" allegations and trying to accuse Hillary of viciously mistreating the women who claimed affairs with Bill (no evidence of that either, but whatev..), Chuck actually asked him, "Are you really the right person to be making that case?"

ROFL.  Giuliani physically recoiled and started babbling about everyone cheating (mentioned above) above him taking care of his problem "in confession", about "having prosecuted rape cases many times",....he went full nutcase! But it was a great question for a man whose wife found out he was cheating on her and leaving her when he said it in a press conference.   Trump...Giuliani....Bannon....Ailes. Oh, yes. These are wonderful advocates for respecting women and the sanctity of marriage. Chuck was really great not to shy away from the hypocrisy of it all.  (I assume, next time it comes up, HRC will say they had great commitment "and our faith" and worked through problems and have been married for 41 years--unlike Trump & Co. "Judge not....".

If I were Hillary and he attacked me over Monica in a debate, I'd also add, "Back in the 90s, Donald, when you were having all of your extramarital affairs, I remember you telling Chris Matthews that you were glad you weren't president and joking that if things were bad for Bill, just imagine how they'd be for you. But you got divorced over infidelity, and we committed to saving our marriage and have been together now for 41 years, so yes, you're right, there are a lot of differences between us. I think a lot of Americans know how difficult that situation is.")

Edited October 3, 2016 by Padma

[car54]

18 minutes ago, Padma said:

If I were Hillary and he attacked me over Monica in a debate, I'd also add, "Back in the 90s, Donald, when you were having all of your extramarital affairs, I remember you telling Chris Matthews that you were glad you weren't president and joking that if things were bad for Bill, just imagine how they'd be for you. But you got divorced over infidelity, and we committed to saving our marriage and have been together now for 41 years, so yes, you're right, there are a lot of differences between us. I think a lot of Americans know how difficult that situation is."

This is brilliant.

[cattykit]

1 hour ago, Padma said:

I must admit Chuck has won me over.  I loved how, after Giuliani tried to attack Hillary, defending Trump's "unfaithful" allegations and trying to accuse Hillary of viciously mistreating the women who claimed affairs with Bill (no evidence of that either, but whatev..), Chuck actually asked him, "Are you really the right person to be making that case?"

I've never had the issues with CT that other people seem to have, but I thought he did a great job with Giuliani yesterday and with the communication director the other day who was living in la-la land.  And both of those interviews are getting major play in many places.

I've been on an MSNBC quibblefest lately, so I'll add this--Joy aired a two-part interview with Mark Cuban over Saturday and Sunday that she stated was conducted on Friday, yet the MSNBC logo persistently said "Live," and no other graphic contradicted it.  I get that the overall broadcast is live, but any taped segments should be clearly identified as taped while they are running.

[Mumbles]

An interesting response, but if Trump's line of attack is how SHE treated those women (and there is a great NYT article on this topic), then it won't completely do the job. 

[MulletorHater]

2 hours ago, Padma said:

I must admit Chuck has won me over.  I loved how, after Giuliani tried to attack Hillary, defending Trump's "unfaithful" allegations and trying to accuse Hillary of viciously mistreating the women who claimed affairs with Bill (no evidence of that either, but whatev..), Chuck actually asked him, "Are you really the right person to be making that case?"

ROFL.  Giuliani physically recoiled and started babbling about everyone cheating (mentioned above) above him taking care of his problem "in confession", about "having prosecuted rape cases many times",....he went full nutcase! But it was a great question for a man whose wife found out he was cheating on her and leaving her when he said it in a press conference.   Trump...Giuliani....Bannon....Ailes. Oh, yes. These are wonderful advocates for respecting women and the sanctity of marriage. Chuck was really great not to shy away from the hypocrisy of it all.  (I assume, next time it comes up, HRC will say they had great commitment "and our faith" and worked through problems and have been married for 41 years--unlike Trump & Co. "Judge not....".

If I were Hillary and he attacked me over Monica in a debate, I'd also add, "Back in the 90s, Donald, when you were having all of your extramarital affairs, I remember you telling Chris Matthews that you were glad you weren't president and joking that if things were bad for Bill, just imagine how they'd be for you. But you got divorced over infidelity, and we committed to saving our marriage and have been together now for 41 years, so yes, you're right, there are a lot of differences between us. I think a lot of Americans know how difficult that situation is.")

Which makes me wonder if anyone sat Drumpf down and gently suggest, "You really don't want to do this."

Or does he really surround himself with sycophants who quake in their shoes and nearly pee in their Depends at the thought of being brutally honest with him.  It is bewildering on one hand, and frightening on another, at how once credible politicians are willing to sell what little souls they had left for the possibility of being appointed as something in Drumpf's administration.

You know things are bad anytime the usually reticent Chuck Todd has to openly check Ghouliani about his comments regarding Secretary Clinton's treatment of her husband's side pieces.  It's as if Drumpf's surrogates are desperately throwing everything but the kitchen sink at the Clintons to see what will stick.  I'm just waiting for Ghouliani to attack Chelsea for still having a healthy and loving relationship with both of her parents. 

[car54]

Rachel has had previews on the last 2 big Newsweek stories-- Kurt Eichenwald is tweeting about his new story for this week about Trump buying his steel for buildings from China--hopefully one of the evening shows will have this.   All his talk about putting the steel workers "back to work" when he was helping to put them out of work to begin with.

[Padma]

Like David Fahrenthold with Trump's taxes and charity, Kurt Eichenwald has been doing a great job digging for information about his business ("undisclosed foreign investments=huge conflicts of interest" and that "Trump illegally spent money in Cuba inspite of the U.S. embargo").

But I  just watched Matthews--with guest Fahrenthold--and kind of worry because there are so many scandals with Trump, something new every week (almost every day) that they all seem to disappear within 72 hours. NO ONE is talking about Cuba--or the foreign investment conflicts--all overshadowed by Alicia Machado, and the investigation of the Trump Foundation, and half a dozen other things. 

Nothing sticks.  Meanwhile, the refrain still hurts Hillary: "Benghazi, email, foundation, trust" even though there's not much to any of them.  I'm not sure we need more revelations or just to focus on some of the old ones long enough to permanently damage Trump's "brand" with some of them. (His rebranding himself in the past few days as a financial genius--by living like a king while paying no taxes--and now "is working for you"--appears to be working for his supporters.  And MSNBC keeps showing Giuliani and Christie with their "genius" talking point (showing Hillary, too).Yet his accountant said he had little interest in even looking at them. Could he have his "Aleppo" moment one of these days, please?  Hayes went over some of the other recent problems --Apprentice sexism, business with Iranian terrorism/bank, and the Eichenwald story about steel bought in China.

I'm not sure we need more, or to give what's already out there time to stick.

[alias1]

Memo to Chris Matthews.  If you're not going to challenge anything that Lying Blonde Mouthpiece says, why bother to have her on.   Everything she claims about Hillary is exactly what Trump is doing.  It's unbelievable what she gets away with.  "Trump only talks about issues and Hillary only talks about Trump."  In reality Trump talks about nothing but Hillary.

[car54]

I laughed at Halperin's response to Sarah Isgur Flores tonight--they asked the commenters for advice to the VP's for the debate and she said Pence should "go rogue" and tell Trump to release his taxes.  Halperin told her "That is the silliest thing anyone's ever said on this show".  

And he was right!

Edited October 4, 2016 by car54

[jjj]

Brian Williams this evening, on the candidates preparing for the town hall, to Nicolle Wallace:  "How do you prep for the vagaries of human people?"

Indeed Brian, human people are the worst. 

[Medicine Crow]

44 minutes ago, jjj said:

Brian Williams this evening, on the candidates preparing for the town hall, to Nicolle Wallace:  "How do you prep for the vagaries of human people?"

Indeed Brian, human people are the worst. 

Yes, I cringed when he said that ... c'mon Brian, quit trying to dazzle us with your command of the language.  (He just tries TOO hard!!)

[netlyon2]

11 hours ago, Padma said:

[snip]

But I  just watched Matthews--with guest Fahrenthold--and kind of worry because there are so many scandals with Trump, something new every week (almost every day) that they all seem to disappear within 72 hours. NO ONE is talking about Cuba--or the foreign investment conflicts--all overshadowed by Alicia Machado, and the investigation of the Trump Foundation, and half a dozen other things. 

Nothing sticks.  Meanwhile, the refrain still hurts Hillary: "Benghazi, email, foundation, trust" even though there's not much to any of them.  I'm not sure we need more revelations or just to focus on some of the old ones long enough to permanently damage Trump's "brand" with some of them.

It seems like "All-In" has stopped doing their ongoing list of Trump's last ten things that would have disqualified anyone else.  It's a pity, not only because it reminded viewers of old stuff (which, for the Orange Menace, means yesterday's stuff), but also because it served as a reminder of the sheer magnitude of Trump's horribleness.  Furthermore, it filled in gaps on things that I missed because I blinked or needed to take a breather from the constant horror show that is his campaign.

[Sharpie66]

Keith Olbermann's YT videos for GQ have had a few litanies of Trump's various transgressions/scandals/criminal behaviors, but he hasn't updated in about a month, so he's due for another "79 Bad Things Trump's Done/Said" video soon. (Former MSNBC host, so vaguely on topic...)

[atomationage]

1 hour ago, cattykit said:

Like any deplorable reads NYT.  (Actually, like any deplorable reads.) 

Deplorables don't have to read. they have Rupert Murdoch's stooges to tell them what to think. 

Blaming Hillary, The Woman, Her, Hillary, Hillary,   Her speech money is the same as a fake billion dollar tax deduction?  GMAFB!  Shut up Mika and have another lemon!

1 hour ago, cattykit said:

Hell, five minutes after HRC is elected, I'm going back to my regularly scheduled moderately conservative opposition to liberal policies, but for the next month I'm with her.

And after she's elected, I'll go back to my very liberal opposition to conservative  policies. 

On the talent, Geist looked like he was giving Barnicle a handy again today.  He really leans right in.

Edited October 4, 2016 by atomationage

[cattykit]

5 minutes ago, atomationage said:

And after she's elected, I'll go back to my very liberal opposition to conservative  policies. 

On the talent, Geist looked like he was giving Barnicle a handy again today.  He really leans right in.

But see, that's called intelligent political discourse.  I look forward to it!

JOC, how does Barnicle have a network job?  I mean, between him and BriWi, has MSNBC become the sanctuary for the ethically challenged?

[MulletorHater]

Another great show by Rachel last night!  In addition to discussing Drumpf's tax issue, she also cited Kurt Eichenwald's Newsweek article on how Drumpf has been short-changing U.S. steel workers on his own construction projects for years.  But, this is the guy who has managed to con some folks into believing he will bring blue collar jobs back to these shores.  It's like watching Romney all over again.

So, in addition to Drumpf having that cheap shit he sells in Macy's made in China, it appears he ditched U.S. workers to use imported steel and aluminum from China rather than manufacturers in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan and Wisconsin.  All to construct those monstrosities with his name emblazoned in fake gold on them.

The hypocrisy is simply mind boggling, but not surprising.  I wonder if Eichenwald will receive another avalanche of hate mail.

Edited October 4, 2016 by MulletorHater

[jjj]

5 hours ago, MulletorHater said:

Another great show by Rachel last night!  In addition to discussing Drumpf's tax issue, she also cited Kurt Eichenwald's Newsweek article on how Drumpf has been short-changing U.S. steel workers on his own construction projects for years.  But, this is the guy who has managed to con some folks into believing he will bring blue collar jobs back to these shores.  It's like watching Romney all over again.

So, in addition to Drumpf having that cheap shit he sells in Macy's made in China, it appears he ditched U.S. workers to use imported steel and aluminum from China rather than manufacturers in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan and Wisconsin.  All to construct hose monstrosities with his name emblazoned in fake gold on them.

The hypocrisy is simply mind boggling, but not surprising.  I wonder if Eichenwald will receive another avalanche of hate mail.

Not just the hypocrisy, but the corporate shell game to hide where the steel actually was coming from.  It's not that it was cheap, it is that it was cheap and Trump constructed an elaborate system of links to disguise that the steel was coming from China.  And by lunchtime today, no one will be paying attention to this.  The most incisive thing I heard yesterday on Rachel's show was that "Trump wants to eliminate outsourcing, unless it saves him money -- and everyone else will still need to stop doing it, but he gets to do whatever helps him cut corners."  Paraphrase, but essentially, "Make Trump Great Again." 

Edited October 4, 2016 by jjj

[MulletorHater]

7 minutes ago, jjj said:

Not just the hypocrisy, but the corporate shell game to hide where the steel actually was coming from.  It's not that it was cheap, it is that it was cheap and Trump constructed an elaborate system of links to disguise that the steel was coming from China.  And by lunchtime today, no one will be paying attention to this.  The most incisive thing I heard yesterday was that "Trump wants to eliminate outsourcing, unless it saves him money -- and everyone else will still need to stop doing it, but he gets to do whatever helps him cut corners."  Paraphrase, but essentially, "Make Trump Great Again." 

Exactly!  I can just hear the excuses for the Outsourcer-in-Chief now.  "It's the choice of a 'good' businessman to not buy more expensive products when he can get them cheaper somewhere else," or other justifications along those lines.  When all else fails, it will be, "But, the Clintons did it tooooooo!"

This is the type of reporting that the Fourth Estate should have been doing months ago.  Unfortunately, Phil Griffin, etc. couldn't see past the ratings and click baits that the "Trump" name brings.  

[Padma]

2 hours ago, MulletorHater said:

Exactly!  I can just hear the excuses for the Outsourcer-in-Chief now.  "It's the choice of a 'good' businessman to not buy more expensive products when he can get them cheaper somewhere else," or other justifications along those lines.  When all else fails, it will be, "But, the Clintons did it tooooooo!"

This is the type of reporting that the Fourth Estate should have been doing months ago.  Unfortunately, Phil Griffin, etc. couldn't see past the ratings and click baits that the "Trump" name brings.  

The rise of Donald Trump is something that should be a black mark on cable news, inc. MSNBC, for years to come.  (Yes, some did good work but it was "too little, too late" for most of it. And his Rep opponents were a disgrace, too. The best critics--Graham, Paul, Fiorina--rarely shared a stage with him. Jeb tried but was ineffectual and Rubio and Cruz tried too late. Who was broadcasting THEIR rallies in full? It's hard to underestimate the effect of all those uncritical broadcasts of Trump's rallies--followed, often, by having to listen to his people--and the idea that he was entertainment, who never could possibly win. Serious fact checking started much too late.  Newspapers were better but apparently few Americans read them.)

Today Joe has an opinion piece in Washington Post about Trump being the "default choice" for voters. It was painful to see this morning how he read the polling for Hillary and kept trying to spin it to Trump's advantage because Trump had a "bad week" but "was still almost tied" in a lot of places. (Joe  shrugged off her lead in places like Colorado as "she should be doing better there. He's still very competitive".

One trip to Trump Tower and Joe's completely coopted again? Someone should really replay for him those self-righteous speeches of the summer when he showed such "independence" and "moral courage".  Then again, he's probably been promised a Cabinet post or press secretary--something to buy him off--it's pretty obvious that something transpired between them and its a tactic Trump uses often to get his way.  I don't know how Gene can stand being on MJ anymore. (Plus, of course, Joe always cuts off his best points).

[MulletorHater]

23 minutes ago, Padma said:

The rise of Donald Trump is something that should be a black mark on cable news, inc. MSNBC, for years to come.  (Yes, some did good work but it was "too little, too late" for most of it. And his Rep opponents were a disgrace, too. The best critics--Graham, Paul, Fiorina--rarely shared a stage with him. Jeb tried but was ineffectual and Rubio and Cruz tried too late. Who was broadcasting THEIR rallies in full? It's hard to underestimate the effect of all those uncritical broadcasts of Trump's rallies--followed, often, by having to listen to his people--and the idea that he was entertainment, who never could possibly win. Serious fact checking started much too late.  Newspapers were better but apparently few Americans read them.)

Today Joe has an opinion piece in Washington Post about Trump being the "default choice" for voters. It was painful to see this morning how he read the polling for Hillary and kept trying to spin it to Trump's advantage because Trump had a "bad week" but "was still almost tied" in a lot of places. (Joe  shrugged off her lead in places like Colorado as "she should be doing better there. He's still very competitive".

One trip to Trump Tower and Joe's completely coopted again? Someone should really replay for him those self-righteous speeches of the summer when he showed such "independence" and "moral courage".  Then again, he's probably been promised a Cabinet post or press secretary--something to buy him off--it's pretty obvious that something transpired between them and its a tactic Trump uses often to get his way.  I don't know how Gene can stand being on MJ anymore. (Plus, of course, Joe always cuts off his best points).

What an excellent summation, Padma!  I remember how horrified I was by all the free publicity and tongue baths MSNBC gave Drumpf for months by either airing his rallies in full, allowing him carte blanche to call in to its shows (Morning Joe) or sticking a microphone in his face to see what fool thing was going to come out of his mouth next.  It was maddening.  I'll never forget the carnival like atmosphere surrounding Drumpf's visit to Capitol Hill.  He was covered as if he was a head of state.  On the rare occasions where there were attempts to fact check, the attempts were muddled or too far and in between.  There was a period when I had to change the channel and stopped watching MSNBC altogether.  There was even one instance where he punked the media, who dutifully raced to hear him disavow his "birtherism," only to realize it was a press conference to show off his new hotel.

Hopefully, there will be a comprehensive postmortem when this election is over that will fully examine how an amoral con man, thief, serial liar and narcissistic bottom feeder became the standard bearer for a major political party.  Several chapters should be devoted to the role of the media in this sordid tale.  The media should also be taken to task for normalizing behavior that was once seen as so appalling that a person would automatically be disqualified from consideration for the nation's highest office.  Speaking of which, the media's next assignment should to investigate how much public funding Drump requested and received for his development projects.

Joe's "moral courage" depends on how his favorite is polling in any given week, or whether he's having a very public feud with said favorite.

[Keepitmoving]

I want more focus on the fact that he was claiming to be a billionaire years earlier but according to his 1995 tax return he only banked 3.5million. I loved LOD pointing out how he was worth less than some of the highest paid journalist, how his earnings were basically a poor man's earnings when compared to the earnings many celeberties and athletes.

And still the rest of the media fails to focus on this greatest of Drumpf's humiliations, that he was no where near  worth as much as he claimed to be. If the media was rubbing in that sorry 3.5 million income from someone who was bragging back then about being a multi-millionaire/billionaire, Drumpf would be swinging from branches in the jungle and thus prove Bill Maher's claim that Drumpf's biological father is an orangutan. That's the real story, that 3.5 million.

I loved it when LOD pointed out that any time someone brags about something being "big" like certain body parts and their bank account, that they're lying. I loved when he showed photos of a few of our truly wealthy Americans who actually are on the Forbes list, then asked the audience if we've ever heard them bragging about how rich they are?

Edited October 4, 2016 by Keepitmoving

[WendyCR72]

A reminder: Posts not adhering strictly to MSNBC and its programming have no place here and will be removed. Political tangents do not belong here. Thank you and carry on.

[stormy]

Why is Kornacki interviewing anybody?

He doesn't question or push back when his guests make ridiculous claims and statements. 

I don't get why good interviewers have been dumped and lightweights are put in positions they can't fill.

[MulletorHater]

41 minutes ago, stormy said:

Why is Kornacki interviewing anybody?

He doesn't question or push back when his guests make ridiculous claims and statements. 

I don't get why good interviewers have been dumped and lightweights are put in positions they can't fill.

Given how he has been all over the Christie "Bridgegate" story, has he discussed these latest developments?   It seems that Mr. Wildstein is doing quite a bit of singing.  I suspect that Governor Christie will regret throwing Wildstein under the bus.  Hopefully, Rachel will be talking about it later, since this was her baby also.

 http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/05/nyregion/christie-and-cuomo-cooperated-in-cover-up-of-lane-closings-ex-official-testifies.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

Edited October 4, 2016 by MulletorHater

[car54]

Who was that officious woman in green who was arguing with Tom Brokaw over health care on MTP Daily?????

I know I'm too involved in the news when I woke up 3 times last night to check MSNBC and CNN to see if Wikileaks pulled an October suprise.  I'm exhausted now.

[3pwood]

3 hours ago, stormy said:

Why is Kornacki interviewing anybody? ...

He's cute.

 

4 hours ago, Keepitmoving said:

... Bill Maher's claim that Drumpf's biological father is an orangutan. ... 

An egregious insult to orangutans!

[potatoradio]

Watching pre-debate coverage and wondering why they are using those ugly, ugly pink microphones. They look like giant pimples or boils. Ew. Guess I should be glad they're working.. Heh

Yaaasssss- kormacki map play!!! Roll 'em up, Steve! 

Because it bears repeating until something changes: get lost, briwi

[car54]

Whhhhhhyyyyyy do we have to have Hugh Hewitt?   And why the hell are they making Joy sit outside with old Chris, they have young Chris (Hayes) to ride herd on old Chris if he goes off the rails.   Let Joy sit at the grownups table where she and Rachel can talk over BriWi.

[fireice13]

Why is MSNBC always putting "Breaking News" above items that are scheduled?! Awaiting the VP debate is not breaking news! We know we're awaiting it because we know when it's happening. Breaking News should be reserved for things that happen that we had no idea were going to happen. If everything is breaking news then nothing is breaking news.

I was also wondering who that woman arguing with Tom Brokaw was. She was horrible! ETA - her name is Carrie Sheffield and she's a political analyst who grew up in a large Mormon family and went to BYU. Wikipedia entry

Edited October 5, 2016 by fireice13

[Moose135]

1 hour ago, potatoradio said:

Watching pre-debate coverage and wondering why they are using those ugly, ugly pink microphones. They look like giant pimples or boils.

It's October - everything has to be pink, it's the law.

[Padma]

1 hour ago, fireice13 said:

I was also wondering who that woman arguing with Tom Brokaw was. She was horrible! ETA - her name is Carrie Sheffield and she's a political analyst who grew up in a large Mormon family and went to BYU. Wikipedia entry

She was awful--thought herself (and her talking points) gave her so much authority on everything! Anyone who disagreed with her she immediately "put straight" because they were wrong, (I'm sure the word is "libtards") and she was 100% right!

She did accomplish the impossible though in making me like Brokaw whom I've always thought was a Republican but, if so, at least not a Trumpblican.  I loved how he was so fed up with her authoritative pronouncements on the "complete failure" of Obamacare--and finally asked flat out, "When was the last time you were in an emergency room?"  (There wasn't one. ha.)

On the subject of the awful year of awful surrogates, I had turned earlier from CNN where they let Corey actually say, flat out, "Hillary is a criminal" and no newsperson refuted it (they just got flustered and went to someone else.)  I hate their "panels of surrogates" so much.

So...once again, kudos to Chuck!  He had on a Clinton and a Trump surrogate, too, but didn't have them argue with each other! HE did the job, as the journalist.  Made me realize how LAZY the CNN (et al) way is. Chuck comes prepared for either side, he's done his homework and it didn't waste my time. CNN should take a look (and fire Lewandowski who is a paid shill for both sides, still bound by Trump's strict "you can't criticize me or my family or my business for the rest of your life" NDA--who does that and pretends they're an objective "news" organization? Lower in ratings or not, in some ways, MSNBC is superior to both Fox and CNN.)

[BabyVegas]

I find it prudent to have my finger on the mute button when they have Steve Schmidt on. I hate that guy and I like MSNBC a while lot less every time they let him speak. 

Also, because it's still not wrong, go away, Brian Williams. Let Joy and Rachel and the journalists in the room talk. 

Edited October 5, 2016 by BabyVegas
Brian Williams makes me mad too.

[Rhetorica]

The best part of the pre debate show was Nicole Wallace telling the story of Palin's debate line, "Can I call you Joe?"  She said people congratulated her on her strategy. But the team didn't tell Palin to do that. Palin kept calling Joe "O'Biden" so she just asked him that on the spur of the moment. 

[xaxat]

I really wish they would move on from James Carville as their sole Democratic "strategist". He's a good sound bite, but his best days were last century. Forget social media, people were just trying to figure out what the internet was. (And believe it or not, the Dems have won some elections without him.)

Whenever Brian Williams drops a sports reference it feels more like he's doing it to sound like a "regular" guy than something a real fan would say.

Edited October 5, 2016 by xaxat

[potatoradio]

Chris Matthews last night complained about the VP candidates interrupting each other last night. I mean, nobody could get their thoughts out with all the interrupting. Zounds! Funny how that works, isn't it, Chris? 

Also, saying that Kaine hit the "erogenous" zones of the Democratic base? Twice? First, unprofessional and gross. Second, he needs to never, ever utter another word remotely close to "erogenous." Not on the air, anyway. I don't want to picture this guy in a Cialis bathtub. I have enough nightmares about this election already...

[stormy]

I hate MSNBC.  One of  the brightest minds in the political world, Keith Olbermann, reduced to youtube because MSNBC has to keep on the irrelevant talkers.

If you haven't been watching Keith, his newest rant (Oct 4th) is so over the top it's brilliant.

And Rachel, stop saying "watch this space".  You stole it from Keith!

[atomationage]

I love Keith Olberman on the GQ channel on YT.   I wouldn't say he's over the top.  IMO he's right at the top.