All Episodes Talk: TRMS 2019 Season

[M. Darcy]

Rachel reported that rice is in trouble!  Rice! 

Last night reminded me of the Simpsons quote from Kamp Krusty:  Lisa: I feel like I'm gonna die, Bart. Bart: We're all gonna die, Lis'. Lisa: I meant soon. Bart: So did I.

[Calvada]

How can Ag move all those people without Congressional approval?  Rachel said this could cost between $83 and $182 million dollars.  Where are they getting that money?  Reallocating from other programs?  Do they have the discretionary authority to do that?  Rachel needs an expert in federal employment law and someone with knowledge of the federal budget process to address these questions.

The employees have to go public with personal stories - someone who has a spouse who is undergoing cancer treatment and can't move across country, someone with a kid in a special needs program, someone dealing with 2 elderly parents.  This is how they will get the public on their side.  People think "federal employees - screw 'em!" until they can relate to them on an individual level.  It's the same as the shutdown - no one feels any sympathy until the single mom who is a GS 6 clerk can't pay her rent or pay for groceries is featured on the news.  I would have liked less time spent on the history of penicillin and more on what possibly could be done now to address this situation.  

[Quilt Fairy]

9 hours ago, Hooper said:

I had to turn the TV off before Rachel finished her segment

I've had to turn Rachel off entirely for a while.  The antics of this administration are sad and outrageous and I'm just fucking exhausted. 

[Calvada]

22 hours ago, Quilt Fairy said:

I've had to turn Rachel off entirely for a while.  The antics of this administration are sad and outrageous and I'm just fucking exhausted. 

I so often feel that way too.  But I know that's what they want so I try to get past it. 

However, I simply cannot watch these stories about the camps, with what is being done to children, the lack of hygiene, nutritional food, and medical care, double the capacity crammed into a room so that people can't even sit down -- it makes me want to scream and cry.  

Rep. Pascrell - a new Congressional face.  I liked that it was not the same people Rachel usually has on.  

[stormy]

Well the first half hour tonight proved to me that nothing in our country is sacred anymore. And this after vowing I'm TV news free till Monday by which time hopefully the ad nauseum Fourth of July story will be old news.

[freddi]

I actually thought the first half-hour showed the judiciary doing its job properly.  DOJ says one thing, president says the opposite, and the judge hauls the DOJ into court to say officially (again?) what the position is.  And presumably Mr. Gardner’s vacation is kaput.  “Can we have until Monday, you know, because tomorrow’s a holiday?”  “Nope.” 

Just, honestly, Rachel, you could have done that segment so much more effectively if you had not repeated some phrases four times.  

2 hours ago, stormy said:

Well the first half hour tonight proved to me that nothing in our country is sacred anymore. And this after vowing I'm TV news free till Monday by which time hopefully the ad nauseum Fourth of July story will be old news.

[stormy]

6 hours ago, freddi said:

I actually thought the first half-hour showed the judiciary doing its job properly.  DOJ says one thing, president says the opposite, and the judge hauls the DOJ into court to say officially (again?) what the position is.  And presumably Mr. Gardner’s vacation is kaput.  “Can we have until Monday, you know, because tomorrow’s a holiday?”  “Nope.” 

Just, honestly, Rachel, you could have done that segment so much more effectively if you had not repeated some phrases four times.  

ITA.    I thought my feelings that things couldn't get worse, that a president didn't have to respect at least some of our laws was just expected. I guess that's not true.

At first Rachel went on this long journey of Jody (what's his name) rising to his position which was too drawn out except that "the worse decision I've made" was so ridiculous, that I laughed out loud.

[Calvada]

8 hours ago, freddi said:

I actually thought the first half-hour showed the judiciary doing its job properly.  DOJ says one thing, president says the opposite, and the judge hauls the DOJ into court to say officially (again?) what the position is.  And presumably Mr. Gardner’s vacation is kaput.  “Can we have until Monday, you know, because tomorrow’s a holiday?”  “Nope.” 

Just, honestly, Rachel, you could have done that segment so much more effectively if you had not repeated some phrases four times.  

Except that the DOJ officials were saying two different things!  The first guy, the career person handling the matter who got called in on his vacation, was saying yes, as far as he knew, the department's stance was abiding by the Supreme Court's decision, and the census would not have the citizenship question.  The second guy, the former Sessions chief of staff, was saying hold on, actually we're looking for a workaround.  A workaround to a Supreme Court decision?!?   Jesus - no respect for the rule of law, for how our process is supposed to work.  I feel so sorry for Gardner - these other bozos will be gone but he's a going to have to go into court on future matters and his superiors have destroyed his credibility with the federal bench.  They are doing immense damage to the Justice Department and they just don't give a shit.  I give the judge credit for having this hearing - Trump is being called to account for what he tweets.  Actions have consequences, maybe just this once.  Unfortunately, it seems the consequences will be for a career public servant, and not the Tweeter in Chief.  

[stormy]

There was serious discussion about this last night on Chris Hayes show

[freddi]

Oh, suddenly, there is Rachel on my screen on July 4!  But it is a rerun of the July 3 show, to be followed by Lawrence O'Donnell and then the debates.  I am generally glad to see Rachel's shows again, and even keep on the reruns when they repeat her Friday show on Saturdays.  But it cracks me up that the "Breaking News" network has cut away from the earthquake in California and the events in D.C.  I'll go to the MSNBC thread to comment about the network.  But thought anyone who missed her transcript reading of the judge saying "No" might want to see it.  

[ScoobieDoobs]

And she repeated that awful James Baker interview, where he refused to say what a shithead Barr is -- in fact, he pretty much told Rach how he luvs Barr to pieces & that he's such a sweet & wonderful guy.  Sheesh, this interview made me so nauseous, I tuned out quick,  And Rachel also played very long & particularly unbearable clips of Barr & Trump.  Ugh, terrible programming choice here.

[freddi]

Thanks for the alert about the Friday show.  I missed the first hour, and the earthquake coverage pre-empted the repeat. I figured it would be old material or a prerecorded report.  Ugh , the Baker interview! 

7 hours ago, ScoobieDoobs said:

And she repeated that awful James Baker interview, where he refused to say what a shithead Barr is -- in fact, he pretty much told Rach how he luvs Barr to pieces & that he's such a sweet & wonderful guy.  Sheesh, this interview made me so nauseous, I tuned out quick,  And Rachel also played very long & particularly unbearable clips of Barr & Trump.  Ugh, terrible programming choice here.

[freddi]

Not only will Rachel be back on Tuesday, she will have Megan Rapinoe as a guest!  She must be thrilled, good for Rachel!  And Megan!   

[ahisma]

On the one hand, Rachel is probably a little sorry she didn't get to do the coverage of the Epstein story. She has been on top of it and appreciative of the Miami Herald's investigations for a while. 

On the other hand, as gleeful as she can be about the show's inside jokes and effects, she probably would not want to be gleeful about POOFing Eric Swalwell. Better to let somebody else have the fun on that one.

[M. Darcy]

The poofing is back!!!  

Yea on tonight's guest - boo on having Bernie on tomorrow. 

[QueerGirrl]

Thank God for the SDNY.  I hope they bury that child raping motherfucker and somehow get that enabling piece of shit Acosta.  Fuck both of them. 

[ScoobieDoobs]

I get very antsy when huge news breaks on a story Rachel has been covering forever — and Rachel is NOT there to discuss it.  Good to hear she’ll be back tonite.

Rachel has been all over Acosta, but as Schumer & Pelosi are putting him on notice, Rachel needs to continue shining her spotlight on him as well.  Ugh, yet another horrible, awful, despicable character in this administration.  Kudos to Rachel.  Idk how she keeps track of all these endless terrible people, but thankfully she does.

[tessaray]

Just a reminder, no speculation on what happens on a future show - especially no mention of politicians that have not made it to the show yet.

[Calvada]

I loved how giddy Rachel was about the interview with Megan Rapinoe.  But then we had to wait more than 30 minutes for it.  C'mon! 

[meowmommy]

36 minutes ago, Calvada said:

But then we had to wait more than 30 minutes for it.  C'mon! 

Most likely because she'd just finished a long interview by Anderson Cooper at CNN and had to trek over to NBC's studios.

Which makes the big banner at the top, TRMS EXCLUSIVE, beyond ridiculous.  It's exclusive in that it's the only interview of Megan Rapinoe by Rachel Maddow, which completely strips the meaning of "exclusive."  Like MSNBC has done with "breaking news."  

[possibilities]

Other than the excited squeeing, it seemed to be a pretty much contentless interview. I think Rapinoe is awesome, but Rachel didn't really have any interesting questions, nor did Rapinoe have much to say in the way of non-generic answers.

How do you feel? Great.

What's next? I don't know.

Did you become more articulate on purpose, or just by getting older? A little of both.

Are you invited to the WH? Not as far as I know.

Breaking snooze!

[ScoobieDoobs]

I know Rach was super excited to get this interview, but I figured ti would be a bunch of nothing.  Athletes almost never make for good interviews.  But she's very nice & her trophy looked very pretty.  Look, it was a much needed break from the endless shitty, awful, horrible news Rachel has to cover.

[attica]

I certainly appreciated Rapinoe's dismissive handwave that the equal-pay argument has been won. No, they don't have it yet, but taking an 'are you kidding me with this in 2019?!' approach to the arbitration/mediation/whatever thing is Good Framing. 

I for one am weary of the expectation that these tiresome arguments must be made fresh and earnestly by those on the other side who are behaving in bad faith. "Explain yourself to me in a way that will persuade me, a person who will refuse to be persuaded anyway!" Megan's 'whatever, everybody knows I'm right and you suck' is opium into my veins. 

[possibilities]

Anderson Cooper got more out of her, because he actually tried to, instead of just fanning:

[possibilities]

She was much better prepared tonight. I thought her interview with Bernie was actually interesting. She elicited a really different tone from him than I usually see, and she wasn't unwilling to challenge him and risk pissing him off.

Edited July 11, 2019 by possibilities

[meowmommy]

I think that was the first time I've been able to listen to an entire Bernie Sanders interview without either throwing something or muting the teevee in frustration.  I give credit to Rachel for that.  Didn't know Bernie had a mode other than angry old man.

I'd still rather listen to Chuck Rosenberg all day long, though.  I practically squee every time he's on the air.

[shok]

I lasted only long enough to hear Bernie start going on with his shit about how he was the one who set the Democratic platform and introduced the $15 minimum wage and I grabbed the remote. Glad to hear Rachel challenged him a bit.

[car54]

I think dropping in the polls has made Bernie put in more of an effort to be likeable to more people.

I also think he knows this is his last shot so he has to give it all he's got.

I have seen him on several shows lately and he is making a sincere effort to be less cranky and to seem to be enjoying himself when he's in public.

[Bluelucy]

The first half hour of last night's show was excellent.

Rachel tried her best to put a WTF is this about the stripper/golf fundraiser. But that story was puke worthy. 

[attica]

Did Rachel mention (I didn't catch the first bit of that block) the stripper/golf outing was meant to be a charity fundraiser? For "underprivileged kids"? I mean, that raises the WTFery for me. (The kids charity has pulled out, denying knowing about the stripper aspect of it, and Doral has canceled the event altogether).

[M. Darcy]

As soon as she said Bernie was next, I stopped watching.   Tonight will be better with Senator Harris. 

[possibilities]

1 hour ago, attica said:

Did Rachel mention (I didn't catch the first bit of that block) the stripper/golf outing was meant to be a charity fundraiser? For "underprivileged kids"? I mean, that raises the WTFery for me. (The kids charity has pulled out, denying knowing about the stripper aspect of it, and Doral has canceled the event altogether).

She did mention that the event had been canceled. I was going in and out of rage blackout, so I'm not sure if she said the stuff about "charity"-- I figure she did, but can't verify for sure.

[Hanahope]

3 hours ago, attica said:

Did Rachel mention (I didn't catch the first bit of that block) the stripper/golf outing was meant to be a charity fundraiser? For "underprivileged kids"? I mean, that raises the WTFery for me. (The kids charity has pulled out, denying knowing about the stripper aspect of it, and Doral has canceled the event altogether).

Yes, she mentioned that this was originally supposed to donate a portion of the proceeds (after Doral got paid, of course) to a charity, but then the charity found out about the rest of the event (i.e. the stripper connection) and pulled out.  There was then a "discussion" among the organizers and Doral/Trump cancelled the entire event.  However, she said the stipper club was still advertising the event on their website. 

I mean, can you believe this?  Really?  I loved how Rachel commented that well, you know Obama had his stripper golf charity event.

[meowmommy]

I'm probably a terrible person for saying this, but as a voter evaluating the candidates, immigration is just not a priority for me.  All the Democrats are going to say basically similar things anyway.   I know the media is going bananas with all the horror stories about the camps, but I wanted Rachel, in an almost 30 minute interview, to ask Kamala Harris about something other than immigration.  What little else got included was Kamala herself bringing up things like tariffs and the economy, and 30 seconds on ACA at the end.  Not ok.

[possibilities]

I wanted to hear more about Lights of Liberty. I was glad she mentioned it, but it went by so fast it's like it almost didn't happen. We spent more time on LOD fluffing her about reading transcripts.

[ScoobieDoobs]

1 hour ago, meowmommy said:

I'm probably a terrible person for saying this, but as a voter evaluating the candidates, immigration is just not a priority for me.  All the Democrats are going to say basically similar things anyway.   I know the media is going bananas with all the horror stories about the camps, but I wanted Rachel, in an almost 30 minute interview, to ask Kamala Harris about something other than immigration.  What little else got included was Kamala herself bringing up things like tariffs and the economy, and 30 seconds on ACA at the end.  Not ok.

Immigration is certainly an important issue to discuss, but to spend the whole interview on it?  Uh, why?  Sometimes I think the media (particularly both CNN & MSNBC) get on an issue they think will drive ratings & they just beat the absolute shit out of it.  This is happening now with immigration, but it's also happening with Kamala Harris. 

Since the debates, EVERY guest & host on CNN & MSNBC (including Rachel) has been pushing, pushing, pushing Harris as the one who's gonna end up being the Dem candidate.  Just why the the hell is that?  Cuz she made one cheap shot at Biden in the debates & Biden reacted ineffectively in that moment?  I still know little of Harris's views & have no idea why she should be President.

Look, Rachel started the show pointing to polls saying Harris has some momentum in the race.  But the fact is she's still far behind Biden.  So why was Rachel showing these polls, when she herself said they're mostly meaningless now?  Was she justifying having Harris on, or trying to create some drama in her being there?

Given what's going on now in the courts with ACA, that is the first thing she should have asked Harris about.  This was a nothing interview & it was absolutely Rachel's fault. 

Listen, Rachel, if you're gonna spent the first 10 minutes of your show telling us why it's so important to have Harris there, & shove polls at us, then get her to open up & tell us WTF she's gonna do as President & why we should vote for her.

Btw, the ONLY thing I remembered about the Bernie interview was that he smiled.  Was that supposed to be Bernie taking a brief break from the cranky-old-dude routine?  Otherwise, it was just Bernie spouting the same old Bernie shit.

Edited July 12, 2019 by ScoobieDoobs

[Bluelucy]

After last night I'm beginning to think that Rachel is not the interviewer I expect her to  be doing the job I expect from her.   Is she star struck?  

[The Solution]

I gotta say, I loved the interviews with both Bernie and Kamala Harris this week. I thought they were substantive and showcased the candidates well.

I especially loved that Kamala Harris was the one candidate that I've seen who was visibly angry (although still professional) when she was discussing Trump's poor performance and his attempts to distract the public with his carnival barker tactics.

[possibilities]

I do think Rachel does things solely for the ratings, like calling things exclusive that really aren't, and teasing a "breaking news" story coming up later in the show without hinting at what it could possibly be, and never forge that whole over-hyped "I have his tax return!" (but not really) fiasco.

I've seen several interviews with Rapinoe and Rachel's was by far the least interesting. The questions everyone else is asking, and the answers she gives, are way more substantive than what Rachel did.

I think fanning does in fact get in Rachel's way. She is so concerned with thanking people for showing up that she doesn't really like to push them for substance. It's getting more and more noticeable as other -- even less supposedly journalistic-- venues do a better job.

I think no one is really interviewing the candidates in an effective way, though. Everyone is just chasing the talking point of the day. Some of the candidates themselves are actually going out of their way to bring up less talked about issues, despite the media only asking them about the hottest headline of the moment! It's pathetic. Our media is pathetic.

I still like that Rachel doesn't have people on to shout at each other, and I like that sometimes she does in fact do a more well-researched and lengthy exposition than anyone else. Her "expert testimony" guests generally do a decent job because she lets them talk and doesn't interrupt them and feel obligated to change to a new shouter ever 7 seconds. She will ask them questions I am wondering about and I appreciate that. But that's a situation where there's no fear for her of losing her "nice" reputation. Her expert guests aren't running for office, they aren't accused of anything bad, and there's no reason to challenge them, so she's okay. She also doesn't have to research anything to figure out what to ask them, because they're there to TELL her, and all she has to do is act like she doesn't know the answers herself.

She's a lazy interviewer and it's getting more and more obvious all the time. Jimmy Kimmel did better with Rapinoe, for godsake! He's not even pretending to be a new organization and they talked about more issues than Rachel did.

And when Rachel herself needs to be probing and informed and challenge anyone, or seek information the guest isn't already itching to tell her, she's a total failure most of the time.

[ScoobieDoobs]

The interview where I think Rach failed in a big way was the one with James Baker.  She did not push back AT ALL when he did a love fest on Barr — which made me cringe.  Fail, Rach, fail!

She can get a lovely rapport going with whichever candidate she has on & yet she seems to have such trouble getting tough with anyone — or probing for more (badly needed) substance.  Why?  Is she too concerned with being nice?  Or is she afraid if she’s too “tough” that they won’t come back?

Rachel is definitely NOT a terrible interviewer.  She’s kind & thoughtful & she’s certainly capable of asking smart, relevant & probing questions.  All great things that I like about Rachel.  So why do her Dem candidate interviews continue to be so meh & uninspiring & unenlightening?

[BabyVegas]

6 hours ago, possibilities said:

I've seen several interviews with Rapinoe and Rachel's was by far the least interesting. The questions everyone else is asking, and the answers she gives, are way more substantive than what Rachel did.

I think fanning does in fact get in Rachel's way. She is so concerned with thanking people for showing up that she doesn't really like to push them for substance. It's getting more and more noticeable as other -- even less supposedly journalistic-- venues do a better job.

I agree that Rachel's interviews haven't been as good as some other interviews and I think some of it comes down to Rachel being more of a commentator than a reporter. Rachel's strongest area seems to be contextualizing the news rather than breaking it. When there's breaking news, she has reporters on the show to walk through the news, but she seems to serve more as a vehicle for their story - eliciting what happened and asking clarifying questions. But when she has interviewees on who could stand a little more of a face-to-face challenge because they're selling a particular viewpoint, that interview strategy doesn't work as well.

From what I remember, she used to be better at this stuff. In particular, I'm remembering her having on more people who vehemently disagreed with her and she'd go to town really debating them. In particular I'm thinking that one guy from maybe 6-7 years back who wrote a book about how gay people are bad and she interviewed him and lit into him. (Sorry, I realize that is not a very specific description.) So maybe the problem is that she has a hard time finding her hook when she isn't dealing with someone who is neutral and she isn't dealing with someone with an opposing point of view?

[stormy]

A big plus with Rachel's format is it isn't the usual panel of people. She does like to get to the plot in a maddening (to me) roundabout way and editorialize for upwards of 20 minutes but she covers stories that no one else does.

[possibilities]

She doesn't have to be oppositional in order to be substantive, though. I've seen more substantive questions asked by "average people" at various "town halls" with constituents.

I really don't know why she's failing so hard with candidates. I just think she is.

An I find it hard to believe she's afraid they won't come back if she does more than fluff. SHe's the highest cable "news" show-- they need her more than she needs them. And they go on more challenging interviews all the time. LOD, Chris Hayes, Joy Reid, Ari Melber all ask more probing questions of candidates. I've seen late night hosts go deeper.

I really think it's strange. She's CAPABLE of doing better; I have no doubt of that. So why isn't she?

[Calvada]

I would rather Rachel ask about issues other than the big story of the week, which this week is border issues, putting people in cages, separating families.  We get these rote, canned responses from the candidates because they've been asked about it so much.  And on the issue of this week, most of the Dem base knows that any candidate with a chance of getting the nomination will not do what the Trump Administration is doing.  By focusing so much on immigration issues, it just energizes the Trump base who believe these people are bringing drugs, violent crime, and terrorism into America and stealing jobs along the way.  Ask the candidates about economic development, taxes, health care, climate change, the deficit, how they will work with a divided Congress, hate crimes, mass shootings, military spending, and so on.  What will be their biggest priorities in the first 100 days,  what will they do by executive order, what legislation will they try to pass?

Give Julie Brown and the Miami Herald a Pulitzer, a Peabody, and any other prize or accolade that exists. They did what Acosta as US Attorney was supposed to do - they gave victims a voice.  

[Bluelucy]

Huge praise for Julie K Brown.  Towards the end of the interview when Rachel asked  her how she felt about becoming so high profile, I thought her voice began to crack as she explained that she was proud to have given the victims a voice.  

Edited July 13, 2019 by Bluelucy

[TexasGal]

18 hours ago, ScoobieDoobs said:

Rachel is definitely NOT a terrible interviewer.  She’s kind & thoughtful & she’s certainly capable of asking smart, relevant & probing questions.  All great things that I like about Rachel.  So why do her Dem candidate interviews continue to be so meh & uninspiring & unenlightening?

I haven’t been watching regularly but watched the interview with Kamala Harris last night.  So, this may not apply to all of them but my sense from that interview was that Rachel wanted to give her time to speak.  To let people get a sense of who she was.  Rachel would ask a generic question but then let her just sort of riff on in her answer.  Which I appreciated because I am one of those people who does not know a lot about Senator Harris, generally like her but need to learn more.   

[Calvada]

Rachel does a good job of listening to answers to her questions and giving the person being interviewed a chance to answer.  So many interrupt or talk over the answer.  I always think Chris Matthews wants to ask AND answer his questions!  

[meowmommy]

Rachel getting a review of her transcript reading by the congressman who wrote it...priceless.

Why did she spend several minutes talking about the Stone case, only to go back to it later on, repeat everything she'd already said, but add more detail?  I can only think it's because the show's timing was thrown off by the Stevens news.  And when she said she would bring someone on who could explain everything, I was hoping it would be Chuck, and my wish was granted.  

[freddi]

I really appreciated the short interview with Cliff Sloan about Justice Stevens, especially when Sloan talked about the recent 99th birthday party/clerk reunion. I always wonder what these monuments of our institutions say about current affairs when they are among friends: “Just do your best for the rule of law, every day.”  I’m sure there were attorneys and judges there who were reassured to hear what they already knew — it is a relief to hear you are on the right path. RIP 

[M. Darcy]

Hee, Rachel singing!  Its the little things 🙂