Jump to content

Type keyword(s) to search
Celebrating 1,000 NCIS-franchise episodes

All Episodes Talk: TRMS 2019 Season

formerlyfreedom

By formerlyfreedom
in The Rachel Maddow Show

formerlyfreedom
Message added by formerlyfreedom

Reminder; keep discussion to the current episodes of Rachel's show. Failure to follow the forum guidelines can result in removed posts and warnings being doled out. In some cases, suspensions and even banning may occur. Thank you. 

  • Start Topic

Recommended Posts

meowmommy

meowmommy

Feels like every day Rachel strays more and more from her mantra of follow what they do, not what they say.  I really thought she'd be the last person to spend time on Hurribamacane-gate.  And then she runs audio clips at the end.

I remember hearing "big girl's blouse" by Mr. Bates on Downton Abbey.  Didn't know quite what it meant at the time, but it definitely wasn't a compliment.

  1493180919_b5abb877-c55a-4293-9b8c-8d20dec33fee_text_hi(1).gif.ec15f785e758a9f7a1b834ec0c8e5c3a.gif

Link to comment
  • Replies 1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Hanahope
Hanahope

Great interview with Hillary Clinton.  I loved how Hillary turned the whole Mueller investigation and the "no collusion" around by saying what if a democratic candidate went on TV to ask China to find

The Solution
The Solution

Rachel's show tonight was BY FAR the most intelligent, level-headed, calm and sane reporting I've seen on this situation yet. Especially the 15 Questions About the Barr Report segment. If you haven't

taanja
taanja

"Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it." I personally tune in to hear the way Rachel weaves the past and the present together into a tapestry of history. She is brilliant

Posted Images

Galloway Cave

Galloway Cave

14 hours ago, meowmommy said:

Feels like every day Rachel strays more and more from her mantra of follow what they do, not what they say. 

I get the feeling Rachel was doing that because she wanted to report on the overall picture of that day's events, rather than focus on his Word Salad of the Day. But now I think Rachel is doing what a lot of political observers are doing. I am seeing more pundits circling the wagons around the dementia position, pointing out the increase in actions that show a rapid decline in his mental acuity and reason. In the past, his statements were just the regurgitation of Fox News segments he had just watched or stuff his staff was feeding him. Now he is free-falling and unable to function at a much higher rate.

Most of the media is now documenting his dementia and remarking on it correctly. I don't mind if Rachel does the same. The way she frames her discussion of his behavior doesn't bother me. 

  • Love 10
Link to comment
freddi

freddi

I tuned in for the second half of the repeat of Rachel’s show, and see Brian Williams.  Did he do two hours?

I guess I am in the minority of viewers who like the British Parliament clips.  But they are a relief after everything else. 

  • Love 3
Link to comment
freddi

freddi

(edited)

Rachel's comments in the handoff to Joy (sitting in for Lawrence) were a 30-second summary of the past 2-and-a-half years of circumventing norms and codes of conduct by this presidency.  As she was saying it, I was thinking, yup, it is really like the frog sitting in a pan with the water slowing coming to a boil -- and then at the end, she said "the frog".  

Glad she had Natasha Bertrand on -- Natasha had been on many MSNBC shows about a year ago regularly, and kind of evaporated.  I don't recall that she had been on Rachel's show much (more on Chris Hayes' show).  But what a blockbuster story -- I was glad she got into details like the servicemen who went the resort did not have enough money for meals (by the way, that completely CIRCUMVENTS the point of them being sent there to spend money!), and were not dressed properly for the resort.  What a scam.  

Edited by freddi
  • Love 7
Link to comment
roughing it

roughing it

On 9/6/2019 at 8:16 PM, tres bien said:

Frustrating. No amount of "breaking look what happened now news" makes me surprised any more.

I would love for ALL MEDIA, for one week, to not report or mention the president's name even once.  For one week.  It would drive the man completely insane.

  • Love 9
Link to comment
freddi

freddi

(edited)

Wow, that first half-hour was a big dose of "Tinker, Tailor, Rachel, Spy."  I'll have to go read about this, as I could barely follow who was a spy for which side and how he/she was extricated.

One odd thing about the NOAA story -- when she was talking about Nixon doing the "important work" of creating NOAA, the video clip was of Nixon's last day in office, when he was talking to the White House staff and talking about his mother being a saint and crying, with his family standing behind him.  Did they not realize what clip that was?  

Oh yes, idiotic that he put NOAA in Commerce.  Gift that keeps on giving.  

Edited by freddi
  • Love 2
Link to comment
meowmommy

meowmommy

I'm never sure, when Rachel pulls out her history lessons, if my knowing some of it already makes me really smart or just really, really old.  I suspect the latter.  I knew who Walter Hickel was, although I didn't know about the origins of NOAA.

I traveled a lot as an AF officer.  The travel office tried, as often as feasible, to put us on military bases, and when that wasn't possible, in a middling hotel.  Not a Motel 6, but sure as hell not a resort.  The current AF brass has some 'splaining to do.

Mary Gay Scanlon was wearing her member of Congress pin on a chain around her neck.  Haven't seen that before.  Interesting that she knew it was TRMS's 11th anniversary.

3 hours ago, freddi said:

Oh yes, idiotic that he put NOAA in Commerce.  Gift that keeps on giving.

Although it's pretty much a slam dunk that if NOAA had been under Interior this week, the outcome would have been the same, just with a different Secretary.

3 hours ago, freddi said:

Wow, that first half-hour was a big dose of "Tinker, Tailor, Rachel, Spy."  I'll have to go read about this, as I could barely follow who was a spy for which side and how he/she was extricated.

I'd read about it earlier today and the kicker to the story was the reason the spy was pulled out in the first place--because the CIA didn't trust 45 not to spill the beans to the Russians.  After hearing the reporter from CNN who broke the story explaining that he's been very careful not to disclose enough information about the spy for them to be identified, I'm not entirely comfortable that the NBC reporter is giving out more details.  If NBC can suss this out, the Russians won't have any trouble finding the guy.

  • Love 4
Link to comment
freddi

freddi

50 minutes ago, meowmommy said:

I'd read about it earlier today and the kicker to the story was the reason the spy was pulled out in the first place--because the CIA didn't trust 45 not to spill the beans to the Russians.  After hearing the reporter from CNN who broke the story explaining that he's been very careful not to disclose enough information about the spy for them to be identified, I'm not entirely comfortable that the NBC reporter is giving out more details.  If NBC can suss this out, the Russians won't have any trouble finding the guy.

Even while Rachel's show was on, an article in the NY Times went live, with even more details.  It was clear in later shows that the former spy was being moved *with his family*, a point I don't think was mentioned on Rachel's show.   I don't know if they said "he", but if this really was someone close to Putin's office, it is a safe guess.  Yes, I don't know what was gained by outing this spy.  Rachel really just had the first version of the story; I suspect it will be even more filled in by morning.  

P.S. -- I totally agree that the NOAA outcome would have been the same last week even if NOAA were in the Interior.  

  • Love 1
Link to comment
possibilities

possibilities

(edited)

I also feel like outing someone who is essentially minding their own business, and who has served the  national security interest at their own peril, and thus putting that person in danger, is not just stupid but also very wrong. To what end? The titillating headline? Usually, Rachel is better than that.

It wasn't newsworthy that the person lives in DC. It was newsworthy that they were extracted due to POTUS malfeasance. No need to tell the world where they are, essentially, hiding.

Next, someone will try to find everyone in witness protection, and out them, too, just to show they can do it.

Edited by possibilities
  • Love 3
Link to comment
meowmommy

meowmommy

46 minutes ago, possibilities said:

I also feel like outing someone who is essentially minding their own business, and who has served the  national security interest at their own peril, and thus putting that person in danger, is not just stupid but also very wrong. To what end?

And now the news outlets are publishing his name.  Apparently he and his family have fled for their lives.  

I'm a big supporter of the free press, but dammit, this was just wrong.  Rachel wasn't the first with it, but she piled on, too.

  • Love 6
Link to comment
BabyVegas

BabyVegas

15 hours ago, freddi said:

and NBC is taking a hit in this piece because of the door-knocking

Rightly so, at least in my opinion. "Putin doesn't tend to go after people unless he's taunted that defectors exist" (Alexander Litvinenko would probably want a word if he hadn't been, y'know, murdered.) followed immediately by doing essentially what officials said would make things more dangerous for that asset. 

The entire time Ken was on, I wasn't sure what was newsworthy about the information. Unless I was missing something, the entire story seemed kind of pointless. I've always assumed that, given her high ratings and contributions to MSNBC's success, that Rachel has a fair bit of autonomy, or at least leverage, when dealing with management. Segments like this - stuff where NBC clearly just wants to get credit for "breaking" a story but doesn't have anything actually useful to add so they shove the correspondent off on MSNBC instead of putting them on NBC proper - really make me question how TRMS covers certain stories and how much management is involved. 

  • Love 1
Link to comment
freddi

freddi

(edited)
3 hours ago, BabyVegas said:

The entire time Ken was on, I wasn't sure what was newsworthy about the information. Unless I was missing something, the entire story seemed kind of pointless. I've always assumed that, given her high ratings and contributions to MSNBC's success, that Rachel has a fair bit of autonomy, or at least leverage, when dealing with management. Segments like this - stuff where NBC clearly just wants to get credit for "breaking" a story but doesn't have anything actually useful to add so they shove the correspondent off on MSNBC instead of putting them on NBC proper - really make me question how TRMS covers certain stories and how much management is involved. 

On Monday, I do recall that Rachel said Rep. Mary Gay Scanlon "will be on next" before going to break, but Scanlon in fact did not show up "next," and Rachel was scrambling a little to acknowledge Ken.  So, she seems to have had virtually no warning that she would be interviewing him.  You're right, they shoved him on, because the news was breaking in print at the same moment, as I noted (above) that evening.  Scanlon then was "next".  Oh, and here is the transcript of that blip:

"The vice chair of the Judiciary Committee joins us next.  Stay with us. 

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MADDOW:  OK.  We have some breaking news for you.  This just came out in the past couple of minutes."

Edited by freddi
Link to comment
freddi

freddi

4 minutes ago, BuckeyeLou said:

Chuck Rosenberg on tonight, always thoughtful & informative.  Its crazy that 18 years later, the 5, 9/11 terrorists are still in Guantanamo awaiting trial. 

I will always turn up the sound for Chuck Rosenberg, Joyce Vance, and Barbara McQuade.  They are all so thoughtful and clear.  Chuck always seems to look a little nauseated at the news, and definitely looked that way in talking about the NOAA debacle earlier today on MSNBC.  I am glad to see him talking about this differently difficult topic on Rachel's show, and looking concerned rather than sickened.  

  • Love 6
Link to comment
BuckeyeLou

BuckeyeLou

Also, I appreciate people's personal stories as they relate to the news, so I found Isabel Bueso's interview very emotional...yet she seemed calm about her circumstances.  The government(and that 'nutty" guy up for a Judgeship) could not even give a reason WHY they wanted to deport sick people?!  Like they are dangerous?

  • Love 1
Link to comment
meowmommy

meowmommy

'Bout damn time Chuck was back.  If Rachel hadn't had one of the legal dream team on tonight, given the legal issues she teased, I was gonna call foul.  They've been AWOL for weeks with no explanation.

6 hours ago, BabyVegas said:

Unless I was missing something, the entire story seemed kind of pointless.

It felt very much then, and feels very much now, like NBC wanted to horn in on CNN's scoop, but all they did was likely provide details that CNN had deliberately withheld.  It came off badly, and they looked more like kids trying to sit at the adults' table.

I'm surprised Rachel signed off with her usual, "We'll see you again tomorrow."  Given that TRMS is almost 100% certain either to have a clip show or a sub due to the debate, Rachel must be using the royal we.

  • Love 2
Link to comment
meowmommy

meowmommy

On 9/11/2019 at 9:06 PM, meowmommy said:

I'm surprised Rachel signed off with her usual, "We'll see you again tomorrow."  Given that TRMS is almost 100% certain either to have a clip show or a sub due to the debate, Rachel must be using the royal we.

What the hell do I know...maybe Rachel figured she'd seen and heard enough of the candidates already.

Link to comment
freddi

freddi

11 hours ago, meowmommy said:

What the hell do I know...maybe Rachel figured she'd seen and heard enough of the candidates already.

Was there a show last night?  I assumed there was not, did not tune in. 

Link to comment
meowmommy

meowmommy

2 hours ago, freddi said:

Was there a show last night?  I assumed there was not, did not tune in. 

I discovered there was when I went to the DVR after the debate, assuming I'd be deleting it, and there was Rachel, and it said LIVE on the MSNBC bug, and it was indeed a live show with mostly interesting topics.  Including not one word about the debates.

Shows what I know.

  • Love 1
Link to comment
freddi

freddi

5 hours ago, meowmommy said:

I discovered there was when I went to the DVR after the debate, assuming I'd be deleting it, and there was Rachel, and it said LIVE on the MSNBC bug, and it was indeed a live show with mostly interesting topics.  Including not one word about the debates.

Shows what I know.

Thanks!  Will look on the podcast/MSNBC app for the episode.  Had no idea she was live, especially on *other* topics!  And the only reason I even thought she might have been on, is that I actually saw Lawrence O'Donnell on the air in his own show toward the end of his hour.  I thought the evening would be "all debate, all the time".  Indeed, what do I know?  

7 hours ago, Medicine Crow said:

Yes.  I can't tell you what it was about because I wasn't watching any one show.  Sorry!!

4 hours ago, Sharpie66 said:

The debate didn’t finish until about twelve minutes remained in Lawrence’s show, and then they cut away to Williams et al for commentary.

Link to comment
freddi

freddi

It disappoints me that Rachel thinks it is cute to struggle with German pronunciation -- it is an easy language to pronounce, especially a word like "Tiergarten".  Just like it looks, Rachel, with an "ee" vowel for "Tier".  I don't care if she can't say the "s" or "z" sound right, or enunciate a "t" in German -- just say "Tiergarten" and move on.  And it is a huge-deal park, like Central Park in NYC, not some pocket park.  Same with the Spree River.  Just say it, don't give us an essay on how she is not sure if it is "s" or "sch".  This is not the first time her staff seems to have gone, gosh, gee, foreign languages, who knows what they are up to?  Call me, I worked in Germany, would love to talk to TRMS staff to help out!   

Related to her Monday show, that Russian former spy and family had to leave their home that evening (no surprise):  "The family seems to have left in a hurry. Behind the house, toys and clothing were strewn about the yard. A woman’s sweatshirt lay draped over a patio chair. A full ashtray and two lighters were on the patio table." (WaPo)  Apparently their dogs were left behind, also.  Good work, reporters, what did that scoop accomplish? I know her show did not create the scoop, but it did give it the earliest platform on MSNBC.  

Oy, and now the guest on her show tonight tells us the former spy has three children.  No news source I saw had said that.  Sure, going underground becomes easier by the minute.  Easy to blend into a neighborhood as a Russian-speaking family of three kids who are learning English.  

  • Love 3
Link to comment
meowmommy

meowmommy

1 hour ago, freddi said:

It disappoints me that Rachel thinks it is cute to struggle with German pronunciation -- it is an easy language to pronounce, especially a word like "Tiergarten". 

She does the same thing with Russian and other foreign words and names.  It strikes me as seriously unprofessional.  If you're a newsreader and you're suddenly presented with a word on the prompter you've never tried, that's one thing, but when you're the person writing and approving copy, why not take 30 seconds to find out how the word is said so you don't look like an ethnocentric global illiterate?  It's a poor look for a Rhodes Scholar. 

And I agree with you that German is generally easy to pronounce, because, unlike English, there are no hidden tricks.  Once you know the basic sounds, especially vowels with umlauts, WYSIWYG.  Not to mention, Google Translate has a very helpful audio function that will help you pronounce just about anything.

  • Love 3
Link to comment
izabella

izabella

2 hours ago, freddi said:

Related to her Monday show, that Russian former spy and family had to leave their home that evening (no surprise):  "The family seems to have left in a hurry. Behind the house, toys and clothing were strewn about the yard. A woman’s sweatshirt lay draped over a patio chair. A full ashtray and two lighters were on the patio table." (WaPo)  Apparently their dogs were left behind, also.  Good work, reporters, what did that scoop accomplish? I know her show did not create the scoop, but it did give it the earliest platform on MSNBC.  

I think there is a lot more to this story than we know.  I don’t know what it is, but since POTUS is the one who is guilty of revealing top secret information to Russian spies in the Oval Office, I wouldn’t be surprised if POTUS might have done some additional revealing of classified info about this spy to his puppet master and that’s the reason for this sudden flurry of stories.  It wouldn’t be the first time a WH outed CIA spies for their own purposes (Valerie Plame).

  • Love 3
Link to comment
ahisma

ahisma

12 hours ago, freddi said:

Related to her Monday show, that Russian former spy and family had to leave their home that evening (no surprise):  "The family seems to have left in a hurry. Behind the house, toys and clothing were strewn about the yard. A woman’s sweatshirt lay draped over a patio chair. A full ashtray and two lighters were on the patio table." (WaPo)  Apparently their dogs were left behind, also.  Good work, reporters, what did that scoop accomplish? I know her show did not create the scoop, but it did give it the earliest platform on MSNBC.  

Oy, and now the guest on her show tonight tells us the former spy has three children.  No news source I saw had said that.  Sure, going underground becomes easier by the minute.  Easy to blend into a neighborhood as a Russian-speaking family of three kids who are learning English.  

Yeah, I was disappointed she leaned so heavily into this story, with absolutely no mention that NBC and her show had a lot to do with the negative consequences. 

Link to comment
freddi

freddi

I really did not appreciate the former CIA officer in charge of dealing with defectors.  He seemed like a much less professional interviewee than many of her guests, like Clint Watts (former FBI) — I thought this one got too close to specifics and he just did not have the detachment most former officials seem to have, at least on TRMS. 

  • LOL 1
  • Love 2
Link to comment
freddi

freddi

1 hour ago, ScoobieDoobs said:

Oh, Rach, those Kavanaugh clips were brutal to watch -- as bad, or maybe even worse than Trump clips.  Why torture your loyal viewers with that shit, Rach?  Seemed like it went on for at least 10 minutes.  I tuned out till it was over.

I completely agree -- I heard it all at the time, in real time, and tonight the tone was much harsher and forced than I had recalled.  I also was surprised at how many minutes she ran those clips.

The backdrop for the opening segment was wonderful -- a real swamp, with moss, and swamp scum and decay.  "Everything is Fine."  (was that a quote from someone?) 

  • Love 5
Link to comment
Sharpie66

Sharpie66

(edited)

I don’t know where the line is from, but I see it a lot at the end of stories on this administration on various progressive blogs as, “Everything is fine. (Everything is not fine.)”

Edited by Sharpie66
  • Useful 1
  • Love 2
Link to comment
tres bien

tres bien

I'm truly disturbed by the whistleblowers being silenced.  I hope this doesn't really continue to be acceptable.

When Rachel said that she had reported on the first case involving the tax records, that was the first time I'd heard that because she may have been the only to pay attention.  But now with Rep Schiff willing to file a subpoena over the DNI whistleblower, I hope this actually goes somewhere.

  • Love 5
Link to comment
The Solution

The Solution

Full disclosure: I am Elizabeth Warren's target market - I'm progressive, over-educated and fairly well-to-do. I may not be the whitest crayon in the box but that's not relevant.

I don't get it. I keep trying to be fair and give her a chance, but I don't hear anything but words and air. I frustrate (or entertain) everyone in the room with me when I watch her by saying out loud and repeatedly "How?", "Why?", "How is this relevant to your point?", "What IS your point?" and "Show your work!" She's not.saying.anything! There are no plans; only empty platitudes.

I don't get it. When I juxtapose Warren's appearance tonight with recent appearances by Cory Booker, Kamala Harris, Bernie Sanders, Julian Castro, Tim Ryan, Mayor Pete, et.al., I don't see how anyone can still prefer Warren to any of the other worthy choices in the race. Even Rachel appeared to be giving her the side-eye tonight (maybe it was the seasonal allergies that appear to be bothering her this week.)

I've been following Booker since the beginning of his career in Newark knowing he is destined for bigger things. I thought Kamala Harris was a rock star on last night's show, Even though Mayor Pete reminds me of Tracy Flick, I understand what he is saying and I respect him. Warren I don't get.

  • Love 4
Link to comment
meowmommy

meowmommy

1 hour ago, The Solution said:

I don't get it. I keep trying to be fair and give her a chance, but I don't hear anything but words and air. I frustrate (or entertain) everyone in the room with me when I watch her by saying out loud and repeatedly "How?"

👏👏👏

She completely avoided Rachel's question about her possibly splitting the progressive vote with Bernie.  She's good at avoiding challenging questions, not that Rachel really asked her any.  Her "2 cent wealth tax" is reminiscent of Huey Long's Share Our Wealth in the 1930s.

1 hour ago, The Solution said:

Even Rachel appeared to be giving her the side-eye tonight

I dunno about that.  She gave her a two handed handshake on the way out the door, not usually a sign of unfriendliness.  

  • Love 1
Link to comment
ahisma

ahisma

3 hours ago, The Solution said:

There are no plans; only empty platitudes.

1 hour ago, meowmommy said:

She's good at avoiding challenging questions, not that Rachel really asked her any. 

I’m in the camp that Rachel didn’t really push for details. Warren and Biden are the only two people running who can say they’ve actually implemented anything big on the national level in this millennium (ACA and Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, respectively). Warren probably assumes that people remember the CFPB and that they know the details of her plans are on her website. I wish Rachel had asked her about getting rid of the filibuster, because she supports that, and that's a concrete way to move Dem plans forward. Tonight’s interview was more like feel-good generalities. The Lewandowski story was much more detailed.

  • Love 2
Link to comment
ScoobieDoobs

ScoobieDoobs

Rach did a great job covering Corey & his bullshit before Congress today.  You know, Nicole (on her show earlier) dismissed the whole thing as a waste of time & said the Dems got it totally wrong.  Not so fast, Nicole.  Rach highlighted their "staff attorney" & his super sharp questioning of Corey, which highlighted him as the slimeball liar that he is.  Now, Rach did also say that the Dems got it wrong by not having the "staff attorney" question Corey first.  Spot on, Rach!  My only criticism was Rach shoulda named him.  His fine performance deserved that.

Wait, was that supposed to be an interview with Warren?  Cuz Rachel's questions (I don't remember her asking ANY) pretty much got muddled & lost & Warren just smiled & rambled on & talked about what she wanted to talk about. 

Rachel listened very attentively to Warren -- but more like a fangirl than a hard-hitting top-notch journalist.  What is with this, Rach?  Ya got her there, go ask her some hard questions, would ya, Rach?  Er, like how in the fuck do you really think you're gonna be able to accomplish these pie-in-the-sky ideas if you're stuck battling McConnell, eh?

Rachel showed the latest poll, but didn't mention the obvious -- that in spite of pretty much everyone on MSNBC & CNN wanting Biden to be flopping in the polls, he isn't.  She did emphasize how Warren is rising, but she didn't say that Biden's lead is still strong & there is no sign she's gonna overtake his lead.  Looking at the latest poll Rach showed, it just looks like Warren is replacing Bernie.  While Rach has never said she has a fav, ever since she had Warren on when she announced her run, me thinks she's a Warren supporter . . .

  • Love 1
Link to comment
izabella

izabella

(edited)
22 minutes ago, ScoobieDoobs said:

Rach did a great job covering Corey & his bullshit before Congress today.  You know, Nicole (on her show earlier) dismissed the whole thing as a waste of time & said the Dems got it totally wrong.  Not so fast, Nicole.  Rach highlighted their "staff attorney" & his super sharp questioning of Corey, which highlighted him as the slimeball liar that he is.  Now, Rach did also say that the Dems got it wrong by not having the "staff attorney" question Corey first.  Spot on, Rach!  My only criticism was Rach shoulda named him.  His fine performance deserved that.

I was glad Rachel made this first impeachment hearing her top story tonight.   She saw the significance of what the Dems achieved today, including getting  the POTUS's obstruction on record.  I saw the last hour of the hearing and the questioning by Barry Berke, and he demolished Corey with his own words. 

Edited by izabella
  • Love 4
Link to comment
ScoobieDoobs

ScoobieDoobs

Was wondering why Rach led off with the horrible FEMA stuff, instead of the whistleblower story.  She was right to cover FEMA first, but why am I hearing about this from nobody else?

Good show, tonite, Rach, but you skeered me shitless with the latest (seemingly endless) stream of awfulness . . .

  • Love 1
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...