Jump to content

The Rachel Maddow Show


  • Please log in to reply

4761 replies to this topic

#3871

attica finch

attica finch

    Stalker

Posted Apr 10, 2012 @ 9:46 AM

I'm getting this growing suspicion that the GOP is disconnecting from voting altogether. They think that if they just win the news cycle, that's all the power they need. The failure to organize, the failure to get themselves on ballots, the inability to count the ballots cast, the financial shenanigans within the party, and best of all, depriving people of the vote, either by new suppression laws, or just ignoring dissenting votes in state houses entirely.

I don't understand why there aren't more pitchforks.
  • 0

#3872

braggtastic

braggtastic

    Stalker

Posted Apr 13, 2012 @ 9:58 AM

What is different with the CA studio compared to NY? Is it the lighting, the makeup person or both? I never notice Rachel having under eye bags in NY, but they're very obvious in CA. I'm thinking it's more lighting than makeup. I do like how her hair has been looking lately. Thus ends my superficial post.
  • 0

#3873

Aurora Borealis

Aurora Borealis

    Couch Potato

Posted Apr 13, 2012 @ 11:39 AM

Another note on another kind of shallow...

I am really, really liking the latest round of stills showing various people reading 'Drift.' I have no idea why I like them so much, but that's not going to stop me from smiling whenever I see one...
  • 0

#3874

heebiejeebie

heebiejeebie

    Stalker

Posted Apr 13, 2012 @ 2:59 PM

I find the pictures a distraction. But I over think things way too much. I didn't really notice them until the start of the week when they showed the guy reading a copy at what looked like a playground. First I was all "wow hot guy...wait, is he at a playground? Okay I guess, hot dad...wait, why is he reading a book; shouldn't he be paying attention to his kid? Well maybe he doesn't have a kid...but then why is he at a playground or even at the play area in the park...still really hot, I wonder who he is...oops turn down the inside voices the show is back from commercial already..."

So now I do pay a bit more attention since a quick flash of an earnest hot guy reading is like a dash of cinnamon on your hot chocolate. But now I'm caught in a perpetual over thinking cycle and the photos look contrived to me and way too reminiscent of the Morning Joe photo trash of Mika and Scarborough pretending to be elegant sophisticated urbanites.
  • 0

#3875

attica finch

attica finch

    Stalker

Posted Apr 13, 2012 @ 3:40 PM

I like the one with the doggie reading. It's goofy but charming.
  • 0

#3876

dagny

dagny

    Fanatic

Posted Apr 17, 2012 @ 11:19 AM

When Chris Hayes mentioned his favorite thing of the day, I thought "Somebody is reading Wired".
  • 0

#3877

Sharpie66

Sharpie66

    Fanatic

Posted Apr 17, 2012 @ 2:26 PM

I like the stills of people reading "Drift"--it's a very subtle and classy way to promote the book, better than Rachel holding the book up once an episode and saying, "Read it!"
  • 0

#3878

InnerCanuck

InnerCanuck

    Stalker

Posted Apr 19, 2012 @ 4:12 PM

When Chris Hayes mentioned his favorite thing of the day, I thought "Somebody is reading Wired".


Hee! Now I know why I've seen an uptick in the number of Bravo show adverts on TRMS in recent weeks - laying the groundwork for Rachel on Watch What Happens Live - anything to sell more books, I suppose...

Absolutely loved the photo of the workers on the Capitol dome watching Discovery fly past. Getting ready to rewatch that whole segment, a recent favorite.

Edited by InnerCanuck, Apr 22, 2012 @ 8:04 AM.

  • 0

#3879

Fussy Monkey

Fussy Monkey

    Loyal Viewer

Posted Apr 19, 2012 @ 8:56 PM

I can't figure out why Rachel Maddow is so passionate about the Michigan emergency financial manager laws.
  • 0

#3880

Ladybug

Ladybug

    Channel Surfer

Posted Apr 20, 2012 @ 2:52 AM

The reason that Maddow is so passionate about Michigan emergency laws is that they deny residents of certain communities democratic representation. As a result of these laws, an unelected official makes decisions about what programs get funded and what programs get cut. Residents have no say in the decision making. To give viewers an idea about the types of things that were being cut, Maddow reported on a school that was designed for pregnant teenagers and teenager mothers. Despite this school's successful graduation rate, it was facing closure as a result of this law.
  • 0

#3881

dagny

dagny

    Fanatic

Posted Apr 20, 2012 @ 9:08 AM

I think that she also believes whole heartedly that people shouldn't be denied the vote / heard. The emergency laws removes local representation and gives it to an individual appointed by a single person. A twisted paternalistic dictatorship.
  • 0

#3882

heebiejeebie

heebiejeebie

    Stalker

Posted Apr 20, 2012 @ 2:16 PM

I think Rachel is not only rightly disturbed by the notion of politicians essentially making laws that disenfranchise voters in what is suppose to be a democracy but also amazed and alarmed at the sheer outrageous hypocrisy that for the most part sees such actions stem from a political movement that prides itself on being true "Americans" and putting forth the original tenets established by the founding fathers as sacred and dogma.

I'm so ordering a Domino's Pizza (despite the ugh factor) next time I am in Amsterdam and then waiting for it a block from the hotel along its delivery route!

I wonder if Rachel ever tapes her show or only does a rewind in the studio. Because despite it being a big sponsor and MSNBC (well the NBC family) being huge whores to Conservative big business, I'd really love to see her take on the incredibly heavyhanded political ads ExxonMobile, Chevron and GE have been running trying to establish how good paying no taxes getting huge subsidies and trying to sell us taxpayers the notion that the more oil drilled and removed from sands that Exxonmobile can ship to China and India the safer the US will be from foreign oil. Particularly ExxonMobile. Not only was there one night that an ad for them ran every commercial break on her show but even in between the little fake show spot where she re-talks the Best Thing Ever segment for thirty seconds that Colin Powell's asshole son made sure counts as airtime and not commercial time but allowing for even more commercials in an hour. And in particular there is the new incredibly confusing we love teachers bit that actually doesn't even tout Exxon's tax write off support for educational efforts. Assuming such exists in even the tiniest form.

The ads are all over the place, but I've noticed the rotation is heaviest during Rachel's show weeknights and during Chris's show on weekends. It can't be a coincidence. And we're not exactly the choir to try and preach at in this regard. Well maybe the almost equally silly GE ad that is so successful in making me forget they don't pay federal taxes because they make the machines that make the power that make beer! Wow. I need to go turn on all my lights forget about the check I just wrote to the IRS and pop open a bottle!
  • 0

#3883

dagny

dagny

    Fanatic

Posted Apr 20, 2012 @ 2:38 PM

There was also that period a couple of months ago where there was a big ad buy by a defense contractor. It just happened around the time the Army was telling Congress that they don't need *that* much money what they have is good enough.
  • 0

#3884

LADreamr

LADreamr

    Fanatic

Posted Apr 22, 2012 @ 3:02 PM

An interesting, if not fully fleshed-out, review of Drift by Tom Hayden.
  • 0

#3885

bj1968

bj1968

    Fanatic

Posted Apr 29, 2012 @ 11:54 PM

The reason that Repubs don't come on your show Rachel is because you fact check them to their face, and they don't want to be humiliated by a girl, no matter how much she looks like a dude!

And you powned that fool on MTP. Good job Rach.
  • 0

#3886

attica finch

attica finch

    Stalker

Posted Apr 30, 2012 @ 1:25 PM

That Rachel restrained herself from stabbing that guy in his carotid with her pen, thereby staining David Gregory's set with spurting Republican spatter, shows her to be a better person than I.

Edited by attica finch, Apr 30, 2012 @ 1:25 PM.

  • 1

#3887

LADreamr

LADreamr

    Fanatic

Posted Apr 30, 2012 @ 1:33 PM

That Rachel restrained herself from stabbing that guy in his carotid with her pen, thereby staining David Gregory's set with spurting Republican spatter, shows her to be a better person than I.

Yeah, I was yelling at the TV. I had nowhere near the decorum she had. That was really hard to watch, especially since it happens to her every damn time.
  • 0

#3888

Lexx

Lexx

    Couch Potato

Posted Apr 30, 2012 @ 6:09 PM

I just watched the Meet the Press segment dealing with women's issues. Dear God in heaven, that guy was insufferably smug. I felt my blood pressure rising every time he opened his mouth or smiled and shook his head while Rachel was talking.

I also couldn't help but notice something Rachel has talked about repeatedly on her show: you can't debate people who ignore the facts of an argument. Case in point, women earning less than men. The congresswoman simply pivoted to her talking points when it came to her, and Alex Castelwhatever would say something like, "Well, that's not true, because women between the ages of 40 and 60, who are single, make a couple thousand dollars more on average than men between the ages of blahblahblah". That doesn't disprove Rachel's point at all. I'm willing to bet that female t.v. executives make more money than men who work at fast food restaurants. It doesn't change the larger point that Rachel was trying to make.

I really hope she says something about it on tonight's show.
  • 0

#3889

dagny

dagny

    Fanatic

Posted May 1, 2012 @ 9:34 AM

Note to Alex C: when you patronize & cut off a person's two minutes (on a 60 minute show), recognize that she might have her own show where she can spend 30 minutes using a variety of statistics to show how you are so very wrong.
  • 1

#3890

Aurora Borealis

Aurora Borealis

    Couch Potato

Posted May 1, 2012 @ 12:29 PM

dagny:
Note to Alex C: when you patronize & cut off a person's two minutes (on a 60 minute show), recognize that she might have her own show where she can spend 30 minutes using a variety of statistics to show how you are so very wrong.


Couldn't resist a follow-up:
Also, recognize that the loyal fans of said person whose two minutes you cut off will be EXPECTING that she will do just that, and in said person whose two minutes you cut off's thorough (and usually unassailable*) style, who knows that her loyal fans will be terribly disappointed if she does not. While you may eventually feel a dead horse is being un-necessarily beaten, the loyal fans of said person whose two minutes you cut off WILL NOT. And, lastly, the loyal fans of said person whose two minutes you cut off will be looking forward to the next time the two of you are on the same panel somewhere, to see if the lesson sank in at all.

* - felt the need to qualify this because said person whose two minutes he cut off has stated herself that she does make mistakes (not often, but unlike many others, when she does she will admit it AND APOLOGIZE on camera)
  • 0

#3891

heebiejeebie

heebiejeebie

    Stalker

Posted May 1, 2012 @ 4:47 PM

By this point I'm surprised that Alex Castellanos doesn't have "Big Fat Liar" as his screen credentials. The fact that his tactic is always a patronizing smarm coupled with mindless repetition of outright lies no matter how many times his "opponent" offers up facts. The facts are always dismissed as not pertinent and the person presenting them patted on the head as being too dim no matter how earnest to understand that. If conservatives decided the world being flat served their purpose this man would ooze into the studio claiming the horizon has one confused and you actually make several 90 degree turns to get from Europe to China heading west.

What really hammered the whole thing home as to how much of a huge lying sack he is was the clip from CNN. The network that employs him as a conservative mouth piece...could not get a hold of him for a statement. I hope the next time he slinks onto their set for a paycheck his debate opponent brings it up every chance.

I'm not sure I agree with Rachel though that the Conservatives (which now in general election cycle means Republicans) truly believe women get equal pay. I think they know damn well they don't. And instead they did push back to make sure Obama did not get to pass any legislature that would not only cast him in a good light but cast him in a good light for a particular voting segment. Plus they aren't for women getting equal pay. I think they just assumed that not only would it be not remembered three years down the line but it would not be attached to an overall agenda that either disparages women or dismisses them.

And then add into the mix that Republicans, particularly in election mode, have a huge tendency to just lie outright -- say it enough times and it becomes the truth or at least makes the other side address it as an issue. And if it becomes an issue there must be "two sides to it".

I think sometimes Rachel suffers the same syndrome that Obama seems to have perhaps finally shaken off. And that is the normal operation syndrome. It is when you take what you assume is normal. What you operate under as well as what you see the majority of those around in society operating under. And then you assume that is normal for your opponent as well. Obama perhaps could not parse that Republicans in congress would willfully see the nation damaged even more and more in order to spite him and make him look ineffectual. Rachel, who sees the truth serving her well; who sees facts as her friend. Simply cannot fathom why someone would see willfully and outright plain lies said on camera serving a cause. Let alone serving it well. So in some senses Castellanos' sneering condescension serves him well since he is playing to a crowd that grabs the immediate and the tone and sees an older man putting a woman in her place. Even if he does so with bald faced lies. The bonus is that a huge number of those same people ironically operate in the same frame of mind as Rachel if on a simpler scale. That if someone says it on TV, at least that person believes it to be true. No one would lie outright and so egregiously. Except the porn stached pig of completely selling out that is Castellanos.
  • 0

#3892

dagny

dagny

    Fanatic

Posted May 1, 2012 @ 5:38 PM

Rachel should know better. She was the one who pointed out during the health care debates that the Republicans were Lucy with the football. I think that she hasn't gotten used to them outright lying to her face. From a disconnected position she can evaluate something and realize that they will lie. She just needs to learn that they just don't care if they are lying. There is no penalty.
  • 0

#3893

attica finch

attica finch

    Stalker

Posted May 2, 2012 @ 12:02 PM

Nice interview with Paul Krugman. (I feel like it's been a long while since he's been on, but since I can't rule out missing an ep or two, I shouldn't trust that feeling.) I especially liked how he explained how the bankers presented themselves in a way a 'bearded college professor' is unable to do, and thereby impress people who should know better.
  • 0

#3894

kingofpoppa

kingofpoppa

    Fanatic

Posted May 5, 2012 @ 8:29 AM

The clip of William Krystal smacking down Romney for shooting off his mouth about Chen...priceless
  • 0

#3895

dagny

dagny

    Fanatic

Posted May 8, 2012 @ 10:24 AM

Oh Lampchop. Unless the Judge Jacqueline Nguyen pronounces her last name different than most, its "win", not "na-win"; even though its spelled "Ngyuen". You have no idea how long it took me to remember this pronunciation rule.
  • 0

#3896

braggtastic

braggtastic

    Stalker

Posted May 8, 2012 @ 10:45 AM

Now that I'm more familiar with Chris' own style, I find it really difficult to watch him when he's filling in for Rachel. I'm not sure how much actual script writing Rachel does when she's there, but to me it sounds like he's reading a script written in her voice.
  • 0

#3897

shabbieshok

shabbieshok

    Couch Potato

Posted May 10, 2012 @ 3:51 AM

The Dems need to get Cory Booker on every tv show in the country over the next few months. If he can't sell their gay marriage policy, nobody can. He's such a motivational speaker. He and Rachel have such good vibes together.
  • 2

#3898

attica finch

attica finch

    Stalker

Posted May 10, 2012 @ 9:30 AM

The more I see/hear of Cory Booker, the more I believe that Batman has a Booker Signal.

I loved Rachel's snark the other night that led her to finish a story with 'I could be wrong. I have a big dumb caterpillar girl brain.' Which caused somebody in the studio to guffaw, and me to laugh with them both.
  • 1

#3899

braggtastic

braggtastic

    Stalker

Posted May 10, 2012 @ 10:41 AM

Great show last night. I do wonder if Barney Frank thinks when Rachel is speaking that he's not on camera. He was rubbing his forehead & face a lot when she was speaking, which I don't think most people would do if they knew they were being recorded. Maybe he just doesn't care, but I would hope a field producer or someone would tell him he'd be on split screen the whole time.
  • 1

#3900

lovinbob

lovinbob

    Fanatic

Posted May 10, 2012 @ 12:38 PM

I just want Barney Frank to clear his throat.

Sorry ... I'm sure he must not be able to control it, but the gravelly voice is uncomfortable to listen to.

Rachel is impressive. Cory Booker is impressive. Great show.
  • 0