Tonight's guests include:
Frank Rich, writer-at-large for New York Magazine
EJ Dionne, columnist for The Washington Post and author of the new book, "Our Divided Political Heart - The Battle for the American Idea in an Age of Discontent"
While we wait for tonight's video preview to load, take a listen to tonight's soundtrack. (Just be sure to allow the ad below to play out entirely, before starting the song.)
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
Video: US failure to maintain infrastructure betrays national legacy
Video: Foolhardy budget cuts cripple government operations
Video: Canada, home of many nice things
Video: Social conservative extremists fill Virginia GOP slate
Video: Rare confirmation of Obama pick prompts Supreme Court talk
Video: Crack smoking video claim dogs Toronto mayor
Video: A genuine Maddow show
Leave a Comment:
I think someone is either homesick or really showing their age ....... Beach Boys?
3 of my faveorites…the 2 guests and the Beach boys (I am native So. Cal-not to leave out any Motown or the Philly dance shows, British invasion or S.F. psychedelic music)
I listened to and loved a wide variety of music.
Could MSNBC trade Harold Ford and Ed Rendell for James Carville?I seen him on the tea party channel (CNN) last night and he tore Ari Fliecher a new A-hole.He's not a Wall ST.spokesman like Ford and Rendell.Make a two for one deal.
I love Ms. R, and her great crew and their punny headlines. I'm still waiting for a story about the "Citizen Bain".
Excellent coverage of the Reagan-Cheney crimes against America. A good summary of what Rachel wrote in Drift! I thoroughly enjoyed both the book and this TV presentation of that part of it. Wonderful job Rachel!
OK - so this is completely unrelated to the clever and totally on-target chat and historical perspective that you continually and consistently bring to us. My comment is related to fashion - specifically, your fashion sense, Rachel. Let me be blunt - grey is not your best color. A deep chocolate or plum would look amazing and make your commentary pop even a little more if that's even possible. If you insist on wearing a jacket/blazer, how's about a tailor - a tailored look is sharp and tightens up the image which only enhances what comes through. The hair, skin, eyes - fantastic!
@Susan - Without attempting to undermine what seems a valid criticism, that a sharper look would improve Rachel's considerable gravitas, I feel a need to point out that Rachel very likely has little time for such considerations and I, for one, would not have it any other way.
That is to say, I would prefer you redirect this criticism to the shows producers, and ask that they provide her with a (or perhaps a better) wardrobe assistant. She's certainly worth the expense. I would not ask that Rachel, herself should spend even one minute less time doing the research and analysis she devotes to her reporting in order to shop for more stylish clothing. I think that is more along the lines of what you really meant to say.
EJ Dionne's comment about his favorite RM promo, the one with you in front of a dam reminded me of something I uncovered several years ago. The use of the phrase, "A rising tide lifts all boats" by John Kennedy was not about rich people and the trickle down theory of growth. President Kennedy was dedicating a new dam in Arkansas. He was saying that all taxpayers in the US paid for this dam, but they knew that when they need a dam or a road, the citizens of Arkansas will chip in. Here is the text:
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=9455#axzz1vkQAspL3
This is a question is off topic, although I do enjoy this and all of Ms. Maddow's posts. My question, for lack of means of contacting the Maddow team, pertains to an article I've read that kind of shocked me, but still isn't quite adding up. Ann Coulter, everyone's favorite "author", has come out with an article contesting statistics presented on TRMS about Obama's fiscal track record, especially in contrast to the spending record of former president George W. Bush.
http://www.wnd.com/2012/05/figures-dont-lie-democrats-do/
I'm wondering if anyone can help me spread some light to these claims, and where either reports pull their statistics from. I'm torn between the two insights, and actually can't take much of the Coulter claim seriously since she is only basing her "evidence and statistics" on the educated opinions on economists with special interests. Where are the facts, and if there are any here, where can I find them for myself?
Ms. Coulter misread the chart wrong. She is attributing to Obama spending measures that in fact were undertaken by Bush (something the right has been doing since the '08 election). What portion of the current spending levels PBO has contributed to were included on Obama's portion of the chart. In fact the chart even adjusts for the fact that PBO continued several measures that Bush started (amazing how conservatives don't tout this as a win- or at least it has been amazing to me, but I digress). Anyways there is a 2 year period between '08-'10 in which you see a huge spike in spending. Ignoring that spending spike you get the numbers accounted for in the graph. The graph explains this in detail if Ms. Coulter had bothered to read it through. It appears she looked at the pictorial of the graph and then made a response column piece to it w/o bothering to actually read the entire report. Shrugs. It's Ann Coulter I don't know what else to tell you.
Also apparently the people on that website believe that FDR was not a communist, but PBO is. Even though FDR was further to the left than PBO. Sighs.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/obama-spending-binge-never-happened-2012-05-22?pagenumber=1
There is a pattern in the chart using fiscal years of each president. Coulter is not adding that Clinton spending begins in 94, yet he was sworn in January of 93. http://clinton.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=004026 Bush sworn in 2001, etc., etc.
They wish to frame an argument on the premise of delegitimizing the source or they use flawed data, but the data are from CBO, the standard source- non partisan
Yes, they count on making something that is fact, biased and something biased is fact when it serves them.
I'm a bit late, but I hope that helps.
Wonderful interview with Frank Rich. I would like to address the view that Mitt's affinity toward Cheney and neoconservatives was surprising. I don't see any mystery here. Cheney and his associates look like a like a good fit to me. It's not about ideology, but management style and character traits.
Particularly where a company is in trouble, the venture capitalists aren't consultants. They arrive as a small cadre with clear leadership, who have immense power to define the current situation and redefine the company going forward based entirely on their judgments and financial interests. This is a situation made for autocrats.
Dick Chaney is an autocrat famous for building his own cadres to execute his visions. Neither Mitt nor Dick takes responsibility for failures. This is especially easy for a smart venture capitalist who can arrange fees so that he will make money regardless of whether the company fails. Of course, if it fails, "it was going to fail anyway." So, maybe, Chaney and company just resonate with Mitt Romney's managerial style. Maybe they're both authoritarians of the type who think they are the ones who should be in power. Romney is not as nasty because with the power of money he avoids direct struggles, though his ability to lie indicates a view of communications as strictly instrumental: for managing image and manipulation. Isn't this a great model for running a country.
Rachel Maddow I think you rock. You are an inspiration for women and a breath of fresh air to all americans. I love how you keep it real, and dont bite your tongue for anybody. We need more people like you in the world.