Three teases, two full segments: Remember when Camus wrote the following, if only in translation?
“Maman died today. Or yesterday maybe, I don’t know.”
For some reason, we thought of that as we tried to summarize last evening’s Maddow program. Our reinvention would go like this:
“Rachel did two teases and three segments tonight. Or three teases and two segments maybe, we don’t know.”
We refer to the way Maddow devoted the second half of last night’s program to the Christie Bridgegate outrage and scandal. The teases started early, with the first one going like this:
MADDOW (12/16/13): The traffic jam that haunted Fort Lee, New Jersey, still haunts New Jersey Governor Chris Christie in a way that we could not have foreseen even before today. That story is getting bigger and weirder by the day.One segment later, a second tease occurred:
Stay with us.
MADDOW: The George Washington Bridge traffic jam story that started as the teeny, teeny, tiny, tiniest little political story in the entire world has just gotten enormous.The teeny, teeny, tiny, tiniest little story had gotten enormous!
Stay with us.
The confusion starts after a series of ads. When Rachel came back, she offered what follows. Was this a tease, the third of the night? Or should this transcendent waste of time be scored as an actual segment?
MADDOW: We reviewed our office expenses the other day—pens, paper, mechanical pencils for me, a remarkable number of highlighters. But also, weirdly, a lot of Web sites.At roughly 400 words, was that enormous puddle of piddle a tease or an actual segment?
One of the things that we find hardest to explain to the accountants on the 50-whateverish floor here in this building is our show’s history of benevolent domain name squatting. Over the years, we’ve had the occasion to acquire all of these different website names, all of which redirect to our show website.
Like, for example, when Tennessee passed a law that banned the condoning of gateway sexual activity, what was that all about? In the thought that the state of Tennessee and maybe Governor Bill Haslam might some day want to explain what they were thinking, we bought for them “gatewaytosexualactivity.com,” which we publicly offered to the state of Tennessee and its governor. We still have it for you guys if you want, but they never called.
There was also that time when my friend, Michael Steele, was still chairman of the National Republican Party, and he said this:
STEELE (videotape): It’s crazy nonsense and empathetic. I’ll give you empathy. Empathize right on your behind.
MADDOW: And so began “empathizerightonyourbehind.com.” Michael Steele even works here now at MSNBC, but he so far has not had use for “empathizerightonyourbehind.com.” When he does, I will be keeping it safe for him.
I still think the best one we ever bought was for former presidential candidate, former senator, former actor Fred Thompson.
When Fred Thompson started doing his very, very serious “renew the Bush tax cuts” ads, that led naturally and obviously to “fredthompsonisinherentlyfunny.com,” which would be a great thing to own if you were Fred Thompson. Come and get it, sir! It’s yours for the taking. So far, he has shown no interest.
And so, we just keep paying our eight bucks a year, whatever it is, for all of those sites, which we have to explain at the end of the year every year.
And I mean no harm. We mean no harm by holding these things. At worst, we’re just teasing, right?
But in the Chris Christie administration in New Jersey, when they do that same kind of thing, turns out, they are not teasing—and the fact that we know that means that the strangest political scandal in the country right now just got stranger.
Hold on. That very, very New Jersey story is straight ahead. Stay with us.
We’re going to say it was Maddow’s third tease. After a commercial break, she then devoted two full segments to the Christie Bridgegate story, which had somehow “just gotten enormous.”
In what way has this story “gotten enormous?” So enormous that the New York Times hasn’t reported anything on the topic for the past three days, even though it’s a local story?
If you watched Maddow last night, you already know. At any rate, Maddow devoted the second half of her program to this so far pointless story, which still doesn’t seem to involve Christie in any particular way.
That said:
Over her last six programs, Maddow has devoted six separate segments to this topic, plus that 400-word tease, in which, to be fair, she helped us learn to adore her more fully and deeply, giving us a delectable look at the secrets of her life. By way of contrast, yesterday you saw Kevin Drum laying out his point of view about a range of major national topics, including the state of our public schools.
Maddow doesn’t care about the state of our schools! She doesn’t care about the children within them. That said, she has been pimping piddle in the past week which helps define who she is.
In what way has this story “just gotten enormous?” For the background to the first of last night’s segments, you can read this peculiar news report about someone who isn’t Chris Christie.
The background for the second of last night’s segments can be found here.
Last evening, Maddow burned half her program on this topic. Had the story “just gotten enormous?”
We’d have to say no. But a certain corporate multimillionaire has a bridge to the world of Fox she seems very eager to sell you.
Questions for extra credit: According to Maddow, the expense account she submits to the accountants involves the purchase of “a remarkable number of highlighters.” Why did Rachel say that?
According to Maddow, “the Chris Christie administration”—“they”—have been buying domain names. Did Maddow provide any evidence supporting her use of the quoted words?
This person has a bridge to sell you. Are you willing to buy it?
It's simple: Christie is tied with Hillary (and in one poll ahead of her) in a hypothetical Presidential matchup. Maddow is trying to create pseudoscandals in order to help the most likely candidate of her favorite party.
ReplyDeleteIs Rachel inventing a scandal?
DeleteForget about Hillary as it's very iffy that Christie will make it through the GOP primaries.
DeletePerez you are really goofy. Which polls are you talking about? The one in Iowa? Pffff. Since their last poll in July Clinton is down one point and Christie is up four points which is about the margin of error, so pretty much meaningless poll. But you are welcome check out how resoundingly Clinton beats Christie in that same poll on who they think would make a good president.
DeletePounding on Maddow for not having the facts straight is one thing. Calling her a "liberal" is beyond the pale. Especially for the blogger who called her a partisan, party-hack for the Democratic Party.
ReplyDeleteMaddow has her schtick, and Somerby has his. Somerby's is making strawman arguments about "liberals" who aren't the least bit liberal. Maddow isn't FOX News, Somerby is.
If Bob wants to criticize liberals for not caring about (take your pick, the poor, black children, etc.), he's going to need to back it up with some facts about liberals, not about Democrats (members of the 2nd worst major party in the nation).
Calling Maddow, Matthews, Dowd, etc "liberals" is more dishonest than anything Maddow has done.
Why any thinking person would buy the bridge Somerby has been trying to sell is beyond me.
Berto
"Calling Maddow, Matthews, Dowd, etc "liberals"" is exactly what most of the world that knows them would do.
DeleteCare to back this up with facts?
DeleteBerto
So, Paul Ryan is pulling a pseudo-Jack Kemp (as if Kemp were some kind of hero -- but at least he was kind of interesting at the moment) number. So, I guess that makes Paul Ryan a liberal, or a libertarian, or something.
DeleteI'd say Rachel is a classic American liberal, which is my problem with her. But to Bob, that makes her fodder for what's wrong with liberals -- from an entirely different direction. Bob needs some education in what a real left, evenly mildly left, looks like. (Ah, the disadvantage of being in Cambridge in "the 60's" -- Cambridge was busy catching up on about 1955.)
I re-read the New York Times accounts of the bridge closing incident and came away with no idea the Governor Christie was involved beyond simply being Governor of New Jersey.
ReplyDeleteLTR
He is stronger than a storm.
DeleteLiberals are, exactly what they criticize. Which makes them hypocrites.
ReplyDeleteSome conservatives point to the major flaw in many among their ideology with little prompting.
DeleteI don't know what you said, but I''ll die for your right to say it-Dick Martin
DeleteI think the Christie story is important, which is why NJ papers are following it. It's important because the national media had a narrative about Christie that his political success was due to vague things like "leadership" or "strength" when it apparently had much more to do with old-fashioned deal-cutting with the Democratic majority in that state.
ReplyDeleteFrankly, he rewards allies and punishes foes. They already knew that, which is why they seized on this.
In what world is this NOT a story. Huge traffic backups due to a PA decision to close traffic lanes for a "study." No prior warning to anyone due to the planned closings. That is beyond odd.
DeleteWhen asked to produce the "study" PA staff says they were not aware of one. When asked to produce the study, Christie appointee resigns.
Let's ignore that a talk about schools, as that's all that matters.
OMB (BOB's brain died today. Or maybe yesterday. Who cares?)
ReplyDeleteRemember when BOB wrote the following, needing no translation?
"Losers, guess what? The volume of traffic on the bridge has nothing to do with this story. Traffic across the bridge was not affected, only access to the bridge from the town of Fort Lee."
When two lanes feeding 75,000 vehicles a day onto a bridge are closed, traffic across the bridge is affected BOB.
KZ
Are you sure it's not your own brain that died sometime before you posted this? Here, let me make it simple for you:
DeleteThe story is about political hacks, possibly with the connivance of their boss, punishing commuters from a city because the mayor of said city didn't endorse the boss. This isn't a story about traffic congestion as much as it's a story about the misuse of political power.
Nixon tried to get the IRS to audit his enemies. Didja think that was a story about the volume of tax returns processed?
This blog isn't about Rachel Maddow or this story, it is a vehicle for an anal retentive hypocrite who seizes on factual errors to flaunt his narrative, Perhaps he thinks he has attracted a low enough intellect readership that he can name it after the kind of groaner we just pointed out and those readers will defend him. And he is right.
DeleteKZ
Not to belabor things, but factual errors (so much more interesting than those fictional errors) are what this blog is all about. Maybe TDH seems a bit obsessive, but it's a blog.
DeleteYou didn't point out a "groaner." You made one. Go back and read my comment about Nixon until you get it.
This is silly as KZ is right on this one. "The traffic wasn't affected only access..."spin was a bad attempt at a gotcha! by TDH. If you close of two lanes that feed a lot traffic onto the bridge of course you are going to affect traffic across the bridge.
DeleteIt made sense to include that and the effect on Ft. Lee as part of the story but, in any event it wasn't presented as "THE" main part of the story which rightfully focused on the machinations behind the closing.
Anonymous @8:18P,
DeleteBut it's the busiest bridge in the world.
Here's a hint. If you find yourself agreeing with KZ, sit down until the dizziness passes. Don't operate a motor vehicle, especially on the GW.
Did I mention that it's he busiest bridge in the world?
If you find yourself applauding a factual error made by someone who is calling others losers while making it,
Deleteyou have the intellect of deadrat.
KZ
Now that would hurt my feelings, KZ. If I had any.
DeleteFour words for ya: mote, beam, your eye.
Millions upon millions of keystrokes devoted to a TV thingie personality that hardly anyone --- as a % of the population --- watches.
ReplyDeleteAs a % of the population, lots of people don't vote. Does that mean no one should care about elections?
DeleteAndrew Cuomo backs Chris Christie version on bridge
ReplyDeleteAndrew Cuomo backs Christie' version on bridge
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/12/andrew-cuomo-chris-christie-bridge-101206.html#ixzz2nlbRaHkv
"I’m sure it is as Gov. Christie says it is,” said Cuomo, as quoted by the New York Daily News, following his Cabinet meeting Monday.
Deletehttp://www.politico.com/story/2013/12/andrew-cuomo-chris-christie-bridge-101206.html#ixzz2nlduvEOg
Well then, there you go. I'm sure everyone will just forget the whole thing now that Cuomo has offered this mealy-mouthed defense.
A response offered after a long (six seconds, as I recall the reporter estimated) and awkward delay in responding to the reporter's question. Oh yes, a confident endorsement of Christie from Cuomo.
DeleteWe can agree to disagree on many things, but can we not all agree that Rachel's show-opening teases are really, really, really long?
ReplyDeleteCan we wait until after we find out what Camus did or didn't know about when Maman died?
DeleteRead the book. Everyone else has.
DeleteNothing to see here folks, just move along.
ReplyDelete**************************
In a new Washington Post report, Sen. John Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), chairman of the Senate Transportation Committee, called for a “comprehensive investigation” into the lane closure. He said the incident “exacerbates my concerns with the governance and previous oversight of the Port Authority.”http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/bridge-over-troubled-political-waters
Online at the NYT, dateline, 12/17:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/17/nyregion/cornered-by-accusations-christie-parries-with-jokes-and-stonewalls-with-snarls.html?ref=nyregion
I read the same story in the New England hard-copy edition, over my coffee this morning, 12/17/2013.
But according to the stickler-for-accuracy Mr. Somerby, in this post dated 12/17/2013, "In what way has this story “gotten enormous?” So enormous that the New York Times hasn’t reported anything on the topic for the past three days, even though it’s a local story?"
And btw, yeah, Rachel Maddow's schticks can be silly. What has that got to do with this story?
Let me correct myself. The online post of this story is dated Dec. 16 within the story, though it at first appears to be a part of the Dec. 17 online edition. I suppose the reporter got it online before some evening deadline so it would make the hard copy Dec. 17 edition. Color me as sloppy as Maddow -- I only wish I could be as smart and as white as Megyn Kelly, who is smart and can do a smart interview, and therefore all else she does is beyond reproach. What in the world is Bob up to these days?
DeleteHe wants a more intelligent political discourse. Isn't that clear? He said it himself.
DeleteOh, and yes, if you just google Christie and NYT. I remember reading this at the time:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/11/nyregion/43-count-indictment-of-a-christie-ally-quashed.html?_r=0
A little context is useful.
Can someone translate Bob's concerns? Is it that Maddow discussed the GW Bridge stuff rather than schools and poor kids. Well, if she discussed schools would someone be upset that she didn't discuss AIDs in Africa? I donno.
ReplyDeleteShe's a political commenter, the GW Bridge story is very odd, Christie's appointees (and long time friends) just resigned over it. So even if Christie is not involved (which i suspect is the case) it could say a lot about how he selects appointees for key and important jobs.
If i have any complaint, it's that this story isn't being written about more.
http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2013/12/timeline_of_the_port_authoritys_george_washington_bridge_lane_closure_controversy.html
Is it enormous now? The top of the homepages of The New York Post, NY Times, Washington Post, foxnews.com, wsj.com, USA Today, etc. seem to think so.
ReplyDeleteAnything new here? :) :) :)
ReplyDelete