Rachel NEVER asks tough questions to Steve Schmidt. She let him off the hook....

[Logical]

Easily on the Poll numbers and Romney chance of winning. Not one tough follow up question!

MSNBC hiring him and Michael Steel is a joke. I don't trust anything they say!

[grasswire]

1. it's because of this dynamic that Debate 1 turned into a game changer

Rachel handed Schmidt the first word following the debate. This, followed by Tweety losing his mind, could have cost the election.

[flamingdem]

27. Rachel is like smart friends I know who refuse to take sides and don't live by loyalty - this can be

great but awful when emotional intensity is needed to weed out bullshit.

She will never get why what she did after the First Debate was destructive. I agree with you that it was and kissing up to PAID LIARS like Steve Schmit is just destructive unless it's framed that way -- but by someone strong like Ed or Al or Joy Reid who don't allow bullshit.

[moondust]

30. That pissed me off.

As I remember it, she let Schmidt basically establish that the debate was a big Romney win before anybody else even had a chance to speak. I remember at the time thinking it was odd that she went to him first.

[Dawson Leery]

2. Schmidt is still proud of Dubya and

is responsible for unleashing Palin on the world. He is a putz who belongs on Fox.

[still_one]

3. First, both are not what is considered the most extreme elements of their party. Second, they

are usually outnumbered so she gives them some slack

[DMacTX]

4. I quite enjoy listening to Schmidt

I don't want to live in a political bubble. it is healthy to hear what the other side think, and i value his opinion far more than most neocon blowhards. He is respectful and insightful,.....

[gateley]

6. +1

[roguevalley]

42. +2

[redStateBlueHeart]

9. He's a helluva lot better than Morning Joe...

Or David Gregory...
Or Chuck Todd...

[Egnever]

11. Agreed

I think he is much more honest than steele and often has good insight.

[Faith9326]

14. Agreed

[kstewart33]

17. I agree.

I respect Schmidt. He is a smart strategist and is a Republican who is reasonable, open minded and who thinks. I give him credit for signing on with MSNBC. He does not spout nonsense. He simply has a different political view. I've yet to hear anything from him that is wingnut crazy.

[Logical]

20. He is as full of shit as any other GOP talking head.

[gateley]

5. I think he's pretty damn objective -- I appreciate his input. I think he gives

us insight into the Reublican mind without a shitload of spin like the majority of others do.

[Laurian]

13. Sometimes, maybe. At this point in the process, however, he is not.

If he wants to stay in the Republican fold, he cannot say that Romney is going to lose. This begs the question....Why have him on if he is not going to give insightful and true analysis? It's just more spin.

[flamingdem]

28. +1 more bs that is ultimately destroying our country, the lying machine

[Logical]

21. BS, if you heard him spinning the polls he sounds no different than Fox News.

[gateley]

25. Oh, and WE don't spin the polls?

[Logical]

26. No, shit have you read ANY analysis? Nate Silver? Princeton? Please provide a detailed....

counter to Nate or Wang and get back to me!

LOL, a DUer saying "we are like them", classic!

[gateley]

34. Both sides present the most positive spin to their followers -- surely that isn't news to any but

the naive.

Ask Silver about his numbers on Sharon Angle. And how were those polls looking for Obama in the NH primaries? Silver is excellent, but not infallible, and polls have been wrong.

[Logical]

35. You don't have to spin obamasnumbers, tat is the difference!

[gateley]

36. Well, you do have a point, but we present the not-so-good numbers with as much positive

spin as we can muster.

[Logical]

37. I remember DUers attacking Nate in 2010 when he said we would lose....

And I disagreed with them. Nate is not biased.

I just want all reporters to do their job no matter who the person they are interviewing is.

[roguevalley]

43. people did windmills about obamas first debate

Even though he says he did poorly himself. That is spin.

[gateley]

47. Good example.

[ProudProgressiveNow]

40. +1 nt

[flamingdem]

7. Why do we have to listen to the same Schmit? I only want to know about voting

and election interference.

My only concern is that this election is not stolen.

[brooklynite]

8. So, now we DON'T like Rachel, just like we don't like David Gregory?

I find this enemies list very hard to keep a handle on...

[truedelphi]

16. People somehow have gotten the notion that they shouldn't even hear the

The other side's position on issues. That sounds ridiculous to even consider.

One advantage of knowing the other side's positions and the arguments for those positions, you have a better shot at defending your position and advocating for your position. And many of us have to do that over the holidays or when at work.

[Logical]

22. LOL, really? I hear the other side plenty. I just want Rachel to ask tough questions to all GOP....

talking heads.

[Logical]

19. Did I say that? Jesus, quit being a smart ass. I just said she treats him different.

[brooklynite]

23. You didn't -say- it, but your venting falls into the same category of complaint...

...that I continually read here about any pundit who seems to be less ideologically pure than the OP is.

[Logical]

24. No it does not. Hell, did I blame Schmidt at all? I blamed Rachel. See the difference? I doubt it.

[brooklynite]

29. That's exactly my point...

Schmidt is hired as a Republican and is expected to give a Republican perspective. But whenever someone on 'our" side (Rachel, Ed, etc) or someone who's just there to talk about the political issues (Todd, Gregory, etc.) steps a single foot over the line of liberal political purity, the knives come out for them. It's the sort of behavior I expect from our FRiends, not from people here.

[Logical]

31. I want ALL reporters to ask ALL guests tough follow-up questions. Not have a different standard....

depending who the guest is.

You seem to think Rachel should treat Steve Schmidt different than she would Andrea Saul. Why in the hell would you think that?

So then Gregory does not ask a obvious follow up question you are OK with that because he is being polite?

You are making no sense to me at all.

[loyalsister]

44. Rachel is not a reporter

She hosts a conversational program. The hope is that being polite attracts more viewers than the ugly angry format of Fox news.

[Logical]

46. Well, I agree she is definitely not a journalist!!

[savebigbird]

10. Rachel was probably advised to play nice...

...for entertainment purposes.

[forestpath]

12. I agree. Even in the face of so many swing state polls showing President Obama

leading, he still claims Romney will win - and Rachel had to know that's just what he'd say. So why bother to even bring it up unless she planned to follow up? I just don't get her sometimes. And I do not share the opinion of so many here that Steve Schmidt is somehow objective. Tonight proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that he is not.

[Stinky The Clown]

15. Because it doesn't matter. Because it is all entertainment. Here's a clue:

Comcast

[russspeakeasy]

18. By Thursday msnbc will be a ghost network.

Prison shows and To catch a predator.

[We People]

38. Please elaborate on that, because I need to understand why that's cause for celebration.

How and why would that happen? What channel should we be watching, then? Just curious.

[ladjf]

32. It was OK. She knows that he is a partisan mercenary and I thought she made that

subtly clear. nt

[Thekaspervote]

33. I like rachael.. But sometimes... I was frustrated with her schmultz interview what a goofus

[ErikJ]

39. He has to tow the line or he is out like Christie is now.

[mzmolly]

41. I think she's just allowing him time to share his

POV. The entire show, is a rebuttal to his nonsense.

[AtomicKitten]

45. I like Steve Schmidt.

Last edited Mon Nov 5, 2012, 06:33 AM - Edit history (1)

He's a Republican and his Republican ideas suck ass, but he's a stand-up guy. He's smart, dignified, and I respect him for telling the truth about the McCain campaign. I also like Andrew Sullivan for the same reasons I like Schmidt. I don't agree with either of them on some fundamental issues, but I appreciate and respect their ability to turn their back on the GOP and its teabagger mentality.