November 22nd, 2009
 

365 Gay: Living

RachelWatch: Oh, So Pelosi

, Contributing writer

Wednesday’s TRMS was almost entirely devoted to Rachel’s interview of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. After cheerfully noting Pelosi’s literally bouncy demeanor at the Presidential Address last night, Rachel got down to brass tacks.

Truth and Consequences
Pelosi expressed reservations about the broad immunity that Senator Leahy’s proposed Truth and Maybe a Little Too Much Reconciliation Committee might grant, suggesting that maybe when it comes to torture and warrantless wiretaps of American citizens, a little good old-fashioned criminal prosecution might be in order.

Rachel restrained herself from spiking her clipboard and shouting “Yes!”

Back on set, Ms. Maddow expressed concerns about Ms. Pelosi’s expression of concerns, wondering if standing on principle might mean standing still.

Questioning Intelligence
Rachel put the screws on Pelosi about the claim that high-level Democrats are doing a little foot-dragging on the “whole” part of the whole truth because they knew all about our enhanced interrogation techniques and quietly went along.

Pelosi said flat-out that Congressional Democrats didn’t know about torture. But Rachel brought up the excellent point that someone receiving a briefing on newly legal “interrogation” techniques might be expected to take the mental leap of suspecting that those might be coming into play.

Pelosi seemed to be dancing just a little bit of a sidestep when she reaffirmed that Democrats were completely unable to make that connection, which makes me wonder what other wartime techniques we are totally not using that the House Intelligence Committee gets briefed on anyway. Pink bellies? A unicorn cavalry? What?

Keeping Secrets
In her defense, it does seem like Pelosi’s hands may have been tied on that point. Or rather, webbed. Rachel invoked Spider-Man and Dr. Manhattan to illustrate the ridiculous position that Intelligence Committee members are in: Since anything the Committee members learn about is classified, they can’t object publicly.

Or privately.  For real.

Their only recourses are exchanging fraught looks with each other and writing their objections down in specially issued Intelligence Committee diaries, which then explode.


The Iraq Debate
Surprise! This whole Iraq thing might not be so easy to end. And even when it’s “over” 50,000 American troops may still in Iraq as a “residual force”.

Oh, and “residual troops” might look a lot like combat troops in hastily applied fake beards and Groucho glasses.

Tom Andrews, Director of the Win Without War Coalition stopped by just long enough to bum you out until 2015, which is when we might be out for real.

Ms. Information
Washington Mystery Theatre time! Rachel asked NBC Congressional Correspondent Mike Viquiera about the recent rash of small fires in government buildings and discovered that yet another had happened just the night before!

Rachel tried to make it sound like this was just some silly thing that had happened to catch her interest, but I think she’s trying to tell us something more. Clearly the comic book reference from earlier was a hint, and I believe I have sleuthed it out:

One of our elected representatives is actually The Human Torch.

I think I’m OK with that. I’m guessing that anyone whose catchphrase is “Flame ON!” is not a big supporter of the Defense of Marriage Act.

Also: Free supercool party boat!

Healthcare First!
Ms. Maddow and the Speaker bonded over healthcare reform, and then Rachel asked about what she saw as the Republican domination of the media during the clusterbonk over the stimulus bill. Pelosi pointed out with a warm smile that the GOP didn’t score any points with that last time, and so might not try it again.

When we cut back to the studio, Rachel referred to this polite and reasonable exchange in measured tones as a smackdown, explaining what had happened just in case we had somehow, in the middle of the information-filled pleasantries, missed the downsmacking.

Aw, you guys, cut Rachel some slack. She doesn’t know – she doesn’t have a TV. Don’t tell her.


GOP-anned
After his response to the Presidential Address, Bobby Jindal went to Disneyworld. Rachel acted like that was a surprising thing to do, but he might as well have. No one is going to be able to unsee those Kenneth the Page mash-ups.

RachelWatch Poll: Which cast member of 30 Rock will be the next to render a sitting Governor unable to go to the grocery store without hearing barely-restrained laughter?

The Next Big Debate
Hey, let’s end on an up note: Afghanistan!

Pelosi offered some dumb old complex answers about looking at the region as a whole and understanding the delicate intertwining of religious and social issues.

It’s like I don’t know my government anymore.

Until tomorrow, keep your fires contained and your smackdowns polite.


Login or Register to comment.

or Login with Facebook:

  • isela Said: February 26th, 2009 at 9:25 pm
    • I LOVE RACHEL & THANKYOU

  • Trace Said: February 26th, 2009 at 6:59 pm
    • So many gays and lesbians are fans?

      I could not tell you one person (gay or straight) that watches the show or MSNBC. Lord, ya know I know more people that are gay that watch FoxNews than watches MSNBC.

      P.S. – When do we get cm’s weatherman to have a section of the site? I bet he has many gay and lesbian viewers!

  • Burnf Said: February 26th, 2009 at 6:13 pm
    • Can there be a Forum for a broader discussion of the subjects?

  • Debra Said: February 26th, 2009 at 4:29 pm
    • Odannyoh…your life sounds SO simple! I’m jealous. You have nothing else on your mind but the color of people’s clothes….oh to be young and have no responsibilities again! BTW, there’s spell check on these things.

  • odannyoh Said: February 26th, 2009 at 4:15 pm
    • I like Rachel,, and I am proud of her achiving the hights she has and openly,,, but GAWD some one needs to teach her that gay women wear more than the same drab suit coats,,, she needs COLOR,, on her and on the set,,, like most americans have a short attention span,, I get so bored with looking at her that I have found myself watching the [crap] on BRAVO,,, orange county housewives
      signed
      bored to death with the same old suit coats

  • Jennifer Said: February 26th, 2009 at 9:48 am
    • I’m a devoted RachelWatch reader and I hope that it sticks around, but like other readers, I really do wish that the news was more prominently placed on the main page. Placed off to the side as it is, it seems as if the news is almost an afterthought.

  • Debra Said: February 26th, 2009 at 9:38 am
    • This seems like the perfect opportunity to say thanks for putting Rachel Watch here. I don’t always have the chance to watch her show in the evenings, and I do enjoy her humor and approach to current events. I don’t normally comment here, but when a debate of it’s relevance erupts, then I am happy to add my 2 cents.
      Enjoy your day!

  • Jennifer Vanasco Said: February 26th, 2009 at 9:09 am
    • Hi readers,

      I’ve been reading these comments. Let me say a couple things. First, we added RachelWatch because SO many gays and lesbians are fans and she covers news that we don’t cover. Not everything on 365 is gay – some of it is “gay interest” (stories about the economy! stories about Obama!)

      That’s one thing.

      Another is – RachelWatch takes away nothing, content-wise, from the rest of the site. It gets plenty of readers. There are no stories we don’t run because of RachelWatch. It just means that we have new content up earlier than we could otherwise get it up.

      A third is – I think it’s funny.

      We are constantly experimenting at 365gay, trying new things, working with our tiny staff (two, soon to be one) to keep on top of the ever-changing news.

      Give new things a chance, OK? It’s been less than a month.

      I’d be grateful.

      Warmly,

      Jay Vanasco
      editor

  • Gerry Fisher Said: February 26th, 2009 at 8:33 am
    • I’d find this column more enjoyable if there were less attempts to be witty and more attempts to describe things in clearer language.

      I love Rachel and enjoy reading about her interviews, but this column is tough to read…

  • The Menstruator Said: February 26th, 2009 at 7:05 am
  • Burnf Said: February 26th, 2009 at 7:00 am
    • Why not make the side gay news the main section of this site again and move the opinion pieces over to the side in a section called gay punditry?
      I would also like to see the site invite articles from gay groups with moderate and fiscally conservative opinions to balance out views.

  • Jason Said: February 26th, 2009 at 5:53 am
    • I actually like the Rachel Watch column. It just doesn’t feel like it belongs on this site. Like…it doesn’t really fit here, and should find a home of it’s own.

  • cm Said: February 26th, 2009 at 5:50 am
    • WoW! A lesbian delivers the news – that MAKES it GAY NEWS! Great thinking 365gay! bleh.

      Enough of the Rachel Spam, we get it – you got bought out. Either sell your soul completely, or get back to reporting the real gay news.

      PS – The weatherman at my local station is gay. Does that mean it’s gay news?

 
Login

Register
Lost your password?


or Login with Facebook