Rachel Maddow points out that while a new agreement to keep thousands of U.S. troops in Afghanistan for at least the next ten years has gone almost entirely unnoticed by the media, to military members and families it is significant news. watch
Dr. Robert Bristow, director of disaster medicine at Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, talks with Rachel Maddow about the CDC confirmation of the first case of Ebola diagnosed in the U.S. and how health authorities will respond. watch
Carol Leonnig, national reporter for the Washington Post, talks with Rachel Maddow about the growing list of Secret Service embarrassments coming to public light as inside sources leak details to journalists and legislators. watch
* Ebola: "The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has confirmed the first patient to accidentally carry Ebola to the United States has been diagnosed at a hospital in Dallas. Four other people with Ebola -- all medical volunteers working in West Africa -- have been evacuated to the U.S. for treatment but this is the first case in a traveler. The patient's at Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital in Dallas."
* Nigeria: "With quick and coordinated action by some of its top doctors, Nigeria, Africa's most populous country, appears to have contained its first Ebola outbreak, the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said Tuesday."
* Hong Kong: "A midnight deadline imposed by pro-democracy protesters came and went Tuesday without Hong Kong's leader responding to their demands -- but members of the mostly student-led 'Umbrella Revolution' movement vowed to stay as long as it takes."
* ISIS, Part I: "Kurdish fighters opened offensives against Islamic State militants in several parts of northern Iraq on Tuesday, seizing control of a border crossing with Syria that has been a major conduit for the insurgents, officials said."
* ISIS, Part II: The White House has acknowledged for the first time that strict standards President Obama imposed last year to prevent civilian deaths from U.S. drone strikes will not apply to U.S. military operations in Syria and Iraq.
* Bipartisan dissatisfaction: "Secret Service Director Julia Pierson took a beating from nearly 20 House Oversight and Government Reform Committee lawmakers who traveled back to Washington for Tuesday's rare, three-and-a-half hour recess hearing."
* Learning more details: "The man who jumped over the White House fence and sprinted through the main floor of the mansion could have gotten even farther had it not been for an off-duty Secret Service agent who was coincidentally in the house and leaving for the night."
* Oklahoma: "An Oklahoma man was charged Tuesday with first-degree murder in the beheading of a co-worker, but federal officials said they had found no links between him and Islamic extremist groups that have beheaded several Western hostages in the Middle East and North Africa in recent weeks."
* This really is deeply crazy: "Much of the Affordable Care Act must be defunded and millions of Americans must lose their health insurance, according to an opinion issued Tuesday by Judge Ronald A. White, an Oklahoma federal judge appointed to the bench by George W. Bush.... To date, nine federal judges have considered this question of whether much of the law should be defunded. Only three -- all of whom are Republicans -- have agreed that it should be."
* Wow: "The new Living Planet Index report from the World Wildlife Fund opens with a jaw-dropping statistic: we've killed roughly half of the world's non-human vertebrate animal population since 1970."
The Mitt's Mendacity project ran its course a couple of years ago, and it will not return. But just for old times' sake, let's pause to note that the poor guy is still truth-challenged.
Romney, who seems to spend a little too much time thinking about ways to condemn the president who defeated him, has run into trouble once more, this time in an interview with Mark Leibovich. The twice-defeated candidate is apparently still thinking about the "47 percent" video that helped drag down his candidacy.
"I was talking to one of my political advisers," Romney continued, "and I said: 'If I had to do this again, I'd insist that you literally had a camera on me at all times" -- essentially employing his own tracker, as opposition researchers call them. "I want to be reminded that this is not off the cuff." This, as he saw it, was what got him in trouble at that Boca Raton fund-raiser, when Romney told the crowd he was writing off the 47 percent of the electorate that supported Obama (a.k.a. "those people"; "victims" who take no "personal responsibility"). Romney told me that the statement came out wrong, because it was an attempt to placate a rambling supporter who was saying that Obama voters were essentially deadbeats.
"My mistake was that I was speaking in a way that reflected back to the man," Romney said. "If I had been able to see the camera, I would have remembered that I was talking to the whole world, not just the man." I had never heard Romney say that he was prompted into the "47 percent" line by a ranting supporter.
No, that's a new one. It's also patently false.
Since David Corn first helped shine a light on the infamous "47 percent" video, in which Romney told a group of wealthy donors that nearly half of Americans are lazy parasites, the Republican has struggled to come up with a coherent response. Initially, Romney actually endorsed the sentiments on the video and said they reflected his core beliefs.
He later changed his mind, saying his remarks were "completely wrong" and the result of misspeaking. Later still, Romney switched gears again and said the comments were taken out of context. Now he's come up with an entirely new explanation: Romney's not responsible for what Romney said; some guy in the audience deserves the blame.
Ironically, in the video itself, Romney says of struggling Americans, "I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility." Funny, he doesn't seem to be a big fan of personal responsibility, either.
I'm not sure why this isn't a bigger story this afternoon.
Afghanistan and the United States signed a long-awaited security pact in Kabul Tuesday, allowing Washington to leave a contingent of troops in the country beyond 2014. Ambassador James Cunningham signed the Bilateral Security Agreement on behalf of the White House, opposite Afghanistan's national security adviser Mohmmad Hanif Atmar.
The deal follows the inauguration Monday of new president Ashraf Ghani, after a protracted election process that lasted six months.
Hamid Karzai has famously balked for quite a while at such an agreement, but Ghani clearly does not share those concerns.
"This is a turning point in our relations with world," Ghani said at the signing ceremony. "There are common threats and we need to have common partnership to fight it. We have the will to bring about peace and stability to this country."
In a statement issued by the White House, the Obama administration added, "After nearly two years of hard work by negotiating teams on both sides, earlier today in Kabul the United States and the new Afghan Government of National Unity signed a Bilateral Security Agreement." The legal framework, the statement added, will help cover, among other things, "critical missions after 2014."
It was 20 years ago this week that House Republican leaders, eager to make the case for a GOP takeover of Congress, presented the public with an agenda called the "Contract with America." Republicans knew at the time that the then-Democratic president wasn't popular, and the GOP was likely to make big gains in the midterms, but the party wanted to make the case for fairly specific proposals that Republicans would work on if elected.
In popular lore, the platform helped propel the GOP into the majority, though I think much of this is overstated -- most Americans weren't familiar with the "Contract" by Election Day 1994. Still, it was an era in which Republicans saw value in crafting and presenting policy ideas.
That era is long gone. NBC's First Read did a nice job this morning noting that as far as the current crop of congressional Republicans are concerned, running on a non-existent policy platform isn't a problem.
In their midterm messaging, Republican say they want to repeal the federal health-care law, but replace it with what? They want to "secure" the border, but how do you accomplish that (and at what cost)? And they want to take the fight to ISIS in the Middle East, but aren't leaving the campaign trail to vote on authorizing U.S. military force there. [...]
As Lou Zickar of the Ripon Society, a moderate GOP group, put it: The 1994 Contract with America "is a moment worth remembering because it was also a time when the GOP loudly and proudly proclaimed not what they stood against, but what they stood for."
For their part, GOP officials routinely say they have at least some priorities. House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), for example, sat down with ABC's George Stephanopoulos the other day, and the host asked what congressional Republicans intend to do with their power.
"We have focused like a laser for the last three and a half years on jobs and the economy," the Speaker who tried to repeal the Affordable Care Act several dozen times for no reason said. "Over 40 [jobs] bills sitting in the U.S. Senate. Let's start with those bills."
I hate to sound picky, but (a) there really aren't over 40 jobs bills, no matter how many times Boehner falsely claims otherwise; and (b) for a Speaker who has literally no major legislative accomplishments after nearly four years on the job, this is a rather pathetic basis for an election-year platform.
Indeed, it only reinforces the degree to which Republicans have become a post-policy party, lacking any real regard for governing or substance.
But wait, my friends on the right will say, aren't Republicans going to win anyway? And if so, doesn't this prove it doesn't much matter?
Today's installment of campaign-related news items that won't necessarily generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers:
* Massachusetts' gubernatorial race has suddenly become one of the nation's most competitive. A new Suffolk poll shows Martha Coakley (D) and Charlie Baker (R) tied at 43% each, while a Western New England University poll shows Baker up by one, 44% to 43%.
* A new statewide poll in Michigan shows its gubernatorial race every bit as close, with incumbent Gov. Rick Snyder (R) up by one over Rep. Mark Schauer (D), 41% to 40%.
* The same poll shows Rep. Gary Peters (D) leading Terri Lynn Land (R) in Michigan's U.S. Senate race by double digits, 48% to 38%.
* And speaking of Land, NPR reported this morning that Land, despite being just 35 days from the election, literally hasn't made any public appearances in the last seven days (thanks to Ron Chusid for the heads-up).
* NARAL Pro-Choice America is launching a six-figure direct-mail campaign this week, targeting three incumbent Republican governors: Wisconsin's Scott Walker, Florida's Rick Scott, and Kansas' Sam Brownback. The message: these governors are "obsessed with outlawing abortion" instead of focusing on jobs and the economy.
* In a year featuring several three-way contests, let's not forget about the U.S. Senate race in South Dakota, where a new statewide poll shows Mike Rounds (R) leading Rick Weiland (D) by 13 points, 39% to 26%, because former Sen. Larry Pressler, who was a Republican but is now running as an independent, has 24% support. [Update: math corrected.]
Former Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.), running in New Hampshire after losing in Massachusetts two years ago, has decided the national security is an issue that he can exploit. He may be losing to Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (R-N.H.), but Brown thinks public fears over Islamic State militants have created an opportunity.
In his latest television ad, the Republican argues that radical Islamic terrorists are "threatening to cause the collapse of our country" -- a claim that seems a little hyperbolic given reality -- adding that Shaheen and President Obama "seem confused about the nature of the threat. Not me."
Right. Because if there's one politician who never "seems confused," it's Scott Brown.
With this in mind, the former senator delivered a "major foreign policy speech" in his adopted home state last week, billed by his aides as an address in which Brown would present his vision of international affairs. We'll get to the content of the speech in a moment, but what I found especially interesting was what happened immediately after Brown's remarks. The Boston Globe's Scot Lehigh reported:
As it happens, there's an important issue at hand that provides a decent clue on that front: Does he think, as per the US Constitution, that President Obama should have to come to Congress for authorization for the multi-year military effort he wants against the Islamic State? After all, a senator can't exercise much independent judgment if he concedes war-waging authority to the president without either a debate or a vote.
As Brown exited the hall, I posed that question to him.
He ignored me.
Lehigh asked aides to the former senator if Brown would be speaking with reporters about his "major foreign policy speech." They replied, "No." Did they know Brown's position on congressional authorization? They did not. Could they find out? The Republican's press secretary told Lehigh she'd look into it, but as best as I can tell, Team Brown hasn't yet answered the question.
For her part, Jeanne Shaheen, the incumbent, isn't afraid to have an opinion on this and told Lehigh, "I think Congress should debate an authorization for use of military force. I have called on the president to do that, and I've said if he doesn't, we should do it without him."
Remember, Brown is the one who wants to leverage ISIS as a campaign tool. He wants to talk about how "confused" Democrats are about national security, but when asked to talk about the most basic of aspects of the debate -- should Congress authorize military intervention? -- Brown seems to have literally nothing to say.
Last week, the public learned that the Koch brothers' Americans for Prosperity created quite a mess sending out incorrect voting materials to many North Carolina voters. This week, the group finds itself under investigation.
To briefly recap, the far-right organization provided voters with contradictory information about the registration schedule, mislabeled envelopes, incorrect contact information for the state Board of Elections, and incorrect information about county-clerk notifications. The AFP's materials encouraged North Carolinians to refer questions to the Secretary of State's elections division. In North Carolina, the Secretary of State's office doesn't have an elections division.
Joshua Lawson, a spokesman for the state board of elections, said his office opened the probe Monday after receiving a formal sworn complaint from the state Democratic Party about the mailers, which were sent recently by Americans for Prosperity (AFP). Lawson said state law requires the board to open an investigation if it receives a sworn complaint.
In the complaint, Casey Mann, the state Democratic Party's executive director, accused AFP of an "attempt to utilize misleading, incorrect, and confusing voter registration mailers as a means of discouraging or intimidating voters in the 2014 general election."
AFP concedes it made "a few minor administrative errors," and it will have to hope that investigators believe the Koch-financed group was simply incompetent -- the alternative explanation is that AFP tried to mislead voters on purpose, which would be a felony.
We still don't know exactly how many North Carolina households received the bogus information from the conservative group, or if AFP intends to mitigate the damage by sending accurate information to the voters who were sent incorrect materials.
Roth's report added that AFP has made similar mistakes in other states and other election cycles, leading him to wonder when Americans for Prosperity will develop an ACORN-like reputation, which seems like a perfectly fair question under the circumstances.