Once in a while, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) sounds progressive notes on voting rights. It's the substantive follow-through that's the problem. Katie Glueck reported last week that Kentucky Republican "blasted his own party for making it tougher for minorities to vote."
The Kentucky Republican, a likely presidential candidate, has long argued that drug laws disproportionately affect minorities and has also championed restoring voting rights for some non-violent felons. He laid out those views in a speech at the Liberty PAC conference, a gathering tied to his father, libertarian icon Ron Paul.
"So many times, Republicans are seen as this party of, 'We don't want black people to vote because they're voting Democrat, we don't want Hispanic people to vote because they're voting Democrat,'" he said. "We wonder why the Republican Party is so small. Why don't we be the party that's for people voting, for voting rights?"
If my email inbox is any indication, Paul's supporters believe the senator deserves more credit for making remarks like these, and to a degree, they have a point. With so many Republican policymakers nationwide continuing to impose harsh and unnecessary restrictions on voting rights, unlike anything Americans have seen since the Jim Crow era, Paul's rhetoric is a welcome change of pace.
But rhetoric only goes so far. Paul also happens to be a U.S. senator, where he can write bills, propose policies, and co-sponsor legislation on anything he chooses.
Why doesn't the Republican Party become the party that champions voting rights? It's a good question. But the good follow-up question is, why doesn't Rand Paul do actual work on the problem?
No issue has dogged Rep. Cory Gardner's (R) Senate campaign in Colorado more than a policy known as "personhood," which would ban abortions and many common forms of birth control. In a bit of a surprise, the far-right congressman has decided to ride this train straight through to Election Day.
Gardner has long been a culture warrior, championing personhood at the state and federal level, even after Colorado voters rejected it (twice). After launching a statewide campaign, the Republican tried to flip-flop on the issue, but Gardner struggled to even do this properly -- the congressman announced he no longer supports the state personhood policy, but he would remain a co-sponsor of the federal personhood legislation.
With Election Day nearing and Gardner locked in a very close race with Sen. Mark Udall (D), would the conservative Coloradan complete the reversal and walk away from the right-wing legislation? Apparently not. Jason Salzman reported Friday that "the die is cast."
The House of Representatives adjourned at noon today, meaning Colorado senatorial candidate Cory Gardner has officially missed his chance to withdraw his name from the Life at Conception Act, a federal personhood bill, prior to the Nov. election.
To un-cosponsor the bill, Gardner would have had to make a statement from the House floor, and now the House is out of session until Nov. 12.
There's simply no ambiguity here. Over a year ago, Gardner signed on to the Life at Conception Act (H.R.1091) as a co-sponsor. The Colorado Republican ostensibly changed his mind about the issue a few months ago, but nevertheless kept his name on the federal personhood bill, despite having ample opportunity to withdraw his support.
And now it's too late to do anything about it.
The NBC affiliate in Denver recently caught up with the congressman to ask about this, and the exchange helped underscore the problem.
After the 2012 elections, it was tempting to think Republicans would be a little more cautious about economic elitism and callous indifference towards those struggling to get by. But in 2014, many GOP officials have thrown caution to the wind and embraced elitism with both arms.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), for example, recently defended cuts to student aid by saying, "Not everybody needs to go to Yale." As McConnell sees it, the nation's elite institutions of higher ed should be within reach for students from rich families -- and no one else. Soon after, Rep. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), a leading U.S. Senate candidate, called those who rely on the safety net as "addicts."
And then there's House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), who appeared at the American Enterprise Institute last week to discuss the economy. Asked about Rep. Paul Ryan's (R-Wis.) anti-poverty plans, Boehner was quite candid about his thoughts on the unemployed.
"I think this idea that's been born out the last – maybe out of the economy last couple of years that, 'You know, I really don't have to work. I don't really want to do this, I think I'd just rather sit around.' This is a very sick idea for our country."
The Speaker's perspective is bizarre as a matter of public policy, but I'm glad he made these comments because his candor sheds light on an ugly ideology.
When GOP lawmakers cut off extended jobless aid, on a substantive level, it seems bewildering. In recent decades, neither party even considered such radicalism with high unemployment, if for no other reason because cutting jobless aid hurts economic growth. But Boehner has offered a peek behind the curtain -- the Republican argument isn't about economics, so much as it's about personal animosity. The Speaker and his allies seem to think there's something wrong, and perhaps even offensive, about families struggling to get by.
It's part of the same phenomenon that leads GOP officials to demand drug tests for those relying on the safety net. If you need a hand keeping your head above water, it may very well be the result of a drug addiction. If you want a job and can't find one, the argument goes, the problem is almost certainly your fault -- it's because you'd "rather sit around" than work.
It stems from a school of thought that says many social-insurance programs shouldn't exist because struggling Americans are lazy and simply don't deserve public assistance.
It was just a few years ago that even modest gatherings of Tea Party activists were considered important political news. With that in mind, when over 300,000 activists march together to demand action on the climate crisis, it deserves to be considered a big deal.
MSNBC's Ned Resnikoff and Amanda Sakuma reported yesterday from what organizers described as "the largest mobilization against climate change in the history of the planet."
Hundreds of thousands of demonstrators of all ages and from around the world turned out for the massive People's Climate March Sunday, filling the streets of midtown Manhattan with demands for global leaders take action to avert catastrophic climate change.
Crowds gathered with banners, flags and floats around Columbus Circle late Sunday morning as music and chants rang out at the start of the march. At exactly 12:58 p.m., demonstrators held a moment of silence in honor of the victims of climate change, followed by a cacophony of noise with drums, cheers and horns to sound the alarm to the crisis.
Though local law enforcement did not release an official estimate on the crowd size, event organizers said the march drew more than 300,000 demonstrators.
The gathering coincided with new data from the Global Carbon Project, published in the journal Nature Geoscience, that emissions jumped in 2013 to record levels, including a 2.9% increase in the United States, despite modest declines in recent years. The New York Times'report on the new figures noted that if global temperatures "continue on their present course through the century, scientists say, the earth could warm by as much as 10 degrees Fahrenheit above the preindustrial level, which would likely be incompatible with human civilization in its current form."
But yesterday's march, timed to coincide with the start of a United Nations climate change summit in New York City, was not the only evidence of a societal shift. The Rockefeller Brothers Fund will announce this morning that it's joining the fossil-fuel divestment movement.
That's no small development -- the Rockefeller Brothers Fund was created in part by wealth generated by John D. Rockefeller and Standard Oil.
As of late Friday afternoon, the procedural nuttiness that has plagued Kansas U.S. Senate race appeared to have run its course. The state Supreme Court had ruled that Democrat Chad Taylor could, in fact, remove his name from the statewide ballot, creating a one-on-one match-up pitting Sen. Pat Roberts (R) against Greg Orman (I)..
What's more, Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach (R), who oversees state elections and just happens to be part of Roberts' re-election campaign committee, appeared to be in retreat, directing officials to begin mailing ballots -- as mandated by federal law -- to Kansans voting from overseas without a Democratic candidate, as per Democrats' wishes.
There was, however, a catch. Kobach, who's making no real effort to hide his brazen partisanship, continues to make unprecedented moves, turning Kansas' race into a circus with no modern parallel. From the Wichita Eagle over the weekend:
Secretary of State Kris Kobach has not given up his position that Democrats must appoint a replacement for Chad Taylor. He says overseas voters may have to cast a second ballot later.
The 526 ballots to be mailed by Saturday to overseas civilians and military personnel include a disclaimer that new ballots will be printed if a court forces Democrats to name a replacement candidate.
Some ballots from Johnson County went out Thursday with Taylor's name. They were amended Friday.
As Rachel put it on Friday's show in reference to events in Kansas, "[T]he political process in one U.S. state today fell completely apart."
Kobach's disclaimer alone belongs in some kind of Hall of Shame.
In honor of Scotland doing the two most newsworthy things it could conceivably do and doing them both on the same day, and as a congratulations to UK Prime Minister David Cameron who could have lost his job as prime minister if the Scottish independence vote had gone the other way, here's how you make a classic drink called the Cameron's Kick.
I think we've made it once before, but it's perfect for this occasion.
It uses two kinds of whiskey, one from Northern Ireland, which is part of the UK: We're using an ounce of Bushmills delicious blended Irish whiskey.
And we're also using an ounce of a different kind of whiskey, from someplace else that is also (and still!) part of the UK: Famous Grouse is a nice blended Scotch whiskey.
So you have an ounce each of Irish and Scotch whiskeys.
Then you want a half ounce of fresh lemon juice.
And then -here's the kicker- it's the crazy French thing. It's almond syrup, which you can get more places than you'd think. The French call it orgeat. And since Mary Queen of Scots was raised in France and spoke French, when you add a half ounce of French orgeat almond syrup to this drink, you're still being very Scottish.
First up from the God Machine this week is an update to a story we've been following involving the U.S. Air Force and a religious oath as a precondition to military service.
To briefly recap for those new to the story, the Pentagon requires servicemen and women sign an oath for re-enlistment, which concludes, "So help me God." In the Army and Navy, Americans have the discretion to omit those final four words without penalty, but the Air Force has made it mandatory.
An airman was recently told he would be excluded from military service, regardless of his qualifications, unless he does as the Air Force requires and swears an oath to God. Faced with a likely lawsuit, the Air Force backed down this week and made the oath optional.
Televangelist Pat Robertson says it's "crazy" that the U.S. Air Force will now allow servicemen and women to omit the words "so help me God" from official oaths.
"What is wrong with the Air Force?" he beseeched viewers on the Christian Broadcasting Network's "The 700 Club" on Thursday.
The TV preacher seemed especially incensed by Military Religious Freedom Foundation President Mikey Weinstein for pushing the issue.
"There's a left-wing radical named Mikey Weinstein who has got a group about people against religion or whatever he calls it, and he has just terrorized the armed forces," Robertson said. "You think you're supposed to be tough, you're supposed to defend us, and you got one little Jewish radical who is scaring the pants off of you."
The televangelist added, "You want these guys flying the airplanes to defend us when you got one little guy terrorizing them? That's what it amounts to.… How can [the Air Force] fly the bombers to defend us if they cave to one little guy?"
For what it's worth, the Air Force didn't "cave" to the Military Religious Freedom Foundation; it instead chose to stick to the U.S. Constitution, which mandates "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."
Rachel Maddow reports breaking news that Kris Kobach, Kansas Secretary of State, having lost his Kansas Supreme Court case to force Democrat Chat Taylor onto the ballot, will instead add a disclaimer to federal overseas ballots for Kansas voters abroad. watch
Anne Gearan, Washington Post diplomatic correspondent, talks with Rachel Maddow about how the U.S. war on ISIS will progress absent Congress for six weeks, and what to expect when they return, given the apparent lack of concern for foreign affairs. watch
William Rhoden, New York Times sports columnist, talks with Rachel Maddow about the calculated way in which the NFL is addressing the outrage over a series of domestic violence cases, catering to constituencies instead of acting according to a moral code. watch
Rachel Maddow reports on Russian President Vladimir Putin's ambitions to build a separate internet, how sanctions on Russia have upended a major Russian oil deal with Exxon, and U.S. jets sent to intercept six Russian planes near the coast of Alaska. watch