The Rachel Maddow Show Weekdays at 9PM

Rachel Maddow StoriesRSS

select from:

E.g., 3/31/2015
E.g., 3/31/2015
Second suicide shocks Missouri Republicans

Second suicide shocks Missouri Republicans

03/30/15 10:25PM

Just weeks after Missouri state auditor and candidate for governor Tom Schweich shot himself, Spence Jackson, his communications director has also been found dead of apparent suicide. Dave Helling, columnist for the Kansas City Star, joins for discussion. watch

Monday's Mini-Report, 3.30.15

03/30/15 05:30PM

Today's edition of quick hits:
* P5+1 talks: "The U.S. and other world powers and Iran met Monday in a final push to reach an interim nuclear deal -- with one foreign minister saying there had been 'some progress and some setbacks' as a deadline loomed in the negotiations."
* The latest sticking point: "For months, Iran tentatively agreed that it would send a large portion of its stockpile of uranium to Russia, where it would not be accessible for use in any future weapons program. But on Sunday Iran's deputy foreign minister made a surprise comment to Iranian reporters, ruling out an agreement that involved giving up a stockpile that Iran has spent years and billions of dollars to amass."
* A deadly scene: "An NSA police officer opened fire Monday morning when two men dressed as women and driving a stolen car tried to ram through the gates at Fort Meade -- and one suspect was killed, sources said. After trying to make an 'unauthorized entry,' the driver of the Ford Escape ignored the guard's order to leave the area, NSA spokesman Jonathan Freed said in a statement."
* Missouri: "Veteran Missouri state official Spence Jackson, who was media director for the late state auditor Tom Schweich, was found dead Sunday, sources said. He was 44. A source told the Post-Dispatch his death was being investigated as a suicide."
* I'm not convinced the Speaker knows what "reprehensible" means: "House Speaker John Boehner, who is traveling to Israel during the congressional recess this week, called the Obama administration's treatment of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu 'reprehensible.'"
* This was a dumb case: "The Supreme Court on Monday declined to take up the latest lawsuit against Obamacare, this time a challenge to a board that critics label a 'death panel.'"
* Why is Indiana's right-to-discriminate law different from the federal RFRA? "The new statute's defenders claim it simply mirrors existing federal rules, but it contains two provisions that put new obstacles in the path of equality."
President Barack Obama answers questions during an event on Feb. 6, 2015, in Indianapolis. (Photo by Evan Vucci/AP)

Poll: most Republicans see President as a national 'threat'

03/30/15 05:10PM

Why do so many Republican lawmakers seem to be driven by an irrational, almost hysterical disgust for President Obama? It may have something to do with GOP officials reflecting the feelings of Republican voters.
Republicans believe that President Obama poses a greater imminent threat to the United States than Russian President Vladimir Putin or Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll released on Monday.
The poll asked respondents a series of "How much of a threat does _____ pose to the United States?" questions, filling in the blank with a variety of leaders, countries, and phenomena (such as global warming).
Most Americans, naturally, do not see their president as a national threat, but when the results are broken down by party affiliation, more than a third of self-identified Republicans said they consider Obama an "imminent" threat to the United States. An additional 16% said they consider the president a "serious threat."
Republicans were concerned about Putin, Assad, and North Korea -- they're just more concerned about the U.S. leader.
Image: 2012 Republican National Convention: Day 2

GOP's Sununu: Obama is 'inciting' birthers

03/30/15 04:33PM

The White House announced this morning that President Obama will visit Kenya in July for a meeting on global business development, as part of the 2015 Global Entrepreneurship Summit. It will be the president's fourth trip to sub-Saharan Africa, but his first to Kenya, the country his father is from.
Given that Kenya has one of the fastest growing economies on the continent, it stands to reason that the administration would participate in the forum, though it appears one of the president's Republican critics has a different take.
President Obama is "inciting" the passions of so-called birthers, who believe he was born in Kenya not the United States, by planning a trip to the African country, former New Hampshire Gov. John Sununu (R) said Monday.
"I think his trip back to Kenya is going to create a lot of chatter and commentary amongst some of the hard right who still don't see him as having been born in the U.S.," he said during an appearance on Fox News' "America's Newsroom."
"I personally think he's just inciting some chatter on an issue that should have been a dead issue a long time ago."
Oh, I see. There's a Global Entrepreneurship Summit coming up this summer, and many world leaders will be in attendance, but President Obama should sideline himself, on purpose. Why? Because, in the mind of John Sununu, the president will "incite" ridiculous people to say ridiculous things.
Since when is this how any sensible White House is supposed to function?
Democratic Senate Minority Leader from Nevada Harry Reid attends a press conference where he spoke about funding for the Department of Homeland Security, among other issues, in Washington, DC, on Feb. 10, 2015.

Conservatives turn to new Harry Reid conspiracy theory

03/30/15 02:24PM

The story didn't originate with Byron York, but it was a tweet from the conservative journalist yesterday that seemed to help the question reach a new level. The question, in this case, is whether Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) was actually injured by exercise equipment -- or whether that's just a cover story for a more nefarious truth.
A far-right blogger named John Hinderaker published a curious missive, passing along a pretty silly rumor: according to an unnamed Hinderaker friend who recently spent time in Las Vegas, a "number of people" in Nevada believe Reid's injuries were caused by "mobsters," who beat up the Senate leader after he failed to deliver on some unspecified promise.
Hinderaker said this tale "is a more likely story" than the official version involving Reid's exercise equipment.
And York, the chief political correspondent for the Washington Examiner and Fox News contributor, apparently intrigued, wondered on Twitter whether any journalist has "looked into the specifics of Harry Reid's exercise equipment accident." Around the same time, a handful of notable conservative bloggers quickly expressed their skepticism about Reid's claims.
And that's a shame. First, accidents involving exercise-band equipment is not uncommon, and many have experienced serious injuries. Second, as Matt Yglesias explained, the conspiracy theorists may not have thought this one through.
[F]or the Vegas mob -- which was largely crushed in the 1980s -- to break into the house of a United States senator, evade or overpower his security detail, and rough him up would be quite the trick. It would also be quite peculiar. If they really wanted to squeeze Reid, beating him up would be an odd way to do it. It would presumably be more effective, and bring less heat down on the mob, to threaten his family, or to simply threaten to release evidence of Reid's relationship with the criminal underground to the press.
The right's larger frustration stems from the sense that people should be looking more closely at Reid's finances. But the truth here is that the media has looked into this. Extensively.... Reporters just haven't found the kind of career-destroying smoking gun that conservatives want to find.
It's probably best to keep this in mind when your wacky uncle sends you an all-caps email demanding to know the secret truths Harry Reid doesn't want us to know.
Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-UT., talks to reporters as he walks to the weekly Senate policy luncheons in the U.S. Capitol on June 4, 2013.

Investigation prompts new scrutiny of dietary supplements

03/30/15 12:56PM

The New York state attorney general's office recently accused dietary-supplement retailers of putting deeply flawed products on shelves for consumers. According to the state investigation, some "herbal supplements" made fraudulent claims, while some others included potentially dangerous unlisted ingredients.
The New York Times reports today, however, that the largest retailer in the industry is taking steps to address safety concerns.
GNC, the country's largest specialty retailer of dietary supplements, has agreed to institute sweeping new testing procedures on its herbal products that far exceed quality controls mandated under federal law. [...]
Experts said the announcement marked an initial but significant step forward for the $33 billion-a-year supplement industry, which is loosely regulated and plagued by accusations of adulteration and mislabeling.
GNC will reportedly begin an 18-month process subjecting its products to "additional quality-control measures," which will include "advanced DNA testing to authenticate all of the plants that are used in its store-brand herbal supplements."
The retailer's progress will be worth watching, but it's worth pausing to consider some more fundamental questions, such as why it was a state investigation, and not a federal one, that sparked the recent controversy. For that matter, why is it that GNC's announcement is the result of voluntary actions, as opposed to required safeguards imposed by regulatory agencies?
That's where the story takes an interesting, and more political, turn -- and attention turns to Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), who has long shown a great interest in the subject.

Monday's Campaign Round-Up, 3.30.15

03/30/15 12:00PM

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:
* Former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley (D) took a not-so-subtle shot at some of his likely White House rivals yesterday, telling George Stephanopoulos, "The presidency of the United States is not some crown to be passed between two families."
* Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) is accusing Republican leaders of cutting off his access to super PAC contributions. Though he wasn't specific, Cruz said that there were "multiple reports" from big-money fundraisers in D.C. that "they had been told in no uncertain terms, do not write a check to these guys." In context, "these guys" referred to Cruz and Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah).
* In Florida, Public Policy Polling's latest survey shows Hillary Clinton leading each of the likely GOP presidential candidates in hypothetical match-ups, including a three-point lead over Jeb Bush in his own home state, 47% to 44%.
* In Nevada, Harry Reid has already thrown his support to former state Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto in the race to replace him, but Rep. Dina Titus (D-Nev.) has nevertheless suggested she's likely to run, too.
* As expected, Rep. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.) kicked off her U.S. Senate campaign this morning, hoping to take on incumbent Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) next year. Duckworth, an Iraq War veteran and a former official in the Department of Veterans Affairs, may yet face a primary challenge.
Loretta Lynch listens during her confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee Jan. 28, 2015 in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Brendan Smialowski/AFP/Getty

GOP senators 'in a quandary' over Loretta Lynch

03/30/15 11:23AM

In late 2007, then-President George W. Bush's Attorney General nominee, Michael Mukasey, was approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee, at which point Republican senators demanded a vote.
"Judge Mukasey has waited almost seven weeks for a vote," then-Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said at the time. "This process has gone on long enough."
That was nearly a decade ago. Now, Loretta Lynch A.G. nomination has been waiting 142 days -- more than 20 weeks -- and Mitch McConnell believes the process should drag on even longer. Indeed, with the Senate giving itself time off this week and next, Lynch will have waited more than 22 weeks by the time the chamber gets back to work in mid-April.
The New York Times reports that when it comes to replacing Eric Holder, the Senate Republican majority doesn't actually want to defeat Lynch, so much as they want to avoid voting for her.
Senate Republicans bolted for a two-week spring recess with the confirmation of Loretta E. Lynch as attorney general in jeopardy, and themselves in a quandary: Accept a qualified nominee they oppose because she backs President Obama's policies or reject her and live with an attorney general they despise, Eric H. Holder Jr. [...]
Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the majority leader, now finds himself in the conundrum that has bedeviled his counterpart in the House, Speaker John A. Boehner of Ohio: Members of his party will vote no on Ms. Lynch but hope "yes" -- that she will squeak through.
The article quoted Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) conceding that President Obama is going to "nominate someone who's most likely aligned with his policy positions," but Tillis is opposed to Lynch. Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) added that she could hardly expect a better nominee, "not in terms of qualifications or personal attributes."
But Capito will also vote no.
It's reached a point that's practically farcical -- Republicans can't find anything wrong with Lynch; they're impressed with Lynch's qualifications and background; they believe she's more than capable of doing the job; and they'd be pleased to see Lynch replace Holder.
They just don't want to vote for her.
Kentucky Senator Rand Paul address attendees during the Republican National Committee spring meeting at the Peabody hotel in Memphis, Tenn., May 9, 2014. (Photo by William DeShazer/The Commercial Appeal/AP)

Rand Paul's religious pandering reaches new level

03/30/15 10:40AM

The time pressure on sitting U.S. senators is fairly intense. A lawmaker has to attend committee hearings, caucus meetings, and meetings with constituents. They have to invest time in fundraising. They have to talk to the media, both in D.C. and in their home states. They occasionally even work on legislation.
For senators weighing national office, the pressure is even more burdensome -- add extensive traveling to the already long to-do list.
But we learned this month that Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), despite this grueling schedule, has somehow managed to write two books recently, both of which will be released in 2015. "Taking a Stand: Moving Beyond Partisan Politics to Unite America," will reportedly hit shelves in mid-May. The Courier-Journal recently reported on the other book on the way:
[The website of Paul's publisher, Center Street] says the senator will author Our Presidents & Their Prayers: Proclamations of Faith by America's Leaders. That book is due out on Sept. 8.
In the 144-page book, "Rand Paul reveals the practices of each President of the United States and sheds light on how religion played a part in their governing and personal lives," the publisher's description says.
The religious right movement is looking for a presidential candidate to rally behind. It seems the junior senator from Kentucky believes he can be that candidate -- and if that means shameless pandering, so be it.
Speaking to a group of pastors last week, Rand Paul went so far as to say, "The First Amendment says keep government out of religion. It doesn't say keep religion out of government."
Oh my.
 Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker waits to speak on Jan. 30, 2015 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Win McNamee/Getty)

Scott Walker starts steering clear of reporters

03/30/15 10:00AM

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) seems to realize he has a problem with immigration policy. The issue is a top concern to Republican primary voters, and the governor has tried to take steps to bring his position in line with GOP orthodoxy, but Walker has nevertheless given inconsistent responses to questions about immigration, satisfying no one.
With this in mind, the Wisconsin Republican took a trip to the U.S./Mexico border on Friday, a sensible photo-op for a presidential hopeful eager to pander to anti-immigration voters in his party.
If you didn't hear much about this, there's an explanation: Walker has started keeping news organizations at arm's length. Dylan Byers reported the other day:
Last month, Scott Walker seemed readily available to any reporter who had a question for him. He was basking in the limelight, holding media scrums and granting impromptu interviews.
But in the wake of a few controversial, headline-grabbing quotes about evolution and President Obama's religion, the Wisconsin governor and likely Republican presidential candidate has put brakes on his media availability, reporters who follow him say.
On Friday, Walker toured the Texas-Mexican border with Texas Gov. Greg Abbott. The tour was closed to the press, and Walker did not take part in a media avail afterward.
The whole point of a presidential candidate going to the border and taking a tour alongside a far-right Republican governor is its symbolic value -- public relations is the sole purpose of visits like these. It's Republican Presidential Campaign Politics 101: the candidate shows up, he or she looks concerned, he or she shakes some hands with border guards, and he or she tells reporters about the importance of "getting tough."
But Walker has decided to remove political reporters from the equation. As Byers noted, this isn't limited to Friday's border tour -- last weekend, the Wisconsin Republican became the sixth national candidate to visit Greenville, S.C. but the only one of the six who wouldn't take questions from the media.
Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush speaks to the media after visiting Integra Biosciences during a campaign stop in Hudson, N.H. on March 13, 2015.

When (and why) Republicans turn on their own

03/30/15 09:20AM

In Republican circles, James Baker is in a unique position: he's a grown-up. In a radicalized party filled with insurgent voices, Baker is an elder statesman with the kind of credibility and stature most political figures strive for but few achieve.
It's what happens when someone serves as Reagan's White House chief of staff and Treasury secretary, as well as serving as Secretary of State in the Bush/Quayle administration, where he assembled the international coalition that fought the first Gulf War.
With this recent history in mind, it was an important development when Baker publicly criticized Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's recent antics, calling out the Israeli leader for "diplomatic missteps and political gamesmanship." Baker also made clear that he was unimpressed with Netanyahu's commitment to the peace process and his inflexible opposition to nuclear diplomacy with Iran.
This should have been a wake-up call to Republicans -- they can hate the president, but when a foreign ally shows brazen disrespect for the United States, there's nothing wrong with Americans from both parties speaking out.
Today's GOP partisans are speaking out, all right, but mostly to condemn James Baker.
When former Secretary of State James A. Baker III accused Israel's leader this week of undermining the chances of peace in the region, he said nothing more than the kinds of things he had said at times when he was in office a quarter-century ago.
But the instant backlash from fellow Republicans that prompted Jeb Bush, the son of Mr. Baker's best friend, to distance himself underscored just how much their party has changed on the issue of Israel. Where past Republican leaders had their disagreements with Israel, today's Republicans have made support for the Jewish state an inviolable litmus test for anyone aspiring to national office.
When Bush added Jim Baker to his list of informal policy advisers, it was further proof of the former Florida governor enjoying the backing of the GOP establishment -- effectively borrowing gravitas by surrounding himself with his family's famous aides.
But when Baker took a stand in support of the United States against Netanyahu's insolence, Bush felt like he had no choice but to distance himself from his father's Secretary of State, condemning Baker's comments more than once.
We have, in other words, entered genuinely bizarre new territory. When there's an international disagreement, today's Republican Party is not only comfortable taking the opposite of the American side -- publicly, shamelessly, and repeatedly -- it also expects every Republican to reflexively fall in line, or face the right's wrath.


About The Rachel Maddow Show

Launched in 2008, “The Rachel Maddow Show” follows the machinations of policy making in America, from local political activism to international diplomacy. Rachel Maddow looks past the distractions of political theater and stunts and focuses on the legislative proposals and policies that shape American life - as well as the people making and influencing those policies and their ultimate outcome, intended or otherwise.

Rachel Maddow LIVE

Speak out! Make your voice heard by tagging your posts #maddow

  • Show
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

Latest Book