Ordinarily, criticisms of the Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling come from progressive critics concerned about the role of money in politics. Both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, for example, have condemned the current system, which they believe was made worse by the 2010 court decision.
It came as something of a surprise, then, when Jeb Bush, on the campaign trail in New Hampshire yesterday, had some unkind words for the Citizens United ruling. MSNBC's Benjy Sarlin reported:
Jeb Bush turned heads on Monday when he issued a call for a constitutional amendment to undo the Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United decision, which opened the floodgates to unlimited money groups like the pro-Bush powerhouse Right to Rise. However, his campaign quickly clarified that Bush was only reiterating an existing position, creating confusion over the remarks.
"The ideal situation would be to overturn the Supreme Court ruling that allows for ... unregulated money for the independent and regulated for the campaign," Bush said at a town hall in Nashua. "I would turn that on its head if I could."
The details matter, because while Bush's criticisms of Citizens United may have initially seemed encouraging to reform advocates, the Florida Republican envisions a system that reformers probably wouldn't like at all.
On the surface, the fact that Bush has a problem with the post-Citizens United world is unexpected. The Supreme Court's controversial ruling opened the door to super PACs, and no national candidate has had more success exploiting this campaign-finance dynamic than Jeb and his allies. The Right to Rise super PAC has been extraordinarily prolific in his fundraising, reportedly raising over $117 million last year in support of Bush's candidacy.
But it's the policy just below the surface that matters.
It's been about two weeks since the New York Times first reported that Michael Bloomberg, the billionaire Democrat-turned-Republican-turned-Independent former mayor of New York City, is interested in running a third-party presidential campaign. At the time, the report added that Bloomberg has already "taken concrete steps toward a possible campaign."
The Washington Postreported late yesterday that the former mayor isn't done floating trial balloons.
Michael Bloomberg confirmed to the Financial Times on Monday that, yes, he was considering a presidential run. "I find the level of discourse and discussion distressingly banal and an outrage and an insult to the voters," Bloomberg told the paper in the first instance on record of Donald Trump being called "banal."
The Financial Times' article has been restricted to the newspaper's subscribers, which is why I haven't linked to it directly.
Bloomberg would hardly be the first hyper-wealthy American to launch a third-party presidential campaign, but he might be the first to be motivated by concerns over "the level of discourse." As a rule, candidates for the nation's highest office are principally focused on substantive, not rhetorical, goals.
At least for now, it's difficult to say with confidence just how serious Bloomberg may be about this endeavor. As we discussed two weeks ago, the former NYC mayor spent a fair amount of time in 2008 considering an independent White House bid, and then repeated the process in 2012. In both instances, Bloomberg's interest caused a stir, but he eventually passed on the campaigns.
The problem, of course, is that there is no realistic scenario in which Bloomberg is actually elected president. Indeed, in the two weeks since people close to him first launched this trial balloon, there's been no public clamoring for his potential candidacy.
The only people cheering Bloomberg on are Republican officials and insiders, not because they see a great national leader, but because they see him as a candidate who would help split the center-left and make it that much easier for the GOP to control the White House and Congress in 2017 and 2018.
Whether or not Bloomberg recognizes this is unclear.
Marco Rubio confirmed many of the worst fears about his preparedness over the weekend, panicking during a debate and getting stuck in a recursive loop in which he mindlessly attacked President Obama's patriotism over and over again, using nearly the exact same words four times.
And last night, already facing ridicule, the overly scripted senator did it again. The New York Timesreported:
Maybe it was just the end of a long, tiring day of campaigning. Or maybe Senator Marco Rubio's opponents have gotten into his head.
But on Monday, Mr. Rubio, the Florida Republican, who has been under relentless criticism for uttering his talking points over and over in Saturday's presidential debate, had another repetitious lapse.
You can watch the clip here. He begins by complaining about the difficulties of raising children "in the 21st century" in light of "the values they try to ram down our throats." And then, moments later, the rattled senator said nearly the same thing, complaining once more about how hard it's become to raise children "in the 21st century" because of "the values they try to ram down our throats."
If you watch the clip, pay particular attention to the 0:26 mark, when Rubio actually pauses. He seems to realize that he's stuck, once again repeating the exact same talking point, but he was unable to break free of the script.
I saw some journalists question last night whether this actually happened, or whether Rubio critics edited the video to make him appear foolish. The authenticity of the clip, however, is confirmed.
There are two broad angles to this. The first, obviously, is the fact that Rubio's bad habits are catching up to him at an inconvenient time. The senator has long struggled with depth of thought, preferring superficial scripts to meaningful analysis. And while that may dazzle some observers for a while, eventually someone is going to expect a candidate to come up with an original thought that wasn't written on a notecard and handed to a would-be president to memorize.
And on this front, Marco Rubio just isn't ready for prime time. It's almost shocking how unimpressive he can be when pressed to think for himself.
Hillary Clinton, Democratic candidate for president, talks with Rachel Maddow about the state of her campaign, whether rumors of a coming staffing shake-up are true, and the latest flare-up between her supporters and the Sanders campaign over issues of sexism and civility. watch
Hillary Clinton, Democratic candidate for president, talks with Rachel Maddow about what she learned on her recent trip to Flint, Michigan and the plan she is helping to put together to try to get the needs of the people of Flint taken care of. watch
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton talks with Rachel Maddow about how the residual effect of years of Republican attacks is that many voters have a general feeling of distrust, and how she plans to address that in her campaign. watch
Rachel Maddow reports on chaos in the polling of the Republican presidential primary field in New Hampshire, made even more chaotic by the interruption of Marco Rubio's momentum by his awkward debate performance they seemed to confirm a pre-existing narrative that he is over-scripted. watch
* Fighting the Zika virus: "President Barack Obama will ask the U.S. Congress for more than $1.8 billion in emergency funding to fight the mosquito-borne Zika virus in the United States and other countries, the White House said on Monday."
* Good advice: "President Obama sought to assure Americans that the spread of the Zika virus should not evoke the panic that has accompanied past public health scares."
* North Korea "launched a long-range rocket Sunday, drawing stern condemnation from the U.S., Japan and the United Nations. While Pyongyang said the rocket carried a satellite, the launch was widely viewed as a cover for testing ballistic missile technology -- in defiance of United Nations sanctions."
* Related note: "The United Nations on Sunday condemned North Korea's satellite launch as a 'dangerous and serious' violation of international restrictions, and threatened new sanctions aimed at dissuading the rogue nation from building missiles capable of delivering weapons against distant adversaries, including the United States."
* It's not just Saudi Arabia: "A top official in the United Arab Emirates said Sunday that his country is prepared to send ground troops to Syria to fight Islamic State militants as part of an international coalition."
* Taiwan: "A powerful earthquake struck southern Taiwan Saturday, killing at least 14 people and leaving more than 150 people missing in one building alone, officials said."
* North Carolina: "Federal judges struck down late Friday two majority black congressional districts in North Carolina, saying race was the predominant factor in drawing those lines but state legislators lacked justification in using that practice."
Marco Rubio's debate debacle Saturday night, whether it hurts his campaign or not, was one of the more cringe worthy moments in modern debate history. The Florida senator did the one thing a candidate should never do -- Rubio confirmed an unflattering caricature -- and he did so on a widely seen national television event at a key juncture in the campaign.
But just as important as the Floridian's panic-induced repetition was the point Rubio kept repeating, word for word: "Let's dispel with this fiction that Barack Obama doesn't know what he's doing. He knows exactly what he's doing. He is trying to change this country."
Today, the senator practically bragged about the source of his embarrassment. The New York Timesreported:
"I'm going to say it again," Mr. Rubio said in front of a crowd of about 1,000 people who packed a high school cafeteria here, one of his largest New Hampshire audiences. "Barack Obama is the first president, at least in my lifetime, who wants to change the country. Change the country -- not fix it. Not fix its problems. He wants to make it a different kind of country."
It may seem like a strange thing for Rubio to whine about. In 1985, Ronald Reagan said he intended to "change America forever," and the Republican icon had some success on this front. Bill Clinton ran on a "change" platform, and he too delivered on a series of changes.
George W, Bush, for good or ill, changed the country. Barack Obama, love him or hate him, changed the country. People very rarely seek national office because they intend to leave things exactly as they are. On the contrary, would-be leaders seek powerful offices because they're not satisfied with the status quo.
Not to put too fine a point on this, but a President Rubio "wants to change the country," too -- by taking away families' health care benefits, ending efforts to combat climate change, turning back the clock on marriage equality, giving the wealthy a massive tax break the country can't afford, etc.
All of which leads to a rather basic question: why in the world is Rubio complaining so incessantly about President Obama being an agent of change? If you've misplaced your right-wing decoder ring, there's an actually an underappreciated answer to all of this.
A report from Politico has caused quite a stir in the political world this afternoon, quoting unnamed figures close to the Clinton campaign who said Hillary and Bill Clinton are "so dissatisfied with their campaign's messaging and digital operations they are considering staffing and strategy changes" following a likely defeat in the New Hampshire primary.
In her only national interview before Granite State Democrats head to the polls tomorrow, Clinton sat down with Rachel Maddow, who asked about the scuttlebutt.
MADDOW: Politico dot com, just this afternoon, just published something that says that there's changes in the works, and there's always these sort of campaign gossip stories but they say they are citing a half dozen people with direct knowledge of the situation. ... Are you planning some sort of shakeup like that?
CLINTON: Yeah somebody showed that to me. I have no idea what they're talking about or who they are talking to. We're going to take stock but it's going to be the campaign that I've got. I'm very confident in the people that I have. I'm very committed to them; they're committed to doing the best we can. We're going to take stock, what works, what doesn't work. We're moving into a different phase of the campaign. We're moving into a more diverse electorate. We're moving into different geographic areas. So, of course it would be malpractice not to say, "OK, what worked? What can we do better? What do we have to do new and different that we have to pull out?"
So, given these comments, it would seem the kind of shake-up Politico described is unlikely, though some changes in direction are probably in store.
The recent track record for Republican polling in the New Hampshire primary is quite good. In 2008, polling showed John McCain ahead by about 4 points and he won by about 5 points. In 2012, the survey data found Mitt Romney with a 20-point lead and he won by about 16 points.
And with one day remaining before the first-in-the-nation primary, where do things stand? The final New Hampshire poll from Monmouth University, conducted almost entirely before Saturday night's debate, has the race shaping up this way.
1. Donald Trump: 30% (down from 32% a month ago)
2. John Kasich: 14% (unchanged)
3. Marco Rubio: 13% (up from 12%)
3. Jeb Bush: 13% (up from 4%)
5. Ted Cruz: 12% (down from 14%)
6. Chris Christie: 6% (down from 8%)
A Franklin Pierce University-Boston Heraldpoll conducted over the same period produced some different results:
1. Donald Trump: 31% (down from 38% in late-January)
2. Ted Cruz: 16% (up from 13%)
3. Marco Rubio: 15% (up from 10%)
4. John Kasich: 11% (up from 8%)
5. Jeb Bush: 10% (unchanged)
6. Chris Christie: 5% (unchanged)
A CNN/UNH/WMUR tracking poll, meanwhile, found a different set of results:
1. Donald Trump: 33% (up from 28% from earlier in the week)
2. Marco Rubio: 16% (down from 17%)
3. Ted Cruz: 14% (up from 13%)
4. John Kasich: 11% (down from 13%)
5. Jeb Bush: 7% (down from 9%)
6. Carly Fiorina: 6% (up from 5%)
7. Chris Christie: 4% (unchanged)
And finally, UMass Lowell has its own tracking poll, which has the race shaping up this way:
Today's installment of campaign-related news items from across the country.
* The day before the New Hampshire primary, how many polls show Bernie Sanders with a comfortable lead over Hillary Clinton? All of them. FiveThirtyEight gives the Vermont independent a greater than 99% chance of winning.
* Bill Clinton took on an attack-dog role yesterday, blasting Sanders at a New Hampshire rally, insisting the senator's message was "hermetically-sealed" from reality.
* Add Jeb Bush's campaign to the list of folks creating an ad out of Rick Santorum's inability to think of any Marco Rubio accomplishments.
* Former California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) has recorded a robocall for John Kasich's presidential campaign.
* I didn't realize that when Rubio talks to reporters, his aides "select the reporters who can ask questions, often shutting down follow-ups."
* The editorial board of the Wall Street Journal is generally quite complementary towards Rubio, but it wrote today that "his gutting by New Jersey Governor Chris Christie on Saturday was as complete as any we've seen." The same editorial board concluded it was foolish for Rubio to condemn President Obama's speech at the Islamic Society of Baltimore.
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.