Show StoriesRSS
.@hardball .@SteveKornacki a bit of history from my Reagan Library of Historical Facts circa 1986 pic.twitter.com/v6X1VWza3J
— sharon stillson (@stillonline) April 23, 2014
Ahead on the 4/23/14 Maddow show
Tonight's guests:
- Will Bunch, senior writer at the Philadelphia Daily News and author of "Tear Down This Myth: How the Reagan legacy has distorted our politics and haunts our future."
- John Stanton, Washington bureau chief for Buzzfeed
The Bill Wolff video is still stuck in the machine but hopefully it'll be along shortly...
The difference 'active and eager partners from the other party' can make
The nation recently recognized the 50th anniversary of President Johnson signing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 into law, which in turn sparked a related conversation about presidents, breakthrough accomplishments, and whether they're a thing of the past.
Peter Baker asked, for example, whether it's still "even possible for a president to do big things anymore." The usual suspects said President Obama could have more of the landmark legislative victories LBJ achieved if only he schmoozed more, led harder, and bent Congress to his will.
LIke many of us, Norm Ornstein is tired of this, and returned to the subject this week because he felt "compelled to whack this mole once more." I'm glad he did.
I do understand the sentiment here and the frustration over the deep dysfunction that has taken over our politics. It is tempting to believe that a president could overcome the tribalism, polarization, and challenges of the permanent campaign, by doing what other presidents did to overcome their challenges. It is not as if passing legislation and making policy was easy in the old days.But here is the reality, starting with the Johnson presidency.... [H]is drive for civil rights was aided in 1964 by having the momentum following John F. Kennedy's assassination, and the partnership of Republicans Everett Dirksen and Bill McCullough, detailed beautifully in new books by Clay Risen and Todd Purdum. And Johnson was aided substantially in 1965-66 by having swollen majorities of his own party in both chambers of Congress -- 68 of 100 senators, and 295 House members, more than 2-to-1 margins.
This is very much in line with what we talked about two weeks ago: those who want to know whether presidents can still do big things are making a mistake if they focus solely on one end of Pennsylvania Avenue. Some of the most important legislative accomplishments of this generation happened between 2009 and 2010, in part because of Obama's leadership, and in part because Congress was eager to govern.
The political process collapsed in 2011, not because the president schmoozed less or forgot how to get things done, but because power changed hands on Capitol Hill.
Ornstein pushed this observation further, in ways journalists -- at National Journal and elsewhere -- need to understand.
Kentucky's 'indisputable success'
No state has worked harder than Kentucky to implement the Affordable Care Act effectively. The results speak for themselves.
The Beshear administration claimed Tuesday that implementation of the Affordable Care Act in Kentucky has been an "indisputable success" with more than 413,000 enrolling for coverage before the March deadline.Gov. Steve Beshear announced the figures in a Capitol press conference, seeking to underscore his long-held contention that the federal law will provide untold health benefits for the commonwealth despite critics who argue otherwise.Beshear said about 75 percent of applicants in the state's health benefit exchange, called kynect, lacked any insurance and were unable to access needed care or teetered on the edge of bankruptcy before signing up.
The Democratic governor added that ACA detracts are stuck on an "echo chamber," unable to recognize that "this is working -- that's the bottom line."
At the event, Beshear introduced a local woman who had an emergency appendectomy last month, and who would have faced "catastrophic" economic conditions had she not enrolled in Kentucky's insurance marketplace.
Soon after, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) issued a statement complaining about the law anyway because, well, just because.
As for the broader political implications, there are a couple of angles to keep in mind.
Georgia's 'Guns Everywhere Bill'
Just a few minutes ago, Georgia Gov. Nathan Deal (R) signed sweeping new gun legislation into law, and while it's technically the "Safe Carry Protection Act," NBC News' Gabe Gutierrez noted that many have labeled it the "Guns Everywhere Bill."
One of the most permissive state gun laws in the nation, it will allow licensed owners to carry firearms into more public places than at any time in the past century, including bars and government buildings that don't have security checkpoints.The law also authorizes school districts to appoint staffers to carry firearms. It allows churches to "opt-in" if they want to allow weapons. Bars could already "opt-in" to allow weapons, but under the new law they must opt out if they want to bar weapons. Permit-holders who accidentally bring a gun to an airport security checkpoint will now be allowed to pick up their weapon and leave with no criminal penalty. (At Atlanta's Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport, a record 111 guns were found at TSA screening areas last year.)Americans for Responsible Solutions, the group co-founded by former Arizona congresswoman Gabby Giffords, has called the legislation "the most extreme gun bill in America."
Despite the opposition of gun-safety reformers and Georgia law enforcement, the bill was passed with relative ease. The governor's Democratic challenger, state Sen. Jason Carter, voted for it, too, though he made it slightly less extreme, helping eliminate some provisions, including a measure allowing guns on college campuses.
Regardless, the new state law, which takes effect in July, also expands on Georgia's "stand your ground" policy by "protecting convicted felons who kill using illegal guns."
Frank Rotondo, the executive director of Georgia Association of Chiefs of Police, told The Guardian, "One of the biggest concerns is it expands stand-your-ground. The way it's written, a felon who is not permitted to have a weapon could use a weapon in defense of his or her home and not be charged for having the weapon."
Oddly enough, a similar bill recently passed the Arizona legislature, though it met a different fate.
Rand Paul crosses the Reagan/Carter line
A couple of weeks ago, David Corn had a fascinating report on a speech Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) delivered in 2009 -- the year before his election -- in which he condemned Dick Cheney's foreign policy views in unusually strong terms. In fact, Paul seemed to come fairly close to accusing the former Vice President of a corruption on a massive scale, suggesting Cheney used 9/11 as an excuse to invade Iraq in order to boost Halliburton profits.
It led to some speculation about whether comments like these would ruin Paul's national ambitions, but they didn't necessarily seem like an automatic deal breaker. After all, it's hardly a secret that the senator rejects the neoconservative worldview. In a Republican primary, Cheney bashing won't help, but one can imagine an adept candidate overcoming this.
David Corn's new scoop, however, might be more of a problem.
...Paul hasn't always cast himself as much of a Reagan fan. In fact, when he stumped for his father in 2008 and again when ran for Senate in 2010, Paul often referred to the grand old man of the GOP with a touch of disappointment and criticism. And he routinely made an assertion that might seem like blasphemy to many Republicans: President Jimmy Carter had a better record on fiscal discipline than Reagan.In a variety of campaign appearances that were captured on video, Paul repeatedly compared Reagan unfavorably to Carter on one of Paul's top policy priorities: government spending.
It's not hard to imagine Republican presidential candidates turning some of these clips into attack ads.
When the right attacks the ACA from the left
The right's election-year attack on the Affordable Care Act was supposed to be pretty straightforward: it's big government, it raised taxes, the website didn't work for a couple of months, and it falls under some strange definition of "socialism."
But as "Obamacare" starts to look a whole lot better than it did a few months ago, conservatives are switching gears a bit. In fact, the new argument from the right is nothing short of amazing: conservatives are attacking the ACA for not being liberal enough.
Yesterday, for example, Freedom Partners, a political operation that enjoys financial support from Charles and David Koch, launched a new attack ad in Michigan's U.S. Senate race, targeting Rep. Gary Peters (D). The voice-over tells viewers:
"Congressman Gary Peters says he's standing up to health insurance companies. The truth? Peters voted for Obamacare, which will give billions of taxpayer dollars to health insurance companies."
Got that? After years in which the right screamed at every opportunity that the Affordable Care Act was a socialized government takeover of the American health care system, these exact same conservatives now want the public to believe the exact opposite: the ACA is a sweetheart deal for the private health insurance industry that tried to kill the law before it passed.
Maybe now would be a good time to mention that this is bonkers. The Koch brothers' operation and its allies can argue that the Affordable Care Act is socialism or they can argue it's a giveaway to Corporate America. They can claim the "Obamacare" is radical liberalism or they can claim it's too conservative.
But to argue all of this at the same time is to treat Americans like idiots.