Duration: {{video.duration.momentjs}}
-
Playlist
Playlist
-
Full Episodes
Full Episodes
The Rachel Maddow Show
Now playing
Wednesday, 12/30/15Watch the full episode of Wednesday night's The Rachel Maddow Show.
-
- Information
-
- Information
-
-
comments
Rachel Maddow StoriesRSS
New Year's Open Thread
Like late last week, it's probably going to be fairly quiet here at MaddowBlog for the next couple of days, and readers should expect a light-to-nonexistent posting schedule.
I will, however, be around in case there's breaking news, and there will be a new installment of "This Week in God" on Saturday morning.
Wednesday's Mini-Report, 12.30.15
Today's edition of quick hits:
* Midwest flooding: "Raging waters threatened to breach or weaken 19 federal levees along the Mississippi River Wednesday, forcing the evacuation of hundreds of homes as Missouri braced for 'historic' floods."
* Brussels: "Authorities in the Belgian capital Brussels on Wednesday called off the city's traditional New Year's Eve fireworks display, citing fears of a militant attack. On Tuesday, federal prosecutors said two people suspected of plotting an attack in Brussels on New Year's Eve had been arrested during house searches in different parts of the country."
* Not helpful: "Senior U.S. military commanders on Wednesday accused Iran's military of 'highly provocative' actions in firing unguided rockets 1,500 yards from ships including an American aircraft carrier."
* Chicago: "Resisting calls to resign from office, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel on Wednesday unveiled a series of changes to lethal force policies for city police – including plans to double the number [of] tasers for officers -- amid public unrest over a rash of fatal shootings involving police."
* An important, albeit widely overlooked, story: "One of the biggest losers of 2015 was an entire branch of government. Federal courts got screwed by Senate Republicans."
* The "war on cops" never existed: "This year will go down in the record books as one of the safest for police officers in recorded history, according to data released this week from the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund. There were 42 fatal shootings of police officers in 2015, down 14 percent from 2014, according to the organization."
The worst year in Washington, or the best?
Every year around this time, the Washington Post's Chris Cillizza extends an unwelcome "honor" to an unlucky political figure: the prize for The Worst Year in Washington. As it turns out, in 2015, Cillizza chose two "winners."
The first, not surprisingly, was Jeb Bush, and the selection makes perfect sense. As the year got underway, the former governor was a top contender for the Republican presidential nomination -- by some accounts, the frontrunner -- who saw his support steadily decline as 2015 progressed. The Floridian never expected to be doing this poorly at this stage in the race, so it's hardly unreasonable to think he had The Worst Year in Washington.
But according to Cillizza, Jeb is sharing the award with, of all people, Hillary Clinton. The argument is based almost entirely on the email-server-management controversy -- remember that? -- which few could explain when it was front-page news, and which appears entirely irrelevant as 2015 comes to a close.
Clinton ends 2015 on a far better note than seemed possible in the doldrums of August. But, like Bush, she took home Worst Week in Washington four times this year. And problems remain.
I understand Cillizza's case, and the temporary feeding frenzy surrounding the email story over the summer was no doubt unpleasant for the Democrat and her team, but looking back over the year, I'd actually argue Clinton had one of the best years in Washington, not the worst.
The Pundit Accountability Audit, 2015 Edition
I think it was the Washington Post's Dave Weigel, when he was still with Slate, who introduced the idea of an annual "Pundit Audit" five years ago. It's a pretty straightforward exercise: professional political pundits look back over the previous 12 months, and in the interest of accountability, they highlight instances in which their predictions and/or expectations were plainly wrong.
It's always struck me as a worthwhile, albeit painful, endeavor, which pundits should subject themselves to at least once a year.
And so, without further ado, let's review my most notable missteps.
1. Trump, Trump, Trump
Wow, was I wrong about Donald Trump. I initially made the case that he wouldn't run for president at all, and then when he launched, I dismissed him as a joke who stood no realistic chance of seriously competing. It's safe to say he's done a little better than I expected. OK, more than a little.
2. Scott Walker really did look like a strong presidential contender
It was a recipe for electoral success: a far-right governor, with plenty of far-right accomplishments, who enjoyed broad credibility with the Republican establishment and its activist base, was running for president. I expected Walker to be one of the last men standing, not realizing just how horrible a candidate he would turn out to be.
3. Gov. Bevin?
In Kentucky's gubernatorial race, Democrats saw Matt Bevin as the weakest of the three GOP candidates, and I agreed with them. When he won the Republican primary, and the polls showed him trailing, I expected Bevin -- a bad candidate with a bad message -- to lose. Instead, he won easily.
4. Paul Ryan as House Speaker
In October, when House Republicans were descending towards chaos, I thought it might be a long while before they found a successor to Speaker John Boehner. Even after Paul Ryan grudgingly made himself available, I argued that the House Freedom Caucus would balk and keep the gavel from his hands. Instead, Ryan dropped his demands and made the process far simpler -- and less dramatic -- than I expected it to go.
The U.S., Israel, and a little espionage among friends
If online chatter is any indication, a Wall Street Journal report published last night on U.S. surveillance programs and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is causing quite a stir.
The U.S., pursuing a nuclear arms agreement with Iran at the time, captured communications between Mr. Netanyahu and his aides that inflamed mistrust between the two countries and planted a political minefield at home when Mr. Netanyahu later took his campaign against the deal to Capitol Hill.The National Security Agency's targeting of Israeli leaders and officials also swept up the contents of some of their private conversations with U.S. lawmakers and American-Jewish groups. That raised fears -- an "Oh-s*** moment," one senior U.S. official said -- that the executive branch would be accused of spying on Congress.
Let's unwrap this a bit, because it gets a little tricky.
In March, the Journal reported that Israel spied on U.S. officials and others involved in the international nuclear talks with Iran, penetrating the negotiations, and "acquiring" confidential U.S. materials. This didn't come as too big of a surprise -- rumors about Israeli intelligence officials operating on American soil have been common for years, U.S. officials have "largely tolerated Israeli snooping."
This round of espionage, however, was more offensive to the Obama administration because Israelis appear to have shared sensitive information with Republicans in the hopes of sabotaging American foreign policy. As a senior U.S. official put it at the time, "It is one thing for the U.S. and Israel to spy on each other. It is another thing for Israel to steal U.S. secrets and play them back to U.S. legislators to undermine U.S. diplomacy."
The spying, we now know, didn't pan out -- the P5+1 talks were productive, and the United States and our negotiating partners eventually struck a deal.
That was Part I of the story. Part II is where things got really interesting.
Wednesday's Campaign Round-Up, 12.30.15
Today's installment of campaign-related news items from across the country.
* Ben Carson initially said he was planning a staff shake-up. Then he said the opposite. Yesterday, he went back to his previous position, vowing to announce changes early next week.
* Ted Cruz huddled with "conservative faith leaders" in Cisco, Texas, yesterday as part of a broader effort to secure evangelical support for his campaign. The gathering was hosted at a ranch owned by one of the senator's mega-donors, and included "about 300 prominent faith leaders."
* Speaking of Cruz, the corn lobby still hopes to derail the senator's campaign in advance of the Iowa caucuses, fearing that a Cruz victory will put federal ethanol subsidies in jeopardy.
* For the first time this year, Donald Trump's campaign "quietly signed an agreement allowing it to use the Republican National Committee's massive voter file." The move "reveals a new level of cooperation between the GOP and its surprise front-runner."
* With an endorsement from Erin Bilbray, a member of the Democratic National Committee from Nevada, Bernie Sanders now has 11 superdelegates. Hillary Clinton, by the Associated Press' count, has 359.
* Ted Cruz continues to pick up non-establishment endorsements, including one yesterday from Shane Vander Hart, "a fixture in the Iowa conservative blogosphere."
* John Kasich, took an unexpected shot at Jeb Bush yesterday, comparing the Florida Republican to Betamax and the "Macarena." In the Ohio governor's new ad, viewers are told, "Jeb loves the good ol' days."
A key point of contention between Gowdy and Rubio
Marco Rubio's presidential campaign picked up another congressional endorsement this week, though this one was a little higher profile than most: Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), best known for his chairmanship of the Republicans' Benghazi committee, threw his support behind the Florida senator. In fact, Gowdy even traveled to Iowa to campaign on Rubio's behalf.
The announcement, which came as something of surprise -- the congressman avoided 2016 politics for months -- sparked two areas of discussion. The first focused on the GOP's Beltway establishment continuing to look at Rubio as the party's least bad choice for next year's presidential race. Especially given the importance of South Carolina's primary, Gowdy's support was sought after by much of the Republican field.
The other discussion, pushed by Donald Trump, emphasized the abject failure of Gowdy's debacle of a committee.
But Salon's Simon Maloy flagged an under-appreciated angle to all of this: "[A] Gowdy-Rubio campaign tag team is actually kind of awkward for Rubio, given the extent to which their records clash."
As you're probably aware, there's a bit of a collision happening right now between Rubio and fellow 2016 candidate Ted Cruz as the two have risen in national and state polling. Cruz has been whacking Rubio for his support for comprehensive immigration reform, and Rubio has hit back by arguing that Cruz had "weakened" national security by voting for the USA Freedom Act, which reformed intelligence gathering procedures and ended the government's bulk data collection of phone records. In Rubio's estimation, the legislation jeopardizes the safety of the American people."I know this, if God forbid there's an attack tomorrow morning in another major U.S. city, the first question everyone is going to have is: Why didn't we know about them, and how come we didn't stop it?" he said on Fox News earlier this month. "And the answer better not be: Because a tool we once had that could have allowed us to identify them is no longer available to us."
Gowdy not only joined Ted Cruz in voting for the USA Freedom Act, the South Carolina Republican was one of the bill's original co-sponsors.
In other words, as far as Marco Rubio is concerned, his new pal "weakened" national security and "harmed our intelligence programs" at a critical time.
Ted Cruz exploits the power of cultural resentment
The voting-rights fight in Alabama grew even more controversial in the fall, when the state closed 31 driver's license offices, which in turn made it that much more difficult for residents to get the ID they now have to show in order to vote. The state's move, launched in October, has already drawn federal scrutiny.
And as it turns out, it's an issue in the presidential campaign as well. Hillary Clinton, who has made voting rights an important part of her platform, has been deeply critical of Alabama's DMV decision, calling it "a blast from the Jim Crow past." Last week, Ted Cruz campaigned in Alabama, and as the Washington Post reported, the Texas Republican told a local CBS affiliate what he thought of Clinton's concerns.
"It's not surprising to see a Democrat like Hillary Clinton coming in and attacking states, particularly Southern states," Cruz said. "Frankly, it's a bigotry from the Democrats. They look down on the Southern states like we're a bunch of hicks. Look, I'm from Texas and Hillary Clinton is not a big fan of my state either. We don't need more politicians from Washington looking down on us like a fly-over company."We've had seven years of a president who looks down on the American people. Hillary Clinton thinks we're just a bunch of ignorant rubes, and we need to be governed by what she deems as moral and philosophical betters. I think that's complete nonsense. I believe in the American people."
The rhetoric is almost too ridiculous to analyze, and it's hard to imagine even Cruz believes his own rhetoric. Championing voting rights, and calling out those who make it harder for Americans to cast a ballot, is not "bigotry." It's the opposite.
But putting reality aside for a moment, the quote is a reminder about Cruz's ability to exploit cultural resentment. The Texas Republican could try to defend his party's war on voting, but that would be difficult. It's vastly easier to encourage Southern white voters to see themselves as victims of cultural elites.
It's hollow and ugly, but a whole lot of GOP candidates have had quite a bit of success with a simple pitch: "They see you as a bunch of ignorant rubes and I don't." To overlook this style of campaigning -- and the potency of cultural resentment -- is to overlook one of the factors that contributes to Republican dominance in the South.
'Obamacare' wrapping up 2015 on a high note
The Affordable Care Act's enrollment totals this year are not only excellent, they're also exceeding projections and last year's tallies. Sarah Kliff explained yesterday that the individual mandate -- the policy Republicans embraced until President Obama agreed with them -- is doing exactly what it was intended to do, which helps explain the encouraging data.
[R]ecent enrollment data shows that the mandate is working. The exact type of people the requirement was meant to target -- young, healthy adults who might forgo coverage were it not for a government fine -- signed up in record numbers this year.Having a decent number of young and health people in the insurance pool is integral to making costs affordable for everyone, which is exactly why the mandate exists in the first place. And architects of Obamacare's enrollment strategy say that talking about the mandate -- something Obamacare supporters didn't really start doing until 2015 -- has been core to making it work.
The result is a system that's working according to plan. A lot of younger consumers -- the kind of folks who tend to be healthier -- want to avoid the penalty of going without coverage, so they're doing exactly what the ACA's architects hoped they'd do: they're buying insurance.
This, in turn, boosts enrollment totals, which lowers the uninsured rate, which helps keep costs down, which strengthens the financial health of the overall health care system.
Paul Krugman added the other day, "One of the remarkable aspects of the politics of health reform is the way conservatives -- even relatively mild, seemingly informed conservatives -- have managed to keep believing that Obamacare is unraveling, despite the repeated failure of disaster predictions to come true. Part of the way this works is that captive media and the right's pet 'experts' hype every bit of bad news, but go silent when the news is good (and, often, when the bad news turns out to have been a false alarm.) How many will even hear about the news that enrollments are once again running above expectations, and the pool is getting younger?"
'Watching a computer algorithm designed to cover talking points'
When pundits praise Marco Rubio's debate performances -- and good lord do they gush -- the acclaim generally focuses less on what the senator has said and more on how he said it. Multi-candidate debates, after all, have become political theater, and the participants are seen less as would-be presidents and more as performers, evaluated on their ability to hit their marks, remember their script, and deliver their lines.
And no matter what you think of Rubio's record or vision, the Floridian understands these rules very well. More so than any of his rivals, the first-term senator can hear a question, remember the relevant portion of his stump speech, and regurgitate the pertinent soundbite as if he'd spent a week practicing in front of a mirror.
Are the talking points true? Does his agenda have substantive merit? Rubio knows these are pesky details that are generally overlooked, so he, like the pundits who fawn over him, doesn't seem to care.
But once in a great while, a reporter notices the senator's robotic qualities and is less impressed than his media brethren. For example, Erik Eisele, a reporter for the Conway Daily Sun in New Hampshire, spent some time with Rubio last week, and wrote soon after:
We had roughly 20 minutes with him on Monday, and in that time he talked about ISIS, the economy, his political record and his background. But it was like watching a computer algorithm designed to cover talking points. He said a lot, but at the same time said nothing. It was like someone wound him up, pointed him towards the doors and pushed play. If there was a human side to senator, a soul, it didn't come across through.That might sound like harsh critique, but in essence that is the point of the New Hampshire primary, to test candidates in a retail politics setting.
At least in this case, it was a test the young senator failed.
Experienced GOP presidential candidates the first to quit
Former New York Gov. George Pataki announced he is ending his 2016 presidential campaign in a message to GOP voters that aired on NBC News affiliates in the early primary states of New Hampshire, Iowa and South Carolina."While tonight is the end of my journey for the White House as I suspend my campaign for president, I am confident we can elect the right person," Pataki said.
There's no real point in scrutinizing Pataki's failure too closely, since most Americans, even those following the presidential race with passive interest, probably forgot he was running. The former governor had no support in the polls, no meaningful campaign operation, and very little money. His departure from the stage will have no impact on the overall race.
What is important, however, is to consider Pataki's difficulties as a candidate in the broader context. It's easy to forget, but on paper, he looked like a very credible contender: Pataki is a former mayor, a former state lawmaker, and the former three-term governor of one of the nation's largest states. In a crowded field, few could boast of this kind of resume.
But in 2016, experienced candidates with real qualifications for national office are doomed.
Pages
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.
