Rachel Maddow talks to Frank Rich, writer-at-large for New York Magazine, about the impending republican presidential debate and which candidates from the ever-growing field will make the cut to be included on the debate stage. watch
Rachel Maddow talks to South Carolina State Rep. Todd Rutherford about the day of reckoning for the Confederate Flag in South Carolina, as the legislature took up the issue of whether the flag should be taken down outside the state capitol building. watch
Rachel Maddow talks to AP legal affairs reporter MaryClaire Dale, the reporter who broke the story that Bill Cosby admitted to obtaining quaaludes to give to women for the purpose of having sex with them. watch
* Greece: "Germany maintained a hard line with Athens on Monday after Greek voters rejected Europe's austerity policies in a referendum, intensifying pressure on Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras to restart bailout talks and opening a rift with European countries that appeared more inclined now to consider softening the push for austerity."
* ISIS: "America's battle against ISIS, dominated thus far by airstrikes and training opposition forces, must also include a battle against the group's 'twisted thinking,' President Obama said Monday. 'This is not simply a military effort,' Obama said in remarks after getting briefed on the anti-ISIS effort at the Pentagon. 'Ideologies are not defeated by guns. They're defeated with better ideas.'"
* Heartbreaking gun violence in Chicago: "Nine people died and 46 others were wounded in shootings across Chicago this Fourth of July weekend. Among those who died was a 7-year-old boy who was shot while watching fireworks in Humboldt Park with his father just before midnight Saturday."
* Keep an eye on this one: "Sometime in the next few weeks, aides expect President Obama to issue orders freeing dozens of federal prisoners locked up on nonviolent drug offenses. With the stroke of his pen, he will probably commute more sentences at one time than any president has in nearly half a century."
* An alarmingly early start for Washington's wildfire season: "Normally soggy Washington -- nicknamed the Evergreen State for good reason and home to the wettest town in the Lower 48 -- has never been hotter or drier at this point in the year, officials say, and the fire season has never begun so early or so fiercely."
* Hmm: "Former attorney general Eric Holder said today that a 'possibility exists' for the Justice Department to cut a deal with former NSA contractor Edward Snowden that would allow him to return to the United States from Moscow."
The debate itself is overdue. As msnbc's Joy-Ann Reid reported, 154 years ago, South Carolina troops raised a Confederate flag in Charleston harbor on the day of President Abraham Lincoln's inauguration. A century later, another Confederate flag was "hoisted over the statehouse in a gesture of defiance against federal court-ordered desegregation"
And this morning, South Carolina's state Senate began debate on S. 897 -- a proposal to remove the Confederate battle flag from the Capitol grounds and move it to an interior "relic room for appropriate display."
For those hoping to see the state move forward, the debate may have been contentious, but it was constructive. The Post and Courierreported this afternoon:
Members of the South Carolina Senate have voted 37-3 to remove the Confederate battle flag from the Statehouse grounds.
Sen. Lee Bright, R-Roebuck, objected to giving the bill automatic third reading, which is usually a procedural vote, on Tuesday. For the bill to be sent to the House, it will need a two-thirds vote.
I'm not an expert in South Carolina's legislature procedures, but as I understand it, the state Senate will reconvene tomorrow for one last vote on the bill. Assuming there are no dramatic changes overnight, that vote will also be lopsided, at which point the bill will move on to the state House, where the margin is expected to be considerably closer.
Gov. Nikki Haley (R), who helped start the political debate, will sign the bill if it reaches her desk.
In the state Senate, the opposition votes came by way of just three Republican members: Lee Bright, Harvey Peeler, and Danny Verdin.
Bright, a former primary rival to Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and the current state co-chair of Sen. Ted Cruz's (R-Texas) presidential campaign, did more than just oppose the proposal.
It was just a couple of weeks ago that Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) unveiled his flat-tax plan, which is a bit of a mess. The Republican presidential hopeful assembled "an all-star team of the kookiest pseudo-economists in the history of the Republican Party" to help him craft a plan, and he came up with a 14.5% federal rate.
In practical terms, Paul is proposing a multi-trillion-dollar tax overhaul that the country couldn't possibly afford. But in ideological terms, the GOP senator's vision on tax policy is arguably even more outrageous.
BuzzFeed's Andrew Kaczynski reported today on remarks Paul delivered last week in Cedar Rapids, Iowa:
Paul said he believes that "you have to give up some of your liberty to have government," saying he was "for some government."
"I'm for paying some taxes," continued Paul. "But if we tax you at 100% then you've got zero percent liberty. If we tax you at 50% you are half slave, half free. I frankly would like to see you a little freer and a little more money remaining in your communities so you can create jobs. It's a debate we need to have."
Well, maybe. We can have a debate, for example, about the correlation between income-tax cuts and job creation -- which Rand Paul may not understand quite as well as he thinks he does. The senator might want to talk to Sam Brownback in Kansas about whether one leads to the other.
But once presidential candidates start equating taxpayers and slaves, there's a more serious problem.
In January 2014, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) held a lengthy press conference in which he tried to show at least some contrition. After scoffing at his "Bridgegate" scandal for weeks -- he even told reporters they would have to apologize to members of his team -- the Republican governor was confronted with so much evidence of wrongdoing within the Christie administration that he felt compelled to apologize.
A year and a half later, the governor is now a presidential candidate, and he's made the transition from humiliation to self-pity. As he did in May, Christie told Fox News yesterday he wants news organizations to apologize to him over Christie's own scandal.
It's a genuinely bizarre dynamic -- some of Christie's top aides conspired to cripple a community on purpose, abusing their power in the governor's name to a literally criminal degree, and Christie's defense is that he was simply too ignorant to know what was going on around him, creating a scandal that left him "embarrassed and humiliated."
And now he's waiting for journalists to apologize to him, as if Chris Christie were the victim of his own fiasco. The governor appeared on msnbc this morning, and continued to dismiss one of the biggest controversies of his career.
"Nobody cares [about Bridgegate]. They don't care cause here's why. They don't care because there's now been three independent investigations, all of which have said the exact same thing that I said the day after it happened. At some point people just say well after three investigations two of which were run by Democrats ... after a while people just say, 'Okay, I guess he's telling the truth.'"
Continuing to feel sorry for himself, the scandal-plagued governor added, "Instead of just standing up and saying what they should say, which is, 'We're sorry governor, for having jumped to conclusions, we're sorry for not only having accused you, but convicted you,' they say, 'Oh, it's a culture.' ... It wasn't a culture because if it was, there would have been a lot more of these incidents."
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:
* It only took two-and-a-half weeks, but Jeb Bush said over the weekend that he was offended by Donald Trump's anti-Mexican rhetoric. "To make these extraordinarily ugly kind of comments is not reflective of the Republican Party," for the former governor said, after ignoring the issue.
* To the delight of the NRSC, Rep. Joe Heck (R-Nev.) made it official this morning, kicking off his U.S. Senate campaign in Nevada.
* Ted Cruz announced his fundraising totals overnight, pointing to a $10 million second quarter, which isn't bad given his relatively weak standing in national polls. Cruz's super PAC has also reportedly raised over $37 million, though that's a cumulative total since the start of the year.
* Though it's not the team he intended to run with, Chris Christie has hired a new campaign manager: Ken McKay, a "well-regarded operative who previously has served as chief of staff at the Republican National Committee and as political director of the Republican Governors Association." Maria Comella, a longtime Christie confidante, will serve as his campaign's "chief messaging officer."
* There's no shortage of Nazi-related quotes from this guy: "Republican presidential candidate Dr. Ben Carson said in February 2012 that "political correctness" has caused Americans to fall 'silent, very much like the people in Nazi Germany were silent.'"
* In New York's 21st district, which the DCCC has its eyes on, retired Army Col. Mike Derrick (D) has announced he'll take on freshman Rep. Elise Stefanik (R) next year. It's one of the state's more competitive districts, which President Obama won twice.
Three weeks ago, Politico published a fairly long, front-page piece with a provocative headline: "Benghazi panel probes Sidney Blumenthal's work for David Brock." At issue, of course, is the House Select Committee on Benghazi, already responsible for one of the longest congressional investigations in congressional history, and its meandering focus.
But the Politico article went further than most, highlighting some news that hadn't been reported elsewhere.
While still secretary of state, Clinton emailed back and forth with Blumenthal about efforts by one of the groups, Media Matters, to neutralize criticism of her handling of the deadly assault on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, sources tell POLITICO.
"Got all this done. Complete refutation on Libya smear," Blumenthal wrote to Clinton in an Oct. 10, 2012, email into which he had pasted links to four Media Matters posts criticizing Fox News and Republicans for politicizing the Benghazi attacks and challenging claims of lax security around the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, according to a source who has reviewed the email exchange. Blumenthal signed off the email to Clinton by suggesting that one of her top aides, Philippe Reines, "can circulate these links," according to the source. Clinton responded: "Thanks, I'm pushing to WH," according to the source.
The emails were not included in documents originally turned over by the State Department.
For the Republican Party's many Benghazi enthusiasts, the report painted a nefarious picture, based on information the State Department had kept under wraps. Indeed, the fact that then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton responded, "Thanks, I'm pushing to WH," raised the prospect of Clinton urging the White House to shape its talking points based on Media Matters' reports -- a revelation that might help explain the GOP-led panel's interest in David Brock.
There was, however, a problem: the Politico report wasn't entirely accurate -- or more to the point, the Politico report was based in part on information leaked to the news outlet that turned out to be untrue.
The Supreme Court recently handed the right some very tough defeats, but about a week ago, the New York Timesreported on the silver lining for the Republican Party. Many in the GOP believe the court rulings, most notably on marriage equality, offer Republicans a chance to "pivot" away from issues on which the party is "sharply out of step with the American public."
The piece noted some Republican strategists privately characterized the high court decisions as "nothing short of a gift from above." All GOP officials and candidates have to do now is seize the "opening to turn the election toward economic and national security issues."
Of course, it's not altogether clear such a pivot would be an electoral winner for the party -- the public isn't exactly clamoring for tax breaks for millionaires and more wars -- but it would at least give Republicans a better chance at success.
The trouble, of course, is that much of the party has already rejected the premise behind the pivot. The Hillreported over the weekend:
Congressional Republicans are coming under pressure to respond to the Supreme Court's ruling on gay marriage when they return to Washington next week.
Religious organizations aligned with the GOP are concerned the government will punish them for opposing same-sex marriage, and want lawmakers to put in place new protections for people with faith-based objections.
The groups are putting their lobbying energy behind the First Amendment Defense Act, a bill that would prohibit the government from retaliating against churches, schools and adoption agencies that only recognize heterosexual marriage.
The "First Amendment Defense Act" -- conservatives really do excel in the bill-naming department -- is not just a hypothetical. The legislation has already been introduced in both the House and Senate -- the lead sponsors are Rep. Raul Labrador (R-Idaho) and Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), respectively -- and it's actually faring quite well. The House version already has 69 co-sponsors (68 Republicans and one Democrat), while the Senate bill has 21 co-sponsors (all 21 are Republicans).
Note, Sens. Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and Lindsey Graham, each of whom are running for president, are among the bill's champions.
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) and his allies in the GOP-led state legislature have taken some pretty brazen steps in recent years, but the recent controversy over the state's open-records law was striking, even for them.
The Badger State is home to one of the more expansive open-records laws in the country, though late Thursday -- shortly before the start of a holiday weekend -- Republican officials went after state policy in ways few saw coming. The Wisconsin State Journalreported:
Legislative Republicans on Thursday passed sweeping changes to the state's open records law that would dramatically curtail the kind of information available to the public about the work that public officials do.
The proposal blocks the public from reviewing nearly all records created by lawmakers, state and local officials or their aides, including electronic communications and the drafting files of legislation.
As TPM's Josh Marshall noted, of particular interest was a provision called a "legislator disclosure privilege," which would have empowered state legislators to withhold official information about their work -- a "privilege" that does not currently exist in any other state.
The Wisconsin State Journal piece added this gem: "Despite voting for the motion, Republican members of the panel all professed not to know who proposed the public-records changes."
Got that? The day before a holiday weekend, during "a late-night session," someone on the legislature's budget committee -- we don't know who -- quietly added a provision to scrap Wisconsin's open-records laws. The budget committee then passed this on a party-line vote, with every Democrat voting against it and every Republican voting for it.
But when asked for an explanation, the GOP members themselves said they had no idea how the policy they voted for ended up in the document.
The initial concern surrounding Donald Trump's presidential campaign was that he would qualify for the debate stage, denying a slot that would otherwise go to a more serious candidate. But yesterday offered a vivid example of the effect Trump is having on the campaign: he's dominating the Republican conversation in ways that do the GOP no favors.
Here, for example, was Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) on NBC's "Meet the Press" yesterday:
"I salute Donald Trump for focusing on the need to address illegal immigration. The Washington cartel doesn't want to address that. The Washington cartel doesn't believe we need to secure the borders. The Washington cartel supports amnesty and I think amnesty is wrong and I salute Donald Trump for focusing on it. He has a colorful way of speaking. It is not the way I speak. But I'm not going to engage in the media game of throwing rocks and attacking other Republicans."
Former Gov. Mike Huckabee (R) was asked on CNN's "State of the Union" whether Trump's anti-Mexican comments have hurt the Republican Party?
"Well, I say some things very differently. I say every night, I get on my knees and thank God I'm in a country people are trying to break into, rather than one they're trying to break out of."
Former Sen. Rick Santorum (R) was asked on CBS's "Face the Nation" for his reaction to Trump. The Pennsylvania Republican said he doesn't agree with Trump, but added:
"I think Donald points to a very important thing, which is we have a serious problem of illegal immigration in this country that is undermining American workers.... So while I don't like verbiage he's used, I like the fact that he is focused on a very important issue for American workers, and particularly illegal immigrants in this country."
Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee's (R) outrage over marriage equality won't fade anytime soon, because in the Republican presidential candidate's mind, the institution of marriage is under some kind of attack. It led Jake Tapper to ask Huckabee a good question yesterday.
"Which do you think threatens to undermine the institution of marriage in this country more," the CNN host asked, "same-sex marriage or the rampant ranks of infidelity and the high divorce rates in this country among straight couples?"
Huckabee didn't answer the question directly, initially saying the question itself is "kind of like asking me which wing of the airplane is the one that's most important, the one on the left, the one on the right?" The oddity of the comparison notwithstanding, the rest of the candidate's reaction offered a surprising twist on the broader debate.
"The whole point of marriage is to create a relationship where two people are committed as life partners. One of the mistakes we have even heard over the course of the same-sex marriage debate is that marriage is all about just love and feeling and sentimentality.
"And, regardless, heterosexual marriage is largely in trouble today because people see it as a selfish means of pleasing self, rather than a committed relationship in which the focus is upon meeting the needs of the partner. And that sense of selfishness and the redefinition of love as to something that is purely sentimental and emotional has been destructive."
I've read this quite a few times, trying to make heads or tails of it, and I still don't know what Huckabee's talking about. Why can't a same-sex couple commit as life partners? If Huckabee believes a life-long relationship needs roots that run deeper than "sentimentality," why in the world would these roots be exclusive to straight couples?
The usual line from the right is that the whole point of marriage is procreation. Huckabee, however, seems to have accidentally switched sides, saying the "whole point of marriage is to create a relationship where two people are committed as life partners."
Yes. Right. Exactly. But isn't that supposed to be my argument, not his?
It didn't get too much attention, but shortly before the holiday weekend got underway, former Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) delivered remarks at the National Press Club, and it turned out to be one of the more interesting speeches this year from a Republican presidential candidate.
BuzzFeed's report described it as "remarkable," and it's worth appreciating why.
The years of states' rights messaging have squandered the Republican's once close relationship with black voters, especially in the south, Perry said.
"For too long, we Republicans have been content to lose the black vote because we found we didn't need it to win. But when we gave up trying to win the support of African Americans, we lost our moral legitimacy as the party of Lincoln, as the party of equal opportunity for all," Perry said. "It's time for us once again to reclaim our heritage as the only party in our country founded on the principle of freedom for African Americans."
According to the official transcript, Perry added, "There has been, and there will continue to be an important and a legitimate role for the federal government in enforcing civil rights. Too often, we Republicans, me included, have emphasized our message on the 10th Amendment but not our message on the 14th."
The former governor's candor was certainly a welcome addition to the campaign discourse, and this isn't the kind of rhetoric we heard from Perry in his first bid for national office four years ago. For that matter, any time a prominent far-right candidate acknowledges a legitimate role for the federal government to do much of anything, especially protecting civil rights, it's refreshing.
The trouble with Perry's speech, however, wasn't its intentions. Rather, the problem was the fact that the remarks were incomplete.
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