The Rachel Maddow Show Weekdays at 9PM


... more Duration: {{video.duration.momentjs}}

Rachel Maddow StoriesRSS

select from:

E.g., 3/18/2019
E.g., 3/18/2019
U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) speaks during a news conference January 24, 2019 on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C.

The challenge Republicans face going after Ilhan Omar

02/12/19 08:49AM

Facing intense criticism from her own allies, Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) apologized "unequivocally" yesterday for some controversial tweets about the Israel lobby and its efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy. The congresswoman, just a month into her tenure on Capitol Hill, stood by her criticisms of the "problematic role of lobbyists in our politics," but expressed gratitude to her colleagues who helped educate her "on the painful history of anti-Semitic tropes."

Swift Democratic action on this -- from Omar's tweet to her apology took less than 24 hours -- should probably help resolve the situation, though Republican leaders will probably make every effort to keep the story alive. Indeed, House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) has called on Democratic leaders to remove the Minnesota lawmaker from the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

That would be the same McCarthy who felt the need to delete a tweet last fall after he accused three prominent Jewish Americans of trying "to buy" the 2018 midterms. McCarthy also allowed Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) to chair the House Judiciary Committee's panel on "the Constitution & Civil Justice" in the last Congress. (McCarthy only recently stripped King of his committee assignments.)

Donald Trump apparently had some concerns of his own.

Speaking Monday night aboard Air Force One, Trump said Omar "should be ashamed of herself" and that her apology was inadequate.

Asked what she should say, he replied, "She knows what to say."

Not to put too fine a point on this, but if there's one person in the United States who should avoid criticizing the adequacy of a politician's apology in the wake of an offensive tweet, it's Donald J. Trump.

But even if we put that aside, there's the president's own history on this issue that undermines his credibility on the subject.

read more

Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump speaks during a campaign rally in Austin, Texas, Aug. 23, 2016. (Photo by Carlo Allegri/Reuters)

Trump tries two new slogans: one is a lie, one is from Hillary

02/12/19 08:00AM

As the first president with a professional branding background, Donald Trump cares a bit too much about slogans. The president also seems to realize that effective marketing can't be stale, which is probably why he unveiled a couple of new slogans during his first campaign rally of 2019.

There were, however, a couple of problems with the Republican's selections. For example, the first seemed awfully familiar.

A line from President Donald Trump's speech on border security on Monday was quickly turned into a graphic by the Republican Party.

"We're only getting stronger together," Trump said at an event in El Paso.

Whether this was planned or put together on the fly is unclear, but the Republican National Committee began promoting the phrase via social media during the event, as if it were an important theme for the White House and its party.

The trouble, of course, is that "Stronger Together" was Hillary Clinton's campaign slogan. It was the name of her book; it was a phrase she incorporated into public appearances; it was the phrase that appeared on her campaign podiums. And now, evidently, it's been appropriated by her former rival, who remains preoccupied with the former Democratic candidate, and who's always shown great interest in pitting people against one another, not bringing people together.

The RNC made no real effort to hide the adoption, with a party spokesperson telling  The Hill, "When you lose your campaign, you lose your monopoly on any slogans."

read more

Monday's Mini-Report, 2.11.19

02/11/19 05:30PM

Today's edition of quick hits:

* This isn't going well: "Negotiations over funding for border security were stalled as the week began, with top appropriators from both parties huddling Monday to try to overcome the latest sticking point ahead of the Friday night deadline to avoid another government shutdown."

* As if he weren't already in enough trouble: "Historians say they were 'shocked' and 'mystified' when Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam wrongly used the term 'indentured servants' Sunday in reference to the first Africans to arrive in English North America 400 years ago."

* A new reason for Trump to hate the Golden State: "California Gov. Gavin Newsom will announce plans Monday to pull back all members of the National Guard who have been deployed to the border with Mexico, saying the state would not be part of the Trump administration's 'manufactured crisis.'"

* Patrick Shanahan seems to be an acting secretary looking for a permanent gig: "The Pentagon's top official assured Afghanistan's government on Monday that the U.S. wouldn't desert the country's security forces, the Afghan Defense Ministry said, signaling American support for the jittery government while the U.S. holds talks with the Taliban to end the country's 17-year war."

* It's about time: "YouTube has announced that it will no longer recommend videos that 'come close to' violating its community guidelines, such as conspiracy or medically inaccurate videos."

* Some patients, alas, have to be their own advocates: "As anti-vaccination movements metastasize amid outbreaks of dangerous diseases, Internet-savvy teenagers are fact-checking their parents' decisions in a digital health reawakening -- and seeking their own treatments in bouts of family defiance."

read more

U.S. Border Patrol officers keep along the border fence separating U.S. and Mexico in the town of El Paso, Texas on Feb. 17, 2016. (Photo by Mark Ralston/AFP/Getty)

Why Trump's lie about El Paso, Texas, is so important

02/11/19 04:40PM

Donald Trump will return to the campaign trail tonight, just three months removed from last fall's midterm elections, and roughly 20 months before his own re-election bid. The president is not, however, headed for a competitive battleground, but rather, is headlining an event in El Paso, Texas.

For Trump, the city in western Texas is of particular significance because its recent successes are, by the Republican's version of events, emblematic of a larger truth.

"The border city of El Paso, Texas used to have extremely high rates of violent crime -- one of the highest in the entire country, and considered one of our nation's most dangerous cities," the president argued in his State of the Union address. "Now, immediately upon its building, with a powerful barrier in place, El Paso is one of the safest cities in our country. Simply put: Walls work, and walls save lives."

The argument has a certain simplistic appeal: the border city was incredibly dangerous, then it got a wall, and now it's incredibly safe. Ergo, border walls are effective at improving security.

The problem, of course, is that Trump either has no idea what he's talking point or he assumes you're easily fooled.

According to law enforcement data, the city had low crime rates well before a border barrier was constructed between 2008 and mid-2009.

Violent crime has been dropping in El Paso since its modern-day peak in 1993 and was at historic lows before a fence was authorized by Congress in 2006. Violent crime actually ticked up during the border fence's construction and after its completion, according to police data collected by the FBI.

As Trump lies go, this one stands out for a couple of reasons. First, it was carefully scripted. It's one thing when the president peddles nonsense because he got confused by something he saw on television, or because he cooked up some oddity in his overactive imagination. But in a State of the Union address, which the Republican read from his trusted teleprompter, the standards are supposed to be higher.

And yet, Trump's claims were brazenly untrue. At no point in recent memory was El Paso one of the nation's most dangerous cities, and at no point after it received border barriers did the city see a sharp drop in the crime rate.

Even local Republicans didn't appreciate the president lying so shamelessly about their community.

read more

An employee at a money changer counts $100 bills.

Broken promises, failed predictions pile up for Republican tax plan

02/11/19 12:51PM

The Republican tax plan has never been popular, but its GOP proponents adopted a philosophy similar to the one embraced by Democrats during the health care debate a decade ago: once Americans got to know the policy, they'd start to like it a whole lot more.

For Dems, those hopes proved prophetic: the Affordable Care Act now enjoys fairly broad national support. For Republicans, more than a year after their tax plan was implemented, a series of broken promises and failed predictions have made their predicament worse.

As NBC News reported, the public's concerns appear especially acute as tax season gets underway.

The first tax season with President Donald Trump's new tax plan is under way and it's off to a disappointing start for early filers. The average refund this year is down 8.4 percent, to $1,865, for the week ending Feb. 1, according to data from the Internal Revenue Service. [...]

Early filers, who were expecting bigger refunds after the White House promised a $4,000 "raise," under the Trump tax plan, took to Twitter to vent their frustrations, using the hashtag #GOPTaxScam.

Edward Karl, vice president of taxation for the American Institute of CPAs, told Politico, "There are going to be a lot of unhappy people over the next month. Taxpayers want a large refund."

And many taxpayers aren't going to get one -- which won't satisfy those who believed Republican rhetoric about the "$4,000 average raise" the typical household would see as a result of the GOP policy.

Complicating matters, of course, is the sheer volume of promises that failed to come to fruition.

read more

Monday's Campaign Round-Up, 2.11.19

02/11/19 12:00PM

Today's installment of campaign-related news items from across the country.

* Several weeks after launching a presidential exploratory committee, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) formally kicked off her 2020 campaign, calling for "fundamental change," even if the "cowards and armchair critics" call it "extreme or radical." Her choice of locations was notable: Warren chose Lawrence, "a distressed mill town about 30 miles outside Boston, with a more obscure, but very telling history: Just over 100 years ago in the factory buildings that served as a backdrop for Warren's speech, women textile workers defied bosses and bayonets to start a strike, that as Warren said, 'changed America.'"

* On a related note, Rep. Joseph Kennedy III introduced Warren and endorsed her candidacy.

* Roughly 24 hours later, Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), who'll be on the show with Rachel tonight, launched her own presidential campaign at a snowy event in Minnesota. A sense of community "is fracturing across our nation right now, worn down by the petty and vicious nature of our politics," she argued. "We are all tired of the shutdowns and the putdowns, the gridlock and the grandstanding."

* As was the case with Warren in Massachusetts, Klobuchar benefited from Minnesota officials showing up in force to lend their support to the senator. Among those on hand for her kickoff were Sen. Tina Smith (D) and Gov. Tim Walz (D).

* A Washington Post-Schar School poll released over the weekend found Virginians deadlocked over whether Gov. Ralph Northam (D) should resign: 47% support his ouster, 47% do not. Those results will probably encourage the governor to dig in further.

* Despite his recent failed attempt to derail Nancy Pelosi's bid to become House Speaker, Rep. Seth Moulton (D-Mass.) conceded to BuzzFeed yesterday, "I'm thinking about running for president. I'm not definitely running, but I'm going to take a very hard look at it. A very serious look at it. Because I believe it's time for a new generation of leadership, and we gotta send Donald Trump packing."

read more

Supreme Court Building

Even some conservatives question Supreme Court's judgment in Ray case

02/11/19 10:47AM

In Saturday's installment of "This Week in God," we discussed the Supreme Court allowing Alabama to execute Domineque Ray, a Muslim inmate who was offered a Christian minister to stay at his side when the state killed him. Ray requested a religious leader from his own faith, but the state balked.

Following a 5-4 vote, the U.S. Supreme Court last week rejected the inmate's request for a stay, ignoring the rather obvious First Amendment problems associated with Alabama favoring one religion over all others. The outcome generated quite a bit of criticism from the left, but civil libertarians weren't entirely alone.

The Washington Post's Eugene Scott noted that some on the right were critical, too.

Conservative columnist Bethany Mandel tweeted: "The state should not play God. But if it does, it shouldn't deny a (wo)man a way to atone to their God before doing so."

Seth Mandel, executive editor of the Washington Examiner magazine, tweeted: "As a conservative who opposes both the death penalty and religious discrimination I find this
story appalling."

And Southern Baptist minister Alan Cross tweeted: "Every time we want the state to favor Christianity over other religions, the result is a loss of religious freedom for all."

Quite right. When public officials, with the U.S. Supreme Court's approval, elevate one faith tradition over others, it creates the conditions our First Amendment has long sought to prevent. Christians who shrugged with indifference when five conservative justices turned away Domineque Ray's appeal should consider the long-term effects of such a principle.

Today, it's Christians who receive special treatment in Alabama. What will conservatives say when it's a different faith that's elevated in a different state tomorrow?

read more


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.


Latest Book