The Rachel Maddow Show Weekdays at 9PM

Rachel Maddow StoriesRSS

select from:

E.g., 8/28/2015
E.g., 8/28/2015
U.S. Republican presidential candidate Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) (Photo by Chris Keane/Reuters).

Cruz joins the right's 'Birthright Citizens' Brigade'

08/20/15 10:11AM

The number of Republican presidential candidates opposed to birthright citizenship -- the 14th Amendment's constitutional principle that if you're born in the United States, you're a citizen of the United States -- just keeps growing.
[Sen. Ted Cruz], in an interview on the Michael Medved radio show, made his position clear: "We should end granting automatic birthright citizenship to the children of those who are here illegally."
 
The presidential candidate acknowledged that a change in the law would be a heavy lift, saying "I think it is possible, but any constitutional amendment by its nature is difficult to achieve."
Acknowledging Donald Trump's role in adding the issue of birthright citizenship to the fight for the Republican nomination, the Texas senator said, "I welcome Donald Trump articulating this view. It is a view I have long held."
 
It's worth clarifying, though that Cruz seems to believe it's time to amend the Constitution to alter the 14th Amendment's guarantee, while Trump believes in passing laws that challenge the 14th Amendment in the courts.
 
Stepping back, and referencing this helpful piece from Bloomberg Politics, we can start breaking up the massive GOP 2016 field into some factions on the issue of birthright citizenship.
 
1. Those who've expressed unambiguous opposition to birthright citizenship: Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, Ben Carson, Lindsey Graham, Mike Huckabee, Rand Paul, Rick Santorum, Bobby Jindal
 
2. Those who were opposed, but who've since hedged a bit: Scott Walker
 
3. Those who are open to changing the law related to birthright citizenship: Chris Christie, Carly Fiorina [updated, see below]
 
4. Those who support birthright citizenship: Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, John Kasich, Jim Gilmore, and George Pataki
 
5. Those who just don't want to talk about it: Rick Perry
 
Realistically, will Republicans actually be able to scrap the constitutional principle?
Unidentified International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors (2nd-3rd L) and Iranian technicians disconnect the connections between the twin cascades for 20 percent uranium production at nuclear power plant of Natanz, some 300 kilometres south of Teh

The IAEA story that's not quite what it seems to be

08/20/15 09:24AM

With the international nuclear agreement picking up increased support from congressional Democrats, opponents are not only discouraged, they're also looking for something to help derail the deal's progress. Yesterday, at least for a little while, the right seemed to think it had found new ammunition against the diplomatic solution.
An Associated Press report said the agreement it obtained would allow Tehran to use its own inspectors to investigate a military site where Iran is suspected to have worked on developing a nuclear weapon, which the nation has denied. 
 
[Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio)] blasted the reported arrangement.  "Why should Iran be trusted to carry out its own nuclear inspections at a military site it tried to hide from the world? How does this not set a precedent for future inspections at suspicious military sites in Iran?" he said. 
The Republican leader added, "The Obama administration has a lot of explaining to do."
 
Soon after, Senate Majority Whip  John Cornyn (R-Texas) pointed to the same AP report as damning proof of how right Republicans are about the international agreement. "This revelation only reinforces the deep-seated concerns the American people have about the agreement," Cornyn said in a statement.
 
Well, that certainly sounds serious. What's this all about?
Republican presidential hopeful and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush speaks to fairgoers during the Iowa State Fair on August 14, 2015 in Des Moines, Iowa. (Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty)

Jeb Bush hopes to curtail 'anchor babies'

08/20/15 08:44AM

Chris Hayes noted yesterday that the term "anchor baby" is "disgusting and dehumanizing." He added, "I can't believe anyone in 'mainstream' American politics uses it."
 
For quite a while, there was some consensus on this point. We'd occasionally hear far-right congressional Republicans like Tom Tancredo and Louie Gohmert using the phrase, but most avoided the label as overly crass and offensive.
 
But Republican presidential hopeful Donald Trump has embraced it, and as MSNBC's Amanda Sakuma noted last night, even Jeb Bush is now using the phrase.
Speaking on Bill Bennett's conservative radio show "Morning in America" Wednesday, Bush went as far as using the derogatory term "anchor baby" to describe his support for tighter enforcement on children born in the U.S. to immigrant parents.
 
"If there's abuse, people are bringing -- pregnant women are coming in to have babies simply because they can do it, then there ought to be greater enforcement," Bush said in the interview, which was written about by POLITICO. "That's [the] legitimate side of this. Better enforcement so that you don't have these, you know, 'anchor babies,' as they're described, coming into the country."
An audio clip of Bush's comments, recorded by American Bridge 21st Century, is online.
 
It wasn't long before Hillary Clinton, responding to Bush on Twitter, replied simply, "They're called babies." Ouch.
 
Given the reaction, I have a hunch the former governor will probably avoid using the phrase again, but that brings us back to the larger concern about Jeb Bush's clumsiness as a candidate. The Weekly Standard's John McCormack, a conservative writer, two weeks ago asked the question on the minds of many: "Isn't one benefit of an establishment candidate supposed to be that he's not going to make gaffes like this?"
Image: Democratic Candidate For President Hillary Clinton Campaigns In Vegas Area

Is email server management a real campaign issue?

08/20/15 08:00AM

Political scandals that matter tend to have clear allegation. Even if the charges prove baseless, controversies of consequence are built on a foundational question. Did Nixon order the break-in? Did Reagan sell weapons to Iran to finance an illegal war? Did Clinton have sexual relations with that woman?
 
The clarity adds definition. Scandals can grow and expand, but legitimate controversies still have an accusation at their root that people can either confirm or deny, believe or not believe, prove or disprove.
 
The Hillary Clinton email "scandal" isn't nearly as ... clean. Ask the typical person what the former Secretary of State is accused of, specifically, and you'll probably hear a mishmash of the words "emails" and "servers." Republicans seem excited -- some GOP presidential candidates are talking publicly about Clinton going to jail -- and quite a bit of the media is heavily engaged --- Bob Woodward compared the story to Watergate this week -- but nailing down the root allegation is proving to be surprisingly difficult.
 
Politico reported yesterday that there are "accusations swirling that the former Secretary of State put national security secrets at risk by using a private email server." Oh. So the "scandal" is about proper email server management? That's what the political world is worked up about?
 
Mother Jones' Kevin Drum had a good take on this that rings true.
I'm perfectly willing to believe that Clinton's use of a private server was unwise. It probably was, something that I think even she's acknowledged. And Clinton has certainly provided some dodgy answers about what she did, which naturally raises suspicions that she might have something to hide. [...]
 
That said, even when I do my best to take off my tribal hat and look at this affair dispassionately, I just don't see anything.... [W]hat exactly is being investigated at this point? If you just want to argue that Clinton showed bad judgment, then go to town. That's a legitimate knock on a presidential candidate. But actual malfeasance? Where is it?
That need not be a rhetorical question. I'm eager to know, too. After months of coverage, the fact that the allegations themselves are ambiguous isn't a good sign about the merits of the "scandal."

Black Lives Matter's plans and other headlines

08/20/15 07:57AM

Black Lives Matter isn't stopping. (Politico)

9 arrested in St. Louis protest over shooting. (USA Today)

Three firefighters killed in Washington as wildfires spread across West. (NBC News)

Rand Paul, amid setbacks, looks to the Ron Paul playbook. (Wall Street Journal)

Jimmy Carter to publicly discuss his health after cancer diagnosis. (New York Times)

Arrest leads to underwater tunnel across U.S.-Mexico border. (AP)

Maureen McDonnell to appeals court: you can clear me and not my husband. (Washington Post)

ISS astronaut photographs a super-rare 'red sprite' above a lightning storm. (Daily Dot)

read more

Trump boasts dubious crowd numbers

Trump boasts dubious crowd numbers

08/19/15 09:19PM

Rachel Maddow points out that Donald Trump's boast of 2500 people at a town hall in New Hampshire is much more than the number estimated by the fire marshal at the event and no official count was performed. watch

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.

Rachel Maddow LIVE

Speak out! Make your voice heard by tagging your posts #maddow


  • Show
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
MaddowBlog_Appendix_logo

Latest Book