Rachel Maddow StoriesRSS

select from:

E.g., 6/29/2016
E.g., 6/29/2016
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton greets supporters at Transylvania University in Lexington, Ky., May 16, 2016. (Photo by Aaron P. Bernstein/Reuters)

Trump's unique ability to help Clinton unite Democrats

05/25/16 12:49PM

One of the most common questions in Democratic politics is obvious, though it's not easy to answer: Once the primaries are over, how will Hillary Clinton unify progressive voters ahead of the general election? Much of the discussion involves speculation about Bernie Sanders' strategy, the party's convention, the party's platform, Clinton's eventual running mate, etc.
But there's a piece to this puzzle that sometimes goes overlooked: Clinton will try to bring Democrats and progressive independents together, but it's Donald Trump who'll seal the deal.
Last October, Rolling Stone's Matt Taibbi covered the House Republicans' Benghazi Committee and its 11-hour grilling of Clinton, and he wrote a very memorable piece soon after. Taibbi, a Clinton detractor, conceded at the time that he started to feel more sympathetic towards the Democrat, not out of pity, but in response to the GOP's outrageous antics.
Those idiots represent everything that is wrong not just with the Republican Party, but with modern politics in general. It's hard to imagine a political compromise that wouldn't be justified if its true aim would be to keep people like those jackasses out of power.
In context, none of this had anything to do with Bernie Sanders or the Democratic primary, but Taibbi's point -- there's value in compromise if it means keeping "those jackasses out of power" -- lingered in my mind because I suspect many of Sanders' die-hard supporters will be making a similar calculation in the coming months.
And Donald Trump, whether he realizes it or not, is going to help.

Wednesday's Campaign Round-Up, 5.25.16

05/25/16 12:00PM

Today's installment of campaign-related news items from across the country.
* Protests against Donald Trump at an event in New Mexico last night turned violent, and there was at least one arrest.
* On a related note, we can apparently remove New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez (R), the chairwoman of the Republican Governor's Association, from VP consideration. Martinez steered clear of the presumptive Republican presidential nominee during his trip to New Mexico, and Trump blasted the governor during his speech in Albuquerque.
* As Rachel noted on the show last night, Bernie Sanders' campaign has launched a $1.5 million ad buy in California, two weeks ahead of the state's Democratic primary.
* Speaking of the Vermont senator, Sanders has also formally requested Kentucky re-canvass last week's primary results, which showed Hillary Clinton narrowly winning the primary. If the initial tally was incorrect and the taxpayer-funded re-canvassing succeeds, Sanders may net an additional delegate or two.
* Clinton won yesterday's non-binding primary in the state of Washington yesterday. Though voter turnout was quadruple that of Washington's caucuses in March, when Sanders prevailed, the primary will not affect the delegate count.
* In the latest Farleigh Dickinson poll in New Jersey, Gov. Chris Christie's (R) approval rating is down to a woeful 26%.
* Sen. Richard Burr (R), facing a tougher-than-expected re-election fight in North Carolina, conceded yesterday that even he isn't pleased with the state's new anti-LGBT law. Burr said the state's Republican legislators "botched what they were trying to do," and passed a law that "was far too expansive."
Bob Corker

Republican VP contender's finances draw FBI scrutiny

05/25/16 11:20AM

Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) has been the subject of a lot of vice-presidential speculation, and on paper, it's easy to understand why. In fact, by some measures, the Tennessee Republican is the mirror opposite of Donald Trump: Corker is an experienced insider; he's well liked within the party; and he's the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. When it comes to VP speculation, that's a lot of checked boxes.
Plus, unlike many other prominent GOP lawmakers on Capitol Hill, Corker doesn't seem to hate the presumptive Republican nominee. Indeed, this week, the senator "declined an invitation to join President Barack Obama's historic trip to Asia," but Corker "did find time for a New York meeting with Donald Trump on Monday," where the two reportedly chatted about foreign policy.
All things considered, the Tennessean certainly looks like the kind of guy who'd make Trump's short list for the Republican ticket. There is, however, a problem, which Politico highlighted overnight:
The FBI and Securities and Exchange Commission are scrutinizing Tennessee GOP Sen. Bob Corker's personal finances, including stock transactions involving one of the nation's top developers of shopping centers and malls, according to multiple sources familiar with the probe.
Corker, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee and a potential vice presidential pick, failed to report millions of dollars in assets and income on his annual financial disclosure until The Wall Street Journal revealed the discrepancy last fall. In the wake of that report, Corker was forced to revise years' worth of disclosure reports.
It's worth emphasizing that the exact nature of the FBI's and SEC's scrutiny is unclear -- there have been no reports of a possible indictment -- and Corker insists he's done nothing wrong. Whether these probes will amount to anything is, at least for now, entirely speculative.
That said, when a senator's finances draw interest from the FBI and the SEC, that's generally the sort of thing that might keep a guy off his party's national ticket.
Then again, this is Donald Trump we're talking about, so maybe if Corker were in actual legal trouble, he'd be even more appealing to the presumptive Republican nominee.
A voter steps into a voting booth to mark his ballot at a polling site for the New Hampshire primary, Feb. 9, 2016, in Nashua, N.H. (Photo by David Goldman/AP)

The Voting Rights Caucus gets to work

05/25/16 10:42AM

The list of caucuses in Congress isn't short. These officially recognized groups of lawmakers, who get together in pursuit of a common agenda, include names that are probably familiar to many Americans -- the Congressional Black Caucus, for example -- but there are plenty that are far more obscure. Before this morning, for example, I'd never heard of the Congressional Bourbon Caucus or the Congressional Explosive Ordnance Disposal Caucus, both of which evidently exist.
Up until yesterday, however, there was no Voting Rights Caucus. Yesterday, as the Star-Telegram in Fort Worth reported, Rep. Marc Veasey (D-Texas) changed that.
"The Supreme Court 2013 ruling that gutted the 1965 Voting Rights Act set in motion what many feared: the subjection of minorities, seniors, and low-income Americans to unfair, punitive barriers preventing them from exercising their most basic right as American citizens," Veasey said by email.
In June, caucus members plan to introduce a bill, the Poll Tax Prohibition Act, which would block identification requirements that result in voters bearing an "associated cost," such as acquiring a birth certificate or incurring travel costs.
The caucus appears to already have 50 members, and though the list doesn't identify lawmakers by party, a quick review suggests all 50 are Democrats.
"It is a shame that in 2016 we still need a caucus," Rep. Terri Sewell (D-Ala.), who will co-chair the new caucus, told Roll Call.
It's an important point. A caucus committed to protecting and expanding voting right may seem woefully overdue, but the truth is, the right's organized voter-suppression campaign is fairly new. In the modern era, there was no national effort to gut the franchise -- the Voting Rights Act used to enjoy broad, bipartisan support until conservatives on the Supreme Court took a hatchet to it -- so the need for a Voting Rights Caucus didn't exist.
That's obviously changed in recent years.
Clouds fill the sky in front of the U.S. Capitol on October 7, 2013 in Washington, DC.

A case study in how not to impeach someone

05/25/16 10:00AM

Rep. Ron DeSantis (R-Fla.) launched a curious fundraising pitch this week. As part of his drive for cash, the far-right congressman, who's also currently running for the U.S. Senate, posted an appeal this week with an all-caps headline that read, "Impeach the IRS Commissioner."
DeSantis' pitch added, "IRS Commissioner John Koskinen needs to go! His conduct -- the destruction of key emails, false testimony before Congress, and failure to produce emails -- violated the public trust, and he must be impeached! Sign the petition if you agree!"
The text stood alongside a box labeled "Contribute."
For now, let's overlook the fact that, in reality, Koskinen didn't do what the congressman says he did. Let's also look past the overuse of exclamation points. Instead let's focus on the most glaring problem of all: as Politico reported, DeSantis is fundraising off the impeachment scheme, despite recently having been "tapped to lead the IRS impeachment hearings."
Although many congressional investigators at least try to give the impression that their probes are not politically motivated, DeSantis seems to have little reservation about mixing his Senate run with a politically explosive action like impeaching the head of a major federal agency.
Privately, a number of Republicans said it's cause for concern. "You don't fundraise off investigations," quipped one member who declined to go on-record criticizing a colleague.
Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), who isn't exactly known for his restraint and commitment to propriety, told Politico, "We never fundraised on our investigations."
Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.) added, "If you're going to be a phony, at least try to act sincere about it. He's not even pretending to be sincere about the substance of this process."
Right. Some partisan hackery is expected -- and in some cases, tolerable -- but those responsible for the partisan hackery should at least try to keep up appearances. No one is going to believe that House Republicans are trying to impeach the IRS commissioner as part of a responsible, reasoned process, but DeSantis' fundraising abandons all subtlety.
The brazen politicization is offensive, but what's notable in this case is the far-right congressman's indifference towards pretending.
Gov. Paul LePage speaks at a news conference at the State House, Jan. 8, 2016, in Augusta, Maine. (Photo by Robert F. Bukaty/AP)

Maine's LePage fails to defend the indefensible

05/25/16 09:21AM

It was the sort of story that made Maine Gov. Paul LePage (R) look so awful, he managed to even surprise his critics. In mid-April, the far-right governor vetoed a bipartisan bill that would have allowed pharmacists to dispense an effective anti-overdose drug without a prescription. But it was LePage's explanation that added insult to injury.
"Naloxone does not truly save lives; it merely extends them until the next overdose," LePage said in a written statement. As we discussed at the time, the governor, in a rather literal sense, made the case that those struggling with opioid addiction don't have lives worth saving.
Maine's legislature soon after overrode LePage's veto, but the governor recently hosted a town-hall meeting at which he defended his position. The Bangor Daily News reported:
"A junior at Deering High School had three Narcan shots in one week. And after the third one, he got up and went to class. He didn't go to the hospital. He didn't get checked out. He was so used to it. He just came out of it and went to class," LePage said.
That's quite an anecdote, which the Republican governor appears to have completely made up.
The Huffington Post reported yesterday that the principal at Deering High School described LePage's story as "absolutely not true," adding that the anecdote doesn't even make sense -- because Narcan isn't available at the school.
On Monday, the governor again insisted the story was accurate, and pointed to Portland Police Chief Michael Sauschuck as someone who could verify the incident.
Soon after, Sauschuck also said every relevant detail of LePage's story is wrong.
U.S. Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump walks past the guns of the USS Iowa after speaking on the battleship in San Pedro, Los Angeles, Calif., United States Sept. 15, 2015. (Photo by Lucy Nicholson/Reuters)

Caught fibbing, Trump scrambles to address veterans controversy

05/25/16 08:41AM

In a normal year, in a normal party, with a normal candidate, it would be the kind of controversy that effectively kills a presidential candidate's chances of success. In January, Donald Trump skipped a Republican debate in order to host a fundraiser for veterans. He boasted at the time that he'd raised $6 million for vets -- which led to a related boast that Trump contributed $1 million out of his own pocket.
The Washington Post reported this week that Trump's claims simply weren't true. He did not, for example, raise $6 million. And what about the $1 million check the Republican bragged about? His campaign manager insisted this week that Trump did make the contribution.
Except, that wasn't true, either. The Post reported last night:
Almost four months after promising $1 million of his own money to veterans' causes, Donald Trump moved to fulfill that pledge Monday evening -- promising the entire sum to a single charity as he came under intense media scrutiny.
The check is apparently going to a group called the Marine Corps-Law Enforcement Foundation, whose chairman received a call from Trump on Monday night, the day the campaign controversy broke.
Let's put aside, for now, why the Trump campaign said he'd made a donation that did not exist. Let's instead ask why it took nearly four months for the candidate to do what he claimed to have already done.
"You have a lot of vetting to do," Trump told the Washington Post yesterday.
That might be a decent response were it not for the fact that the New York Republican doesn't appear at all interested in vetting veterans' groups -- as the story of the sketchy "Veterans for a Strong America" helps prove.
An Aedes Aegypti mosquito is seen in a lab of the International Training and Medical Research Training Center (CIDEIM) in Cali, Colombia, Feb. 2, 2016. (Photo by Jaime Saldarriaga/Reuters)

Republicans' response to the Zika threat takes an offensive turn

05/25/16 08:00AM

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) may be among the Senate's most far-right members, but when it comes to a federal response to the Zika virus threat, the Florida Republican finds himself in strong agreement with President Obama and his administration. Rubio yesterday condemned the inadequacies of the House GOP's Zika bill and pleaded with lawmakers to start taking the matter seriously.
"I urge the American people to make next week a tough one on those who are home from Congress," Rubio said, referring to the latest in a series of breaks congressional Republicans have scheduled for themselves.
But given what's unfolding on the other side of Capitol Hill, the senator may want to have a chat with the Speaker of the House.
Yesterday afternoon, Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) published a Twitter message asking people to retweet a message: "Mosquitoes carrying Zika must be killed." It included a link to a press statement from the Speaker's office featuring Ryan's new plan to address the public-health threat: weakening EPA regulations of pesticides.
It was at this point that the House Republicans' response to the Zika threat made the transition from reckless to offensive. The Huffington Post highlighted the most glaring problem with the GOP's plan:
While eliminating the clean water protections would make life easier for mosquito sprayers in some respects, environmental advocates say the restrictions on spraying are entirely irrelevant to a potential Zika outbreak for several reasons.
First among them is that if one particular pesticide has polluted a certain lake or stream, there are other options, said Mae Wu, a policy expert with the Natural Resources Defense Council.... On top of that, the clean water regulations apply only to areas larger than 6,400 acres. And if there is an outbreak, the rules specify that mosquito control authorities can act immediately, and get any needed permits after the fact.
The New York Times added that exceptions to EPA regulations "already exist for emergency situations like fighting Zika."

Making matters slightly worse, Paul Ryan's statement said policymakers should heed the recommendations of the Center for Disease Control -- which might make more sense if Paul Ryan weren't ignoring the CDC's pleas to Congress to pass the Obama administration's Zika response plan.
NM governor 'too busy' for Donald Trump

NM governor 'too busy' for Donald Trump

05/24/16 09:59PM

Rachel Maddow reports on New Mexico Governor Susana Martinez explaining that she is too busy to attend a Donald Trump fundraiser in her state, and points out that that excuse won't work for attending the Republican National Convention because she is also the chair of the Republican Governor's Association. watch

Trump works to keep dirty attacks one-sided

Trump works to keep dirty attacks one-sided

05/24/16 09:21PM

Rachel Maddow notes how the Trump campaign has tried to intimidate those who would question Donald Trump's past conduct with women even as Trump himself makes aggressive attacks on Bill Clinton, and wonders why the Clintons would not fight back. watch


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