The Rachel Maddow Show Weekdays at 9PM

Rachel Maddow StoriesRSS

select from:

E.g., 7/2/2015
E.g., 7/2/2015

Republican attitudes on Iraq trip up GOP candidates

05/28/15 10:54AM

It was just two weeks ago when Jeb Bush accidentally touched off a national debate, saying he "would have" launched the war in Iraq in 2003, even "knowing what we know now."
The response wasn't kind. Laura Ingraham, hardly a liberal critic, told her audience, "You can't still think that going into Iraq, now, as a sane human being, was the right thing to do. If you do, there has to be something wrong with you." The Washington Examiner's Byron York, another prominent voice in conservative media, described Jeb Bush's answer as "disastrous."
It took a while, but eventually Bush gave a less ridiculous answer, and nearly everyone in the Republican presidential field answered the same question, but it's worth appreciating why Jeb and others struggled with the question in the first place.
Some of this, to be sure, is the result of a failed Bush legacy that the party has yet to come to terms with. The dominating influence of neoconservatives doesn't help, either. But part of the challenge is that this is the phase of the campaign in which GOP candidates desperately try to convince the Republican Party's base that they're in sync with the party's rank and file. And on this issue in particular, there's a huge gap between Republican voters and the American mainstream. Take this new Quinnipiac poll, for example:
Going to war with Iraq was the wrong thing to do, American voters say 59 - 32 percent. Republicans support the 2003 decision 62 - 28 percent, while opposition is 78 - 16 percent among Democrats and 65 - 26 percent among independent voters.
The wording of the question was unambiguous: "Do you think going to war with Iraq in 2003 was the right thing for the United States to do or the wrong thing?"
Most Americans answered one way; most Republicans answered another.
The Arizona-Mexico border fence near Naco, Arizona, March 29, 2013.

Border reality should change GOP talking points

05/28/15 10:18AM

Among Republicans, certain basic truths are so widely understood, they're not even questioned. They know Obama increased the deficit. They know "Obamacare" is government-run healthcare. And they know the Obama administration has been woefully indifferent to securing the border.
Of course, all of these truths are plainly wrong -- in fact, they're the opposite of reality -- including that last one. The Washington Post has a great piece this morning on the changing nature of the debate about border security.
As the Department of Homeland Security continues to pour money into border security, evidence is emerging that illegal immigration flows have fallen to their lowest level in at least two decades. The nation's population of illegal immigrants, which more than tripled, to 12.2 million, between 1990 and 2007, has dropped by about 1 million, according to demographers at the Pew Research Center. [...]
Homeland security officials in the Obama and George W. Bush administrations -- who have more than doubled the Border Patrol's size and spent billions on drones, sensors and other technology at the border -- say enhanced security is driving the new trends.
R. Gil Kerlikowske, commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, told the Post, "We have seen tremendous progress. The border is much more secure than in times past."
To be sure, it's a complex picture, and the shifts in immigration trends are probably the result of several overlapping changes, some of which relate to security measures, some of which don't.
That said, when Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) argues that the Obama administration and its allies are "refusing to secure our border," we know for certain that's the opposite of what's actually happened.
And when Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) insists that the U.S. border is "porous," and officials must "secure our own borders" to prevent "ISIS infiltration," I'm sure it's a successful applause line among partisan activists who don't know any better, but it's also the sort of thing a politician says if he doesn't know what he's talking about.
Former New York Governor George Pataki speaks at the Freedom Summit on May 9, 2015 in Greenville, S.C. Pataki joined eleven other potential candidates in addressing the event hosted by conservative group Citizens United. (Photo by Richard Ellis/Getty)

George Pataki gets his day in the spotlight

05/28/15 09:15AM

Quick quiz: which elected office has produced the most U.S. presidents? The answer is ... the office of the governor of New York, which has produced four future presidents (Van Buren, Cleveland, and both Roosevelts).
As of this morning, former New York Gov. George Pataki (R) announced his hopes to follow in their footsteps. NBC News' Carrie Dann reported this morning:
In a four-minute campaign video, Pataki says "it is time to stand up, protect our freedom and take back this country."
"If we are to flourish as a people, we have to fall in love with America again," he says in the video, which features images of the Freedom Tower and the 9/11 memorial in New York City.
By implication, it sounds as if Pataki is under the impression that Americans stopped loving America. I'm not sure why he would think that.
On paper, Pataki has the appearance of a potential powerhouse. He's a former mayor, former state lawmaker, and the former three-term governor of one of the nation's largest states. In a crowded GOP field, few can boast this kind of resume.
But resumes do not win nominations.  A new national Quinnipiac poll was released this morning, and it asked Republican voters to choose from a list of 16 GOP candidates. Pataki was one of only two candidates to have support under 1%. Some recent polls haven't bothered to even include Pataki's name in the mix at all.
The point, of course, isn't to laugh at the New York Republican's misfortunate, but rather, to note that with support this low, Pataki will almost certainly fail to qualify for any of the upcoming debates. He effectively has no national profile within his party, despite having held a major office -- one that he vacated nearly a decade ago.

Jobless claims climb a bit, reach five-week high

05/28/15 08:40AM

It's never good news when initial unemployment claims go up, especially a few weeks in a row, but no one is sweating numbers like these, at least not yet.
The number of people who applied for unemployment benefits in late May rose to a five-week high, but the rate of layoffs in the U.S. economy remained near a record low. Initial jobless claims climbed by 7,000 to a seasonally adjusted 282,000 in the week stretched from May 17 to May 23, the Labor Department said Thursday. Economists polled by MarketWatch had expected claims to fall to 270,000 from a slightly revised 275,000 in the prior week.
The average of new claims over the past month, meanwhile, increased by 5,000 to 271,500. A week earlier the monthly average had dropped to a 15-year low.
To reiterate the point I make every Thursday morning, it’s worth remembering that week-to-week results can vary widely, and it’s best not to read too much significance into any one report.

In terms of metrics, when jobless claims fall below the 400,000 threshold, it’s considered evidence of an improving jobs landscape. At this point, we’ve been below 300,000 in 31 of the last 37 weeks.

Obamacare lawsuit and other headlines

05/28/15 08:00AM

First hearing today in House lawsuit against Obamacare. (AP)

Feds order pipeline company to clean up Santa Barbara coastline. (L.A. Times)

Swollen rivers cause Texas cities to worry about flooding. (AP)

Fewer immigrants are crossing the U.S. border illegally. (Washington Post)

Disgraced Chicago cops posed with black suspect wearing deer antlers. (USA Today)

3 British schoolgirls who ran off to Syria have reportedly made contact with their families. (ITV)

Funny campaign website '404' pages are a thing now. (Wall Street Journal)

read more

Nebraska lawmakers sit in the dark Legislative Chamber during second-round debate, May 15, 2015, in Lincoln, Neb., on a bill to abolish the death penalty. (Photo by Nati Harnik/AP)

An unexpected win for death-penalty opponents in Nebraska

05/28/15 08:00AM

Since 2000, six states have banned the death penalty, and all six can fairly be described as "blue" states. Four of the six -- Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, and Maryland -- are in the Northeast, and the other two -- Illinois and New Mexico -- are hardly conservative strongholds.
But as Rachel reported on the show last night, there's a new addition to the list, and it's one that would have been hard to predict as recently as a few months ago. From Amanda Sakuma's msnbc report:
The Nebraska legislature abolished the death penalty Wednesday in a down-to-the-wire vote overriding Gov. Pete Ricketts' veto, making Nebraska the first red state in decades to strike capital punishment from its books.
In a 30-19 vote that crossed party lines, the unicameral legislature defied the Republican governor's opposition to the death penalty repeal, garnering the exact number of votes needed to overcome his veto.
Nebraska, with its unusual unicameral legislature, technically has a non-partisan state government, but it's hardly a secret that Republican policymakers dominate in this ruby-red state. It made yesterday's vote that much more satisfying.
The key to success, oddly enough, was framing the debate in a conservative way -- proponents of the change made the case that the flawed existing system is too expensive; it's at odds with the values of honoring life; and the governments that kill their own citizens are the biggest of all possible governments.

It was close, and the state's Republican governor lobbied hard to keep the death penalty in place, but the argument won the day.
Nebraska will now join 18 states and the District of Columbia in banning capital punishment. But how secure is the victory?
FIFA in turmoil as Women's World Cup begins

FIFA in turmoil as Women's World Cup begins

05/27/15 09:40PM

Megan Rapinoe, Olympic gold medalist with the U.S. Women's National Soccer Team, talks with Rachel Maddow about the arrests of nine FIFA officials on corruption charges, objections to artificial turf, and rising status of women's soccer in the U.S. watch

Wednesday's Mini-Report, 5.27.15

05/27/15 05:30PM

Today's edition of quick hits:
* More on this on tonight's show: "Nebraska has repealed the death penalty following a dramatic vote Wednesday by state lawmakers to override the governor's veto. The high-stakes vote to override the veto of Legislative Bill 268 was 30-19. It requires at least 30 of 49 senators to overturn a gubernatorial veto."
* The new rules would apply to more than half of the nation's bodies of water: "President Obama on Wednesday announced a sweeping new clean water regulation meant to restore the federal government's authority to limit pollution in the nation's rivers, lakes, streams and wetlands."
* FIFA: "Seven of the most powerful executives in soccer were arrested in Switzerland on Wednesday in what American prosecutors called a generations-long scheme to corrupt the most popular sport in the world."
* Deadly storms: "Rescue workers waded through receding floodwaters in southeastern Texas on Wednesday in search of other missing victims who may still be alive. But their efforts came as authorities revised the death toll higher -- identifying at least two more victims while another round of storms rolled through earlier in the morning."
* Probably the right move: "President Obama will put off a confrontation at the Supreme Court over his immigration executive actions, choosing not to ask for permission to carry out the programs while a fight over presidential authority plays out in the lower courts, officials said Wednesday."
* Arkansas: "A 2013 Arkansas law banning abortions after 12 weeks of pregnancy has been permanently blocked by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in a decision issued Wednesday. The three-judge panel affirmed a district court's earlier decision finding the ban unconstitutional and placed a permanent injunction on the law, which was one of the strictest abortion prohibitions in the country."
The dome of the US Capitol is seen in Washington, D.C., September 20, 2008.

One party has become more extreme (and one hasn't)

05/27/15 04:40PM

Arguably no single development in American politics has mattered more in recent generations than the radicalization of the Republican Party. As anyone who's read Tom Mann and Norm Ornstein knows, the GOP's shift to the far-right has fundamentally remade the policy landscape and changed the nature of the political rules in ways nothing -- no scandal, no crisis, no war -- has in many decades.
At least, that's what all available evidence tells us. Peter Wehner, the White House director of "strategic initiatives" in the Bush/Cheney era, not only disagrees with the thesis, but actually suggests the evidence has it backwards -- it's Democrats, he claims, who've become more extreme. From his New York Times piece today:
Among liberals, it's almost universally assumed that of the two major parties, it's the Republicans who have become more extreme over the years. That's a self-flattering but false narrative.
This is not to say the Republican Party hasn't become a more conservative party. It has. But in the last two decades the Democratic Party has moved substantially further to the left than the Republican Party has shifted to the right. On most major issues the Republican Party hasn't moved very much from where it was during the Gingrich era in the mid-1990s.
Intrigued, I dug into the piece, eager to see Wehner's proof. He noted, for example, that while many Democrats embraced a conservative approach to criminal-justice reform 20 years ago, most Dems are now widely concerned about the societal costs and effects of mass incarceration and police abuses.
I'm afraid Wehner hasn't fully thought this through. Democrats adopted a position, implemented it, and are now weighing changes after scrutinizing the results of their own policy. Plenty of Republicans agree with the Democratic conclusions, and support the same reforms. That's proof of a party that's become more extreme? Not by any definition I'm familiar with.
Well, maybe Wehner's piece just got off to a rough start. How about his second piece of evidence? The piece soon after complains that while Bill Clinton reformed welfare, President Obama created the Affordable Care Act.
Perhaps Wehner hasn't fully thought this through, either.


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

Latest Book