Today's installment of campaign-related news items from across the country.
* Hillary Clinton has picked up an endorsement from AFSCME, the nation's largest public-sector union. Two-thirds of AFSCME's executive board voted to back Clinton over her rivals.
* The hour after last week's Benghazi hearing ended was the best hour for Clinton campaign fundraising all year. (Democratic officials really ought to send congressional Republicans a thank-you note.)
* Though Bernie Sanders has generally sworn off criticisms of his rivals, the Vermont senator delivered pointed remarks to Iowa Democrats over the weekend. Though the Independent didn't call out Clinton by name, Sanders made not-so-subtle jabs at the frontrunner on a variety of issues.
* As hard as this may be to believe, a national Associated Press-GfK poll found that 70% of Republican voters consider Donald Trump the party's best candidate for the general election.
* Ben Carson wants protection from the Secret Service because, according to him, "I’m in great danger because I challenge the secular progressive movement to the very core."
* Speaking of the retired right-wing neurosurgeon, Carson also hopes to buck the bipartisan trend and, if elected, would "intensify" the so-called "war on drugs."
* For months, Trump has been touting his lead in national surveys, but confronted with new polls showing him falling to second place in Iowa, Trump said over the weekend, “I honestly think those polls are wrong."
* In a bit of a surprise, it turns out Marco Rubio's presidential campaign has not yet opened an office in South Carolina, a decision that's "perplexing" some local observers.
According to the Treasury Department's most recent written warning to Congress, the nation's debt ceiling needs to be raised by Nov. 3, which is just one week from tomorrow. Republican leaders know they'll have to do the right thing fairly soon -- sometime over the next eight days -- but they have no idea how.
House Republicans thought they had a plan. The strategy called for passing a right-wing plan, called the “Terms of Credit Act,” on Friday, tying the debt-limit increase to a series of conservative goodies that GOP lawmakers couldn't get through actual legislating.
That plan, however, was scrapped late last week when House Republicans decided it wasn't good enough. Some GOP members wanted it to go further; some didn't like the fact that the bill was bypassing the committee process; while others didn't see the point in wasting time on a bill that would die in the Senate soon after.
With Republican leaders once again discovering that their own members don't like their own party's bill, House Speaker John Boehner and his team have no choice but to move to their backup plan. Except, at this point, no one knows what that looks like. Politicoreported, "Congress has a debt-ceiling problem again. A big one."
Boehner, McCarthy and other GOP leaders are refusing at this point to move ahead with a "clean" debt ceiling bill insisted on by President Barack Obama. Senior leadership aides said they couldn't find the 30 Republican votes needed to join with all 188 Democrats to pass that proposal -- a bleak indication of the current state of play.
This is roughly the point where some anxiety starts to kick in.
Democrats won't negotiate with those who threaten to hurt the nation on purpose. Indeed, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) told reporters last week, "Let me be clear, the full faith and credit of the United States of America is not negotiable." President Obama has been equally clear.
This means, of course, that Congress will have to do what it's been doing: pass a clean debt-ceiling bill with no strings attached by either party, except GOP leaders insist they don't have the votes do complete this basic task.
The question is whether or not anyone should actually believe them.
Soon after getting elected in 2010, Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback (R) said he intended to launch an economic "experiment" built on massive tax breaks his state obviously couldn’t afford. The experiment failed miserably, and among Brownback's disastrous results include debt downgrades, weak growth, and state finances in shambles.
Lots of numbers in a new statewide survey of Kansas from Fort Hays State University, but here’s the stunner: Only 18 percent of state residents said they were “very” or “somewhat satisfied” with GOP Gov. Sam Brownback. Kansas, in case there’s any misunderstanding, is a heavily Republican state.
President Barack Obama, long a punching bag for Republicans, rated higher. Some 28 percent of respondents expressed satisfaction with the Democratic chief executive.
You read that right: President Obama is woefully unpopular in one of the nation's most heavily Republican states, but Kansas' GOP governor is in even worse shape. (This is reminiscent of a Louisiana poll over the summer that found Obama more popular in the Pelican State than Republican Gov. Bobby Jindal.)
The Topeka Capital-Journalquoted Bob Beatty, a political scientist at Washburn University, describing Brownback's weak public support as "epic," adding that Brownback may very well be the least popular governor in Kansas history.
At a certain level, this is fairly easy to understand -- the scope of Brownback's failures are simply breathtaking. Then again, the governor's first term was a complete fiasco, too, and he nevertheless won re-election last year, despite running against a Democrat who enjoyed considerable GOP backing.
But there's also a larger, national context to this.
By any fair measure, the IRS "scandal" evaporated quite a while ago. Right around the time we learned that the tax agency targeted groups on the left, right, and center over their tax-exempt status and political activities, the "controversy" that fascinated the political world for about a week in 2013 was rendered meaningless.
But with Republicans and reporters crying foul -- loudly -- the Justice Department launched a lengthy and thorough investigation. As the Washington Postreported, that probe is now over.
No criminal charges will be filed in the two-year investigation into whether any Internal Revenue Service officials, including Lois Lerner, committed crimes in connection with the handling of tax-exemption applications by conservative groups, the Justice Department announced Friday. [...]
[Assistant Attorney General for Legislative Affairs Peter J. Kadzik] said that the Justice Department’s criminal and civil rights divisions, working with the FBI and the Treasury inspector general for tax administration, conducted an “exhaustive probe,” interviewing more than 100 people, collecting more than 1 million pages of IRS documents, analyzing nearly 500 tax-exemption applications and examining the role and potential culpability of “scores of IRS employees.”
In a letter (pdf) to the House Judiciary Committee's leadership, the DOJ official explained, “Our investigation uncovered substantial evidence of mismanagement, poor judgment and institutional inertia, leading to the belief by many tax-exempt applicants that the IRS targeted them based on their political viewpoints. But poor management is not a crime, We found no evidence that any IRS official acted on political, discriminatory, corrupt, or other inappropriate motives that would support a criminal prosecution.”
The same letter added, “We also found no evidence that any official involved in the handling of tax-exempt applications or IRS leadership attempted to obstruct justice."
The investigation, which turned up nothing, cost American taxpayers roughly $20 million, leads to two broader questions.
When Sen. David Vitter (R) kicked off his gubernatorial campaign in Louisiana, he was labeled the frontrunner by nearly everyone. The far-right senator has already won statewide races; he's an effective fundraiser; and he has near-universal name recognition in his home state.
Republican U.S. Sen. David Vitter survived challenges Saturday from two GOP rivals who called his years-old prostitution scandal a stain on Louisiana, reaching a runoff against Democratic state Rep. John Bel Edwards in the governor’s race. [...]
While Edwards always seemed assured of a runoff spot, Vitter bested two other major Republicans to secure his position on the November ballot, Public Service Commissioner Scott Angelle and Lt. Gov. Jay Dardenne.
For those unfamiliar with Louisiana's unique election system, it relies on what's called a "jungle primary." Every candidate runs on the same ballot at the same time -- separate primaries for Democrats and Republicans do not exist -- which generally means multiple contenders from both parties. If no one wins 50% of the vote, the top two candidates advance to a one-on-one runoff.
In this case, John Bel Edwards (D), a state legislative leader, attorney, and retired Army Ranger, earned about 40% of the vote and finished first. Vitter was the top Republican, though he only managed to win 23% of the vote.
In fairness, Vitter faced more competitive intra-party rivals, but when the race got underway months ago, the idea of Vitter getting a mere 23% and struggling to make the Nov. 21 runoff seemed far-fetched. And yet, here we are.
While the results are interesting enough, let's also not forget that as the state's gubernatorial race -- one of only three gubernatorial races held in 2015 -- moves into its final phase, it keeps getting weirder.
Choosing the single nuttiest part of Ben Carson's Republican presidential platform is incredibly challenging -- there are just so many options to choose from. Just over the weekend, the competitive GOP candidate talked about scrapping Medicare, compared abortion to slavery, and tried to defend his frequent Nazi references.
But if we're ranking the most ridiculous recommendations, Carson's plans to "monitor" political speech on college campuses has to be near the top.
To briefly recap, the retired right-wing neurosurgeon argued last week that he doesn't want to shut down the federal Department of Education; he'd prefer to turn it into an investigatory body in which it would "monitor our institutions of higher education for extreme political bias." If a Carson administration decided it disapproved of the "extreme" political speech on a university campus, the school would lose its federal funding.
On NBC's "Meet the Press," Chuck Todd tried to pin Carson down on this bizarre plan. The GOP candidate -- currently, a top tier contender -- insisted, "This is not just spouting off; I’ve thought about this." What a relief.
CARSON: The way that works is you invite students at the universities to send in their complaints, and then you investigate. For instance, there was a university -- I'm sure you've heard of the situation -- where, you know, the professor told everybody, "Take out a piece of paper and write the name 'Jesus' on it. Put in on the floor and stomp on it." And one student refused to do that and was disciplined severely. You know, he subsequently was able to be reinstated--
TODD: We're not violating the First Amendment? How is what you're advocating not a violation of the First Amendment?
CARSON: It's not a violation of the First Amendment, because all I'm saying is taxpayer funding should not be used for propaganda. It shouldn't be.
Reminded that Carson's definition of "propaganda" might look like "free speech" to others, the Republican replied, in a bit of a non-sequitur, "Well, that's why I said we're going to have the students send in. And we will investigate."
In other words, Ben Carson envisions a system in which students report professors to government authorities, who will launch investigations to determine whether the scholars' lesson plans meet with a Republican administration's speech standards. Schools that fall short will face punishment.
No, this doesn't sound like an authoritarian approach to higher-education at all. Why do you ask?
It's not exactly a secret that Jeb Bush's path to the Republicans' presidential nomination has run into unexpected obstacles. Facing underwhelming fundraising totals, lackluster standing in polls, and increasingly public hand-wringing from the GOP establishment, the former governor's standing recently reached new lows.
Addressing his many troubles at a campaign event in New Hampshire over the weekend, Jeb Bush said, “Blah blah blah blah, that’s my answer, blah blah blah.”
Note, that's not my rude interpretation of a more substantive answer. That's literally what Bush said, as my colleague Will Femia reported.
“If this election is about how we’re going to fight to get nothing done,” Mr. Bush said, then “I don’t want any part of it. I don’t want to be elected president to sit around and see gridlock just become so dominant that people literally are in decline in their lives. That is not my motivation.”
He added, “I’ve got a lot of really cool things I could do other than sit around, being miserable, listening to people demonize me and me feeling compelled to demonize them. That is a joke. Elect Trump if you want that.”
At different times in recent months, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul have suggested they don't much care for the process of running for president. It's grueling, tiresome, and draining.
Let's start with the vampire finches first. They are flying bloodsuckers with razor sharp beaks which they use to stab the necks of their victims so they can quench their evil thirsts. Vampire finches actually feed mostly on OTHER BIRDS that for some reason let them. Luckily they can only be found in the Galapagos Islands (for now), but they don't sound like anything I'd want migrating towards the mainland anytime soon.
And now the oxpeckers. These equally smallish birds inhabit deserts and seem just as nefarious as their island brethren. Scientists used to think oxpeckers had more of a mutual relationship with other species; namely they would hang around herds of savannah mammals and eat their ticks and parasites. However, it turns out they don't always stop pecking after consuming the external pest, but they continue to peck away at the host itself.
First up from the God Machine this week is an alarming quote from the frontrunner for the Republican presidential nomination, who thinks it may be possible for the United States government to close houses of worship, the First Amendment notwithstanding.
Mother Jonesreported this week on Donald Trump exploring the limits of his anti-ISIS strategy, when he raised the possibility of unprecedented action.
In an interview on Fox Business, host Stuart Varney asked Trump whether, if elected president, he would follow the anti-ISIS lead of the British government, which has revoked the passports of people who traveled to fight alongside extremists, and has planned to close mosques that are "used to host extremist meetings or speakers."
"I would do that, absolutely, I think it's great," Trump responded. Varney pressed Trump on whether he even could close a mosque, citing religious freedom as a possible roadblock.
Trump conceded he wasn't sure, but he was open to the possibility. "It depends, if the mosque is, you know, loaded for bear, I don't know," the GOP candidate said during the on-air interview. "You're going to have to certainly look at it."
An official for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) issued a written statement, explaining, "Donald Trump's apparent willingness to close down American mosques that he deems 'extreme' is totally incompatible with the Constitution and our nation's cherished principles of religious freedom."
CAIR's statement has the benefit of accuracy, though Trump was not without supporters. American Family Radio’s Bryan Fischer told his audience this week that the First Amendment only protects Christians -- a constitutional interpretation with no foundation in reality -- which in Fischer's mind means a Trump administration "can constitutionally close down mosques in the United States of America.”
First, reality and constitutional law appear to point in a very different direction. Second, when this election cycle eventually ends, and we take stock of the degree to which some candidates relied on anti-Islam messages to advance their ambitions, keep this incident in mind.
Hillary Clinton, Democratic candidate for president, talks with Rachel Maddow about the challenges of making new friends as a public figure, particularly a powerful public figure and whether old friends can bring baggage that makes it hard to move forward. watch
Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton talks with Rachel Maddow about the importance of investigations into attacks on U.S. installations abroad, both to honor those lost in the attacks and to learn how to avoid future attacks, but laments that the current House Select Committee on Benghazi is not serving that goal. watch
Hillary Clinton, Democratic candidate for president, talks with Rachel Maddow about the need for improvement in the bureaucracy of veterans' health care, and calls out Republicans for trying to undermine the VA to justify privatizing it. watch
Hillary Clinton, former secretary of state and Democratic candidate for president, explains why she thinks a no-fly zone over Syria is a good idea and whether she would shoot down a Russian jet if it violated such a rule. watch
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.