Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) has reason to be pleased with his recent promotion. In the wake of the 2014 midterm elections, his party is not only in control of the Senate, but the Arizona Republican is now chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, a post he's reportedly wanted for quite a while.
But when the senator looks around the world, he isn't pleased at all.
"We are probably in the most serious period of turmoil in our lifetime," said the 78-year-old Republican from Arizona, whose control of the committee is the culmination of decades of tenacious advocacy for a muscular foreign policy. "Everything I've predicted, unfortunately, has come true, whether it be in Iraq or whether it be Syria."
The notion that all of John McCain's predictions have "come true" isn't just a bizarre boast, it's also laughably and demonstrably untrue. As Rachel put it on the show awhile back, "Let the record show, John McCain was wrong about Iraq and the war in Iraq in almost every way that a person can be wrong about something like that."
But it's this argument, which McCain has made before, that we're seeing "the most serious period of turmoil in our lifetime" that seems especially odd.
As we discussed the last time the senator made this assessment, McCain's lifetime includes the entirety of World War II, Vietnam, and the Cold War. To suggest turmoil is greater or more "serious" now may be politically convenient -- one assumes McCain is both eager to blame President Obama for unrest and anxious to make the case for more wars -- but it's also completely at odds with reality when considered in a historical context.
Today's installment of campaign-related news items that won't necessarily generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers:
* In a bit of a surprise, progressive billionaire Tom Steyer announced yesterday he will not run for the U.S. Senate in California next year. As recently as last week, he seemed to be leaning heavily in the opposite direction.
* An adviser to Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) told ABC yesterday, "He has told us to proceed as if he is running for president." Note, the conservative senator has said if he runs for national office, he won't run for re-election at the same time in Florida, which would create an interesting, wide-open Senate race in the Sunshine State.
* Iowa Gov. Terry E. Branstad (R) is reportedly telling Republican presidential candidates that he expects them to "support ethanol production in a big way."
* In Pennsylvania, a PPP survey released yesterday showing likely presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton (D) leading each of her top Republican rivals in next year's presidential race by double digits in the Keystone State. Mitt Romney comes closest, and he trails by 10 points.
* On a related note, PPP also asked Pennsylvania Republicans who their top choice is in their party's presidential primaries. Right-wing neurosurgeon Ben Carson was the top choice -- I'm not kidding -- with 18%, followed by Romney and Jeb Bush at 14% each. Rick Santorun, a former two-term Pennsylvania senator, is far behind in his own state with only 6%.
* Ohio Gov. John Kasich (R) conceded yesterday that he's considering the 2016 presidential race. "It's a privilege to be governor of Ohio ... and that's my focus," he told the AP. "But if I think something else makes sense, if I think the field is lacking or there's an opportunity, I'll look at it. All my options are open." Note this would be Kasich's second presidential run, following a largely ignored campaign in 2000, when the conservative Ohioan was still in Congress.
The Wall Street Journal recently noted that when it comes to welfare recipients, "few" applicants have been caught up in the "drug-screening net." How few? The piece noted that in Arizona, for example, between 2011 and 2014, over 108,000 people seeking benefits were subjected to drug screen. A grand total of 2 applicants were disqualified due to testing positive.
Note, I don't mean 2 percent; I mean literally 2 individual people out of 108,408.
In recent years, the idea of imposing drug tests on welfare beneficiaries -- which is to say, poor people receiving aid; those who receive corporate welfare benefits are exempt -- has become exceedingly popular among many Republicans. The problem for proponents is that the programs keep failing -- in practice, in the courts, or both.
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) is pushing forward with a plan to make food stamp recipients pass drug tests -- a requirement that the Obama administration says violates federal law. [...]
The U.S. Department of Agriculture, which oversees the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (known as FoodShare in Wisconsin), says it's against the rules for states to require drug testing as a condition of receiving benefits. The federal government could yank administrative funding from states that are out of compliance -- a threat the USDA leveled at Georgia over a similar drug testing scheme last year. Georgia backed down.
Walker has been aware of the rule from the start. "We believe that there will potentially be a fight with the federal government and in court," he told the Journal Sentinel in September.
Indeed, for the ambitious Republican governor, it's a two-fer -- he gets to look "tough" on poor people in advance of his presidential campaign, and at the same time, Walker gets to boast about a big fight with the Obama administration, which will make a nice addition to his presidential stump speech.
On the record, President Obama and his team have said very little about congressional Republicans partnering with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to derail international nuclear talks with Iran. Administration officials said the president will not meet with Netanyahu during his March trip, but that's only to prevent the appearance of interference with the Israeli election to be held two weeks later.
Behind the scenes, however, it seems the White House isn't pleased.
"Senior American official" as quoted by Haaretz: "We thought we've seen everything. But Bibi managed to surprise even us. There are things you simply don't do. He spat in our face publicly and that's no way to behave. Netanyahu ought to remember that President Obama has a year and a half left to his presidency, and that there will be a price."
Josh Marshall added that even American Jewish groups "who seldom allow any daylight between themselves and the Israeli government appear shocked by Netanyahu's move and are having difficulty defending it."
There are things you simply don't do.
I've been thinking about why this story strikes me as so important, and I realize that on the surface, it may not seem shocking to everyone. Republicans oppose the diplomacy with Iran; Netanyahu opposes the diplomacy with Iran. Perhaps their partnership was predictable?
Sure, House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) ignored U.S. protocol by circumventing the administration and reaching out to a foreign leader on his own, but given the degree to which Republicans have abandoned traditional norms in the Obama era, maybe this isn't that startling, either.
The problem, however, which I fear has been largely overlooked, is that it's genuinely dangerous for the federal government to try to operate this way.
Nearly every major political figure in the country, and even some not-so-major figures, has an email list. When used effectively, officeholders and candidates can use these lists to send out news, alerts, announcements, and plenty of appeals for contributions.
But once in a while, these lists are used in a very different kind of way. Take former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.), who's maintained a sizable list for years, and who parlayed his failed presidential campaign into an even larger email list.
And how, pray tell, does Gingrich put it to use? Yesterday, an email was sent from the "Office of Newt Gingrich," with a subject line that read, "CIA Insider issues urgent warning for seniors." The email identified "an advisor to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence" who, the message claimed, "probably knows more than anyone else in America about the inner workings of the government, the economy, and the U.S. banking system."
All of which led to the demagogic pitch:
"In short, Jim Rickards sees a big challenge ahead for any American in the process of saving for Retirement. We're talking about not only a huge collapse in the stock market (up to 70% or more) but also a collapse in the currency system, which could wipe out bank deposits, retirement plans, and more.
"But... and this is important...
"Even though the next collapse is imminent, there's still time to make the necessary moves to protect you and your family. That's why Jim Rickards just wrapped up a brand new 'playbook' for the coming collapse."
And wouldn't you know it, the message from the "Office of Newt Gingrich" is ready to send you a copy of the "playbook" so you'll be ready before the "huge collapse," which could "wipe out retirement plans." (Remember, the email subject line said this is a warning "for seniors.")
The email's postscript adds that there's an exclusive "missing chapter" to the book, which can also be sent to you, but "is not available anywhere else."
So, Newt Gingrich was, not too long ago, the most powerful lawmaker in Congress. He was, for a while, a leading presidential candidate. He's a staple on the Sunday shows and co-hosted his own national television program.
Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), who's developed an unflattering reputation as one of Congress' fiercest anti-immigrant voices, managed to coin a new noun this week. As msnbc's Aliyah Frumin noted on Tuesday, the far-right Iowan "created waves shortly before President Obama's State of the Union address on Tuesday night when he characterized one of the commander-in-chief's guests as 'a deportable.'"
King was referring to a young Texas woman who entered the country illegally as a young child, but who's now able to stay in the United States thanks to Obama's DACA policy.
And at a certain level, it's tempting not to care. So, Steve King, the "calves the size of cantaloupes" guy recently labeled an "a**hole" by his own party's Speaker, makes a lot of ridiculous and offensive comments. What else is new?
The answer to that question, it turns out, is quite a bit. Whereas Steve King was once considered a fringe buffoon, he's now helping dictate Republican strategy on immigration policy, and just as importantly, tomorrow many of his party's presidential hopefuls will make their way to the Hawkeye State to kiss his ring.
The largest gathering of potential Republican presidential candidates so far will descend on Iowa on Saturday to test their messages at a forum shaping up as the informal starting gun for the 2016 campaign.
The event, which is being hosted by Representative Steve King, Republican of Iowa, offers Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey, the most prominent establishment figure on the schedule, a chance to test his appeal among grass-roots conservatives.
And not just Christie, a longtime ally of the right-wing Iowan. The "Iowa Freedom Summit," co-hosted by King and Citizens United, will feature a small parade of unannounced presidential candidates.
Now that Republicans control both chambers of Congress, there will be a variety of changes Americans will be able to see quite easily, such as President Obama putting his veto pen to good use for the first time in a long while.
But other changes will be far more subtle and will unfold largely behind the scenes. We've seen some of this already -- GOP lawmakers embraced "dynamic scoring," for example -- but we're poised to see another shift when it comes to congressional subpoenas.
Regular readers may recall that former House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), near the end of his tenure on the panel, began issuing subpoenas in an unusually aggressive way. Ordinarily, when a committee is weighing whether to issue a subpoena, its members are supposed to debate the issue and vote, but Issa decided to streamline the process -- whenever he felt like subpoenaing someone, he simply did it unilaterally. No debate, no vote.
Jennifer Bendery reported this week that Republicans leaders have decided they like this model, too.
House Republicans are quietly moving to give unilateral subpoena authority to at least seven committee chairmen, a shift from longstanding rules that have required a full committee vote to issue a subpoena. The change would allow GOP chairmen to issue subpoenas without input from Democrats, letting them challenge nearly all of President Barack Obama's signature accomplishments, including the Affordable Care Act, the Dodd-Frank financial reform law, immigration reform and environmental protections.
Congressional committees have the ability to issue subpoenas to compel witness testimony or to obtain documents. But until recently, the Oversight and Government Reform Committee was the only committee where a chairman unilaterally issued subpoenas. Now, as more chairmen have begun signing up for unilateral subpoena authority, Democrats fear that Republicans plan to bury agencies in congressional requests for information so they can't get their work done.
A House Democratic aide told the Huffington Post everyone should get ready for two years of "re-litigating everything."
In theory, Republicans are desperate to destroy the Affordable Care Act and take insurance and related benefits from millions. GOP lawmakers in Congress have demonstrated their commitment to this goal with literally dozens of votes to repeal "Obamacare."
But these efforts generally come with an important caveat: they're hollow. Republicans know these efforts won't become law, at least not anytime soon, so it's all for show -- GOP lawmakers are effectively pounding their chests in a display intended to make themselves feel better.
When the debate is less theoretical and more practical, Republican bravado isn't quite so effortless. Take yesterday, for example, where Arkansas' new GOP governor was weighing whether to kill the state's Medicaid expansion policy.
Gov. Asa Hutchinson announced [Thursday] morning at UAMS that he will ask the legislature to fund the private option through the end of 2016. He will create a task force to come up with a new plan for 2017 and beyond.
Hutchinson said that the new plan should cover the beneficiaries currently covered by the private option, but be more sustainable in terms of cost.
This outcome was hardly assured. Hutchinson, a former congressman elected governor just a few months ago, would not take a position on Arkansas' Medicaid-expansion policy during the campaign. Just 24 hours ago, it was not at all clear whether he intended to take coverage away from 200,000 low-income Arkansans.
But as it turns out, it was a step the Republican governor just wasn't prepared to take. There's a larger significance to this that extends past Arkansas.
Rachel Maddow reports on an investigation into the death of a man whose body was found in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, that exposed an affair between the dead man's wife and the commander of the U.S. Naval base at Guantanamo Bay. The investigation continues. watch
Elizabeth Douglass, energy reporter with Inside Climate News, talks with Rachel Maddow about the recent spate of pipeline ruptures in Montana and North Dakota and the factors that contribute to pipelines failing. watch
Rachel Maddow shares an odd clip from an interview with Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid in which he remarks on his recovery from recent injuries and describes his ribs as "so meaningless it's hard to believe." watch