The Rachel Maddow Show, Transcript 12/09/11

Chris Hayes, Steve Kornacki, Theda Skocpol, Vanessa Williamson

RACHEL MADDOW, HOST: Good evening, Ed. Have a great weekend.

ED SCHULTZ, “THE ED SHOW” HOST: I hope so, too. You as well.

MADDOW: Thanks.

And thanks to you at home for staying with us the next hour. Happy
Friday night.

This Friday in politics started with some sort of sketchy rumors of a
Rick Perry resurgence, sketchy rumors that Texas Governor Rick Perry ought
to be taken seriously once again as a Republican presidential candidate.
“Rick Perry, the Iowa x-factor,” was the headline today in the “Washington

“The Post” reporting, quote, “There is some chatter in Republican
political circles that Perry`s ads are finally starting to take hold in the
Hawkeye State and that his support is beginning to bump upward.”

“Roll Call`s” political wire asking this morning, quote, “Is Perry
moving up in Iowa?” – before themselves noting the sketchy nature of the
reports on which their question was based. Quote, “No polling has picked
up on that movement yet.”

Everybody`s been sort of waiting for the big Rick Perry comeback. And
this morning, there appeared to be some maybe glimmer that it was finally
upon us.

The underappreciated thing about Rick Perry`s candidacy is that he
does have a lot of money, more money than you`d think looking at his polls.
He`s got lots of money. It`s because on paper, Rick Perry was supposed to
be competitive. He looked like a good candidate – again, on paper. And
so, he did raise a lot of money right away.

It was only when he started talking that things fell apart.

Can we actually just keep this – can we keep this around as a little
sound bite?





Because Rick Perry`s candidacy turned out to be an oops candidacy, his
poll numbers have just fallen off a cliff. He became very unviable very
quickly. I mean, look at his poll numbers over time.

But since Mr. Perry`s campaign has money, they have not been giving
up. The Perry campaign appears to be pursuing a strategy of doing paid
media and lots of it – paying for TV ads to blanket the airwaves in Iowa,
in the three weeks leading up to the Iowa caucuses. Do some good ads, do
some bad ads. Hi “Brokeback Mountain” jacket.

But do ads, ads, ads all the time. Keep yourself in a controlled,
scripted environment where you, Rick Perry, control the message.

If the Perry campaign could only do that then maybe they would have
had a comeback. But they also have their candidate out there not just
doing ads, but talking to humans. Live. They have him in settings where
he is not just reading off a cue cards and that sort of thing has turned
out to be a disaster, when he`s not reading off a cue card, Gov –


PERRY: Oops.


MADDOW: Oops, yes.

Rick Perry has had an unending string of oops, an unending string of
weird, wrong and strange moments on camera in public where he appears
totally confused.

It started at the very beginning of his campaign, as soon as he
started talking in public and continued to today. There`s new stuff today.


PERRY: I think Americans just don`t know sometimes which Mitt Romney
they`re dealing with. Is it the Mitt Romney that was on the side of –
against the Second Amendment before he was for the Second Amendment? Was
it before he was before the social programs from the standpoint of he was
for standing up for Roe v. Wade, before he was against Roe v. Wade.

I would do away with the education, the –


PERRY: Commerce. And let`s see. I can`t. The third one, I can`t.
Sorry. Oops.

This is such a cool state. I mean, come on. Live free or die? I
mean, you know, you got to love that, right?


PERRY: I come from a state, you know, where they had this little
place called the Alamo and they declared victory or death. You know, we`re
kind of into those slogans, man. It`s like live free or die, victory or
death. Bring it.

Those of you that will be 21 by November the 12th, I ask for your
support and your vote.

When you see his appointment of two – from my perspective, I
inarguably, two activist judges, whether it was – no, not Montemayor –


PERRY: Sotomayor.


MADDOW: That last clip came from an interview that Rick Perry did
today with the editorial board of “The Des Moines Register,” sort of sorry
that they helped him out when he went to him for help. Don`t you wonder
what he would have come up with after Montemayor? Or if he would keep
talking about Montemayor. Mr. Perry making up a new last name for Supreme
Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

There a little later, in that same interview, Mr. Perry stated that
there were eight unelected Supreme Court justices. Of course, there are
actually nine.

So the day in politics opened with Rick Perry`s got a chance. And the
day in politics closed with, ah, never mind about Rick Perry. We are still
three weeks out from Iowa, so anything could happen.

But Rick Perry flubbing another one today more or less solidifies the
fact this seems to be a two-man race. It`s Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich -
- or as I keep saying Newt Romney and Mitt Gingrich. If I do that on air
tonight, I`m sorry. I keep doing it in the office. It`s really

Anyway, the thing that`s now emerging as maybe the biggest hurdle to
Newt Gingrich getting the nomination is the establishment wing of the
Republican Party. Today this came out into the open. There are people in
the Republican establishment who have been willing to voice concerns or
even outright opposition to Mr. Gingrich in recent weeks.

But, today, the flood gates just really opened. Conservative
columnist David Brooks at “The New York Times,” quote, “He has every
negative character trait conservatives associate with 1960s excess:
narcissism, self-righteousness, self-indulgence and intemperance. He would
severely damage conservatism in the Republican Party if nominated.”

Former Reagan speechwriter, Peggy Noonan, writing in “The Wall Street
Journal,” quote, “Those who know him fear or hope that he will be true to
form in one respect. He will continue to lose to his number one longtime
foe, Newt Gingrich. He is a human hand grenade who walks around with his
hand on the pin saying, `Watch this.`”

Quote, “Is he erratic and unreliable as a leader? Yes. Ego maniacal?

Quote, “He`s a trouble magnet. A starter of fights that need not be

Peggy Noonan saying today the people who know Mr. Gingrich are mostly
not for him. And she reminds her “Wall Street Journal” readers today that
Mr. Gingrich was not just sometimes trouble as a leader in the House, he
was also sometimes just plain weird. She reminds us today of his claim in
the `90s that women should not serve in combat because women are prone to

I had forgotten about that one. Thank you, Peggy Noonan, I think.

Former Republican Senator Alan Simpson came out today and said that he
is against Newt Gingrich because as speaker, Mr. Gingrich lied to President
George H.W. Bush`s face back in 1990. And quote, “I am ready to tell that
story around the United States,” says Mr. Simpson.

That was all just today in Republicans versus Newt Gingrich. And this
adds to a laundry list of criticism of Newt Gingrich by establishment
Republicans just in the past few days.

The conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer this week writing,
quote, “Gingrich is possessed of an unbounded need of grand display that
has already led him to un-conservative places even he is at a loss to
explain. He`s untamed by self-discipline.”

Karl Rove writing in “The Wall Street Journal” yesterday, quote, “When
a man of his self-confidence begins to feel on top of the world, bad things
often happen.”

Oh, but wait, there`s more.


GEORGE WILL, ABC: Gingrich is an amazingly efficient candidacy and
embodies almost everything disagreeable about modern Washington. He`s the
classic rental politician. He denounces the Ryan budget as right wing
social engineering. He sits down to talk about climate change and cap and
trade with Nancy Pelosi and others. The list goes on.

He was – but, on top of all this, there`s the absurd rhetorical

SEN. TOM COBURN (R), OKLAHOMA: There`s a lot of candidates out there,
I`m not inclined to be a supporter of Newt Gingrich`s, having served under
him four years and experienced personally his leadership.


COBURN: Because I found it lacking oftentimes. I will have
difficulty supporting him as president of the United States.

CHUCK TODD, NBC NEWS: Do you believe Gingrich is a faux conservative?

is a Gingrichite. All he cares about is Newt Gingrich.

I don`t think Newt Gingrich cares about conservative principles. Newt
Gingrich cares about Newt Gingrich.


MADDOW: These are all establishment Republicans, essentially
shredding Newt Gingrich in the press this week.

That last gentleman you saw there, the former Republican governor of
New Hampshire, John Sununu. It should be noted that Mr. Sununu here is
acting as a Romney campaign surrogate.

But, you know, by attacking Mr. Romney`s only viable rival for the
nomination right now, all of these guys are effectively acting as
surrogates for Mitt Romney. The rise of Newt Gingrich is the first real
stress test of the Romney campaign.

You think running against Barack Obama is going to be easier than
running against Newt Gingrich? This is the Romney campaign`s first real
test. And the way they decided to handle it is by throwing everything in
on their candidate`s firm support of Paul Ryan and the Paul Ryan kill
Medicare budget.

The Romney campaign put out this ad today that makes it look like Paul
Ryan is the guy running for president – they all about brag on Mr. Ryan`s
tight abs. Their line of attack, while Newt Gingrich criticized Paul Ryan
in his kill Medicare plan, Mitt Romney stood with him.

No, Mr. Romney, no, you didn`t. Here`s the problem: it would be one
thing if you were like Mitt “Paul Ryan” Romney. You doing P90X together
all the time, if you guys had been in cahoots, if you`ve been standing with
him, you`ve been with Paul Ryan along the way. But Mr. Romney, you are the
one guy that did not jump in with Paul Ryan on the Republican side.

Newt Gingrich has been more with him than you have. I know it`s true
because we covered this for weeks.


MADDOW: The Republican Party and conservative establishment are even
now insisting that all of their presidential candidates pledge they, too,
want to kill Medicare. Tim Pawlenty, officially announcing. Mitt Romney
expected to announce. Both have been trying desperately to avoid getting
pinned down on the question of whether they, too, would vote to kill

The only major candidates who`ve been able to avoid taking a position
on this so far are Tim Pawlenty and Mitt Romney. Both men have been trying
to sprint as far away from this issue as possible.

A spokesperson for Mr. Romney told us Mr. Romney is on the same page
as Paul Ryan in terms of reducing the budget. But the spokesperson told us
that Mr. Romney will be proposing his own changes regarding Medicare.

After days of dodging that question, today, Tim Pawlenty took the
plunge. I would vote to kill Medicare.

The only major Republican presidential candidate who has not signed on
to this joint proverbial suicide pact in the Republican Party is Mitt
Romney. Mitt Romney so far managed to avoid signing on to the kill
Medicare thing.

Every major Republican presidential candidate except for Mitt Romney
so far, every one has pledged they, too, would kill Medicare.

I`m genuinely puzzled as to why this hasn`t received more attention as
a central issue in his campaign for the presidency. Mitt Romney is the
only major contender for president on the Republican side who has not said
if he wants to kill Medicare.

Mitt Romney standing alone as the only major candidate who has not
committed himself one way or another on the Paul Ryan kill Medicare plan.


MADDOW: Right. For weeks and weeks, Mitt Romney refused to take a
position on the Paul Ryan budget, as everybody else in his party did. But
now, he`s making him standing with Paul Ryan, the centerpiece of his
campaign against Newt Gingrich.

Mitt Romney`s decided to build the next leg of his campaign on a
really watery foundation. You don`t have a leg to stand on here, not to
mix my metaphors.

Mr. Romney, you have not been Mr. Pro Paul Ryan. If you`d like to
discuss the finesse you`re trying to put on this, I would love to talk to
you about it on this show., any time.

The Republican establishment is clearly signing up with Mitt Romney,
more enthusiastically than they have in the race so far. And it seems to
be because they are so horrified by the prospect of Newt Gingrich winning
this thing.

But this is turning out to be a great test. It`s almost like a
controlled experiment of the great American adage, or the great political
adage that Democrats fall in love, and Republicans fall in line.

Republicans do like to think of themselves as being very anti-
authority, as anti-establishment when it comes to politics. But they do
tend to fall in line behind whoever the Republican establishment supports.
I mean, we did see in the 2010 elections that the Republican establishment
choices in the Delaware Senate race and race to run against Harry Reid in
Nevada and the Lisa Murkowski primary up in Alaska.

All of the places, the choice of the Republican establishment was
rejected by Republican primary voters. Maybe the old adage isn`t true
anymore. Maybe Republicans will buck the establishment again in their
political choice for president this year.

Or maybe you can`t actually run a campaign for president while all of
these people with all of this sway in the media and in politics constantly
trash you and call you things like a human hand grenade and unstable and
someone I don`t think I could support as president.

This is a test. This is a test of whether Republicans really do still
like to fall in line and essentially do what the establishment tells them
or whether or not there`s an anti-establishment insurgency in the
Republican Party that`s going to defy what all of the bigwigs are warning
them about Newt Gingrich and they`re going to pick him anyway.

This is a test. It`s going to be a really, real he, really fun test.

Joining us now is Steve Kornacki, political news editor at “Salon.”
Steve, it`s good to see you. Thanks for being here.


MADDOW: Do Republican honchos hold sway over Republican voters

KORNACKI: Well, I mean, it`s a traditional formula. Everything you
just laid out, I think, in any presidential election in the modern area
would work, have worked, did work.

But I think the way to understand this, at leas the way I understand
this, is in the context of what`s happening in the Republican Party since
January 20th, 2009. Barack Obama`s inaugural basically marked the launch
of the Tea Party movement. The name it eventually took.

And what the Tea Party movement represents is two things. One is
conventional we`ve seen before. The other is brand new. The conventional
thing is the Republican Party base reacting with hysteria and resentment
toward a Democratic president.

The second part of it, it`s a two-front war. The other war is against
the Republican establishment. The conclusion of the Republican Party base,
the conservative base, was that for 10 years or so, before 2008, leaders of
the Republican Party had compromised too much and sold out conservative
principles too much and enabled Barack Obama`s rise.

And so, we see a level of suspicion now I think on the right, an
inward directed suspicion we`ve really never seen before. And I think it`s
created the emergence of a new establishment. So, we can look at all these
voices that we cite right now, whether it`s Alan Simpson or Peggy Noonan or
George Will or whoever.

But look at a guy like Rush Limbaugh who I think has absolute
credibility with this exercised Republican base. What did he spend this
week doing? He spent this week making this a tribal test for his
listeners. Hey, anybody out there trashing Newt Gingrich right now,
they`re not one of us. You don`t have to listen to anything you say. If
you`re part of our tribe, you`re going to ignore them.

With that going on, there`s a new establishment I think.

MADDOW: It`s amazing because Newt Gingrich was being trashed by Rush
Limbaugh –

KORNACKI: That`s right.

MADDOW: – very, very recently. When Newt Gingrich came out and said
that the Paul Ryan plan was right wing social engineering, Rush Limbaugh
flayed him alive on the air and has been no friend of Newt Gingrich while
Gingrich is in this current incarnation as a presidential candidate.

But now, Limbaugh, just in a pure partisan commitment is say, let`s
pick Gingrich, let`s not pull him apart, he might be a frontrunner.

KORNACKI: Yes, I think there are a few things. One is Limbaugh and a
lot of these other people are really invested in not having this be Mitt
Romney. So, they need some vehicle. They need some alternative. They
exhausted everybody else. Now, it`s Gingrich, now, it`s three weeks to go.

But the other thing, the interesting thing with Limbaugh is, if you
look back 10, 15, 20 years, the rise of Rush Limbaugh as a media force and
rise of Newt Gingrich as a political force, they basically had an informal
alliance for years in the late `80s and 90s.

You have the clip from Alan Simpson saying, you know, Newt Gingrich
lied to George H.W. Bush in 1990. The context of that was over George H.W.
Bush breaking his no new taxes pledge, and Newt Gingrich leading the
rebellion on the right against it and Rush Limbaugh giving him cover on the
airwaves. So, that`s sort of the foundation of their relationship. They
had a rough patch earlier this year, but it`s almost like old times now
listening to Rush talk about Newt.

MADDOW: But when you talk about people in this type of authority
position that a Limbaugh is in on the right being so desperate – to avoid
Mitt Romney being the nominee, how is Mitt Romney handling the ascendancy
of Newt Gingrich as a rival for the frontrunner position? I mean, time is
short in terms of Iowa. And New Hampshire happens as soon as Iowa is over.
How do you think he`s dealing with it as a campaign?

KORNACKI: Yes. Well, I mean, there`s everything we saw in terms of
questioning Gingrich`s competence as a leader, some of his flip-flops in
the past. But the other element of it that I find really interesting is,
you know, the basic knock on Romney is, you know, too moderate for the
conservative base, they want their guy. We know that.

But there`s some vulnerability, too, for Gingrich, that Romney doesn`t
share. And that`s personal life. And that`s the three marriages, that`s
the horrible story about the hospital visit, it`s all the stuff that`s out
there. His extramarital baggage like we really haven`t seen for a
Republican candidate or any candidate since Nelson Rockefeller back in

And if you look at the base of the Republican Party, especially in a
state like Iowa, or in South Carolina, these are people in a lot of ways
who still think it`s 1964. And so, the baggage that Newt Gingrich brings
this race is something that Mitt Romney I think has started to try to
exploit. He had an ad this week that basically said, “I`m a family man.”
Hint, hint.

MADDOW: Yes. Right.

KORNACKI: He had Chris Christie go out in Iowa and basically make the
same case. There`s some vulnerability there for Iowa for Newt Gingrich
when you have Iowa, with 60 percent of the electorate being fundamentalist
Christians. So, that might be something that takes a value.

MADDOW: Running on that one doesn`t hurt – also doesn`t hurt him in
the general election. Running toward the Paul Ryan kill Medicare plan he
was cautious about before, that seems to me like a major fumble by Mitt

But this is going to be so much fun. This is turning out to be so
much more fun than I thought it would be.

KORNACKI: Yes, I agree.

MADDOW: Steve Kornacki, political news editor at “Salon” – Steve,
it`s good to see you. Thanks for coming up. Appreciate it.

All right. It`s December. Christmas lights are up. There`s a chill
in the air.

And just about now Republicans in Congress should be playing a
senseless came of chicken with the economic health and wellbeing of the
American people. What time is it? Oh, yes, `tis the season.

What can be done about this latest bit of political chicanery is next
on this show with the one and only Chris Hayes. Stay tuned.


MADDOW: Democrats are in charge of the United States Senate. They
have a majority in the Senate, albeit a slim majority, but a majority
nonetheless. Which is why, in the last couple days, Democrats have been
able to pull off votes like this.

This is Richard Cordray, President Obama`s nominee to run the new
agency tasked with protecting you from Wall Street firms and banks that
might be tempted to act dishonorably when it comes to things like your
credit card, your mortgage, your student loans. The agency is the Consumer
Financial Protection Agency.

Yesterday, the Senate voted on Mr. Cordray`s nomination to lead that
agency. He got a clear majority vote, 53 to 45 in favor of confirming him
to run the new agency. Democrats get a majority vote for Richard Cordray.

And then another big win for Democrats in the Senate yesterday. This
one on the payroll tax cut extension. That, too, was a narrow victory for
Democrats, 50 yeses to 48 nos. So the Democrats` payroll tax cut, again,
gets a majority vote. Woo-hoo for them!

Also, this week, another big win for the White House and Democrats in
the Senate, President Obama`s nominee for the federal appeals court in
Washington, Caitlin Halligan, the Senate votes for her this week, 54 to 45.

So, like I said, big week of victories for Democrats winning all of
those majority votes in the Senate. Richard Cordray, 53 votes in favor, 45
against. Payroll tax cut extension, 50 votes in favor, 48 against.
Caitlin Halligan for the U.S. Court of Appeals, 54 in favor, 45 against.

And that means none of those things passed.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The Senate voted along party lines against
confirming former Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The Senate has voted down both Republican and
Democratic compromise proposals to extend the payroll tax break into next


MADDOW: And, of course, you may have seen the headline, “Senate
rejects cloture on D.C. Circuit nominee Caitlin Halligan.” That cloture
word is important.

You`d never know it from the way these things get sort of shorthanded,
headlined, right? But all these things, that judge nomination, the
consumer protection nomination, the payroll tax cut extension – they all
did get majority yes votes in the Senate. But they still did not pass,
because Republicans did something that`s called a filibuster so a majority
vote doesn`t count. It`s not enough to pass something.

Republicans do this on everything – everything over the past few
years, every vote of substance. They have taken a rule that used to be for
exceptional extreme circumstances only and they are applying it basically
to every vote now, effectively changing the constitutional structure of our
government so one house of Congress doesn`t run by majority rule anymore.
Everything needs a supermajority of 60 votes instead of 51.

This is not normal. It was not like this before.

In 2005, when Republicans were in control of the Senate, Senate
Democrats were in the minority, Democrats back then decided to filibuster
some of President Bush`s judicial nominees. Republicans got mad about
that. They threatened to get rid of the filibuster, called it the nuclear

In order to avert the nuclear option, seven Republicans and seven
Democrats formed a gang, a gang of 14. And that gang of 14 came up with a
deal. There would be no more filibustering of judicial nominees except in
extreme circumstances but the filibuster would be saved.


BRIAN WILLIAMS, NBC NEWS: The cots were in place and senators were
all ready for an all nighter. They were girding, in fact, for a virtual
shutdown until 14 senators who call themselves moderates emerged from a
marathon meeting with a deal. It means the president will get his way on
some federal judges, but he will lose on others. And it means all eyes
will be on the next vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court.


MADDOWE: Republicans were in charge of the Senate then. They made a
deal. President Bush got his nominees confirmed. And the Senate kept the
filibuster as an option for extreme cases.

Then Democrats took charge. Republicans went to the minority. That
gang of 14 agreement – yes, not so much for that. Republicans now
filibuster everything, literally every single substantive vote in the

Of the seven Republican senators from the gang of 14, four of them are
still in the Senate. All four of them voted to filibuster that judge`s
nomination this week.

Republicans made that deal to limit filibustering by Democrats, but
they reneged on the deal when it started to applying to them. And this is
why we can`t have nice things.

Joining us now is Chris Hayes, host of MSNBC`s “UP WITH CHRIS HAYES”
and editor at large of “The Nation.”

Hello, papa. Good to see you.

CHRIS HAYES, UP WITH CHRIS HAYES: Thank you. Thank you. My
daughter, Ryan, has a massively swelled diva head, huge head after you
debuted her on television.

MADDOW: How is fatherhood treating you?

HAYES: It`s really unbelievable transcendently sublime. It`s really
incredible. It`s really incredible.

MADDOW: I know we have other things to talk about. But how`s your
life different? I mean, obviously, sleeping and everything. But like –
how do you – are you seeing the world differently?

HAYES: I am. I think it`s just extremely intense and difficult to
articulate, visceral feeling of attachment and affection that is – it`s

MADDOW: You seem different. I thought you`d seem different because
you`d be, like, beat. You seem – you actually seem different. I feel
like you were looking at your feet before and now you`re looking at the

HAYES: Yes, I think that`s right. Well said.

MADDOW: Not to say –

HAYES: I`m looking at how we can break the filibuster. So she has a
better future. Like that segue there?

MADDOW: That was very well done. In fact, I might just leave. You
obviously have this in hand.


MADDOW: Senate Republicans, I don`t think objected to Richard
Cordray. He`s not, like, he`s not a fire brand guy. He`s a pretty
noncontroversial guy.

But they admit that. They object to the agency he was nominated to
lead. It was not about him ever.

What happens to the whole idea of consumer financial protection
without him and wow important is this filibuster?

HAYES: First of all, I thought it was great you just called out the
gang of 14 because I hadn`t thought of that. But it`s really preposterous
that those four people voted against that, that you judicial nominee. On
Cordray, there`s a deeper and more profound constitutional question that I
think is really more extreme than almost anything we`ve seen from the
Republicans which is this: a law was dually passed by both houses. It was
passed with a filibuster in place in the Senate.

So, it got a supermajority. Scott Brown voted for it and nudged it
across the line. It was signed by the president. It went through the
constitutional mechanisms to create a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

Our Constitution says that`s now the law of the land.

The Republicans in the Senate are saying, we don`t like that. We
don`t like that. We just don`t like it. We don`t like the outcome. We
lost and we`re not going to confirm anyone.

They`ve written a letter saying it`s not Cordray. You could nominate
Jesus Christ, himself. We won`t confirm him to be the head of the Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau because the dually created law that was passed
into law by majorities in both Houses and signed by the president of the
United States for constitutional procedures, we do not like.

MADDOW: Not to our liking.

HAYES: And there`s something really, really, really destructive and
toxic about that. I mean –

MADDOW: The filibuster, itself, is destructive and toxic to a
majority rule. And so, I mean, the whole idea of it is upsetting for those
exact reasons. But we still have it because we believe in minority rights.
We believe that even a single senator ought to have almost, almost
inexplicable levels of power to stop stuff.


MADDOW: So is the horror of this just that they are – that a
filibuster exists or they`re reneging on a deal or is it that this agency
needs somebody to run it? I mean, what is notable and new about this?

HAYES: Well, there`s a bunch of things. There`s the practical
problem that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is going to do
important stuff. And, look, there are banks out there promulgating all
sorts of loans right now as we speak and have this conversation, that are
as deceptive and terrible as all the loans that got us into this mess.
That`s happening, right?

So, the actual substantive regulatory responsibilities are important
and we need someone to do it.


HAYES: But the deeper question to me is, really face a Democratic
crisis at a certain level when the filibuster becomes normalized. It`s
very hard for the institution to respond and people in the media to respond
because it has become so normalized.


HAYES: What you showed the clips off, and James Fallows of “The
Atlantic” has been writing about this, I think, in a great way, is that the
headlines become “Rob Cordray`s voted down.”


HAYES: So, now, we`re in a situation where we have a one-way ratchet,
right? It only gets worse. There is nothing pushing back that says this
is abnormal, this is not right, this is a departure from our norms and


HAYES: And until we come up with some way to break that open, it`s
only going to close further, right? The question is, how do you get back
to majority rule and, you know, we had an opportunity in January. You
covered it a lot. And I was on the program talking about it. And Senator
Udall was pushing it.

I think, ultimately, it has to hit a crisis point when the Democratic
minority, whoever`s in the minority, recognizes the long-term interest of
the institution and their own long term political interest rests on
restoring majority rule in the Senate. I don`t think we`re there yet.

MADDOW: Yes. And that the abuse of it is more harmful than the
prospect of losing it.

HAYES: In individual cases. That`s exactly right.

MADDOW: Chris Hayes, the host of MSNBC`s “UP WITH CHRIS HAYES,” 7:00
a.m. on Saturday, 8:00 a.m. on Sunday. I`m sorry about the long divergence
in your private life. It was unfair.

HAYES: I`ll talk about my daughter and you just pull the string.

MADDOW: We`ll be right back with more of Chris –


MADDOW: We`ll be right back.


MADDOW: The best new thing in the world is about GWB. Not the GWB
you`re thinking of. Our featured GWB tonight on the show is a GWB that is
extremely popular. And also very good for the American economy.

So, not the guy on the right, but a different GWB. Best new thing
right at the end of the show. That`s coming up. Stick around.


MADDOW: Newt Gingrich does not seem all that more Tea Party-ish than
Mitt Romney as a politician. I mean, he`s a career politician. He`s a guy
with the Nancy Pelosi global warming ad following him around. He`s Mr.
Insider Republican Establishment, decades in Washington. There`s nothing
crusadering or outsidery about him.

So, why is Newt Gingrich getting so much Tea Party support?

Well, for those of you keeping track at home, Newt Gingrich is getting
a ton of Tea Party support. A Gallup poll out last week has him with a 30-
point lead over his closest competitor among self-described Tea Party
supporters. A FOX News poll out this week shows the same trend. Mr.
Gingrich 29 points ahead of the closest competition when it comes to
support from self-identified Tea Party voters.

Here`s an idea why Mr. Newt Gingrich, Mr. D.C. Insider, might be the
new Tea Party darling. Take a look at this.

In polling out last week, the folks at Public Policy Polling noted
that Mr. Gingrich`s strength in the early primary state of Florida, for
example, quote, “points to his appeal to senior citizens. As Public Policy
Polling notes in handy chart form, Mr. Gingrich is polling better with
older voters than he is overall in at least five states and nationally.
Newt Gingrich has disproportionate support from old people.

And here`s an underappreciated thing about the Tea Party movement. It
tends to be made up of old people. We know it`s conservative people,

We know it`s not the most racially diverse thing in the world. But in
a pronounced way it`s also senior.

In the new book, “The Tea Party and the Remaking of Republican
Conservatism,” Harvard government and sociology team who studied the Tea
Party movement found that active participants in the broader circles of Tea
Party supporters come from similar social backgrounds. Although not every
active Tea Partier is a senior citizen, most are middle-aged and beyond –
a key social characteristic. As older, middle class white people, Tea
Partiers tend to be better cushioned against economic upheaval than younger
Americans, especially minorities. So, lots of older middle class people in
the Tea Party.

Another key conclusion of the new book studying the Tea Party is the
Tea Partiers for the most part know what Medicare and Social Security are.
They`re not dumb. They get those are government programs. Even if you`ve
seen the guy holding the sign that says “keep the government hands off my
Medicare,” it`s probably PhotoShopped. Most Tea Partiers understand what`s
going on with federal benefits.

And they`re very comfortable with Social Security and Medicare for the
most part. They`re very comfortable with those things they are getting, as
older middle class Americans. They`re comfortable with anything they are

But, again, they`re older middle class folks. Not by in large poorer
people. The things they don`t like, the things they are against are things
that young people or poor people are benefiting from. Not the stuff
they`re getting.

Quote, “Tea Party people know that Social Security, Medicare and
veterans programs are government-managed, expensive and funded with taxes.
It`s just they distinguish these programs which they feel recipients have
earned from other social benefits which they feel unnecessarily run up
expenses or might run up public costs in the future, placing a burden on
hardworking taxpayers to make placements to free loaders who have not
earned public support. A well-marked distinction between workers and non-
workers, between productive citizens and the freeloaders, is central to the
Tea Party world view and conception of America.

Not only do Tea Party Americans think that public assistance for lower
income Americans is more expensive and open-ended than it is, they are also
angry about huge new handouts like health reform, Obamacare, and other
expanded benefits for younger, less privileged Americans championed by
President Obama and legislated by Democrats in 2010.”

So, the things they don`t like, the things they`re against are things
young people get and things poor people get, because they`re happy with
things that old middle class people get. The benefits you get because
you`re poor or access because you`re young, those are the ones that are
suspects in Tea Party circles.

And so, Newt Gingrich has tons of support among Tea Party supporters,
and among old people who disproportionately make up the Tea Party.

And what`s Newt Gingrich been doing in his campaign? He`s really
singularly been waging a campaign against poor people and specifically
against poor kids.


neighborhoods, you have to literally reestablish the dignity of work. I
will tell you personally I believe the kids could mop the floor and clean
out the bathroom and get paid for it and it would be OK.

They`d be dramatically less expensive than unionized janitors and
you`d begin to reestablish the dignity of work.


MADDOW: When it`s all over, Newt Gingrich has the race locked up on
his account of turn poor kids into janitors plan.

Seriously, though, the open question now really is whether Republicans
do still fall in line, like we were talking about earlier, or whether we
could potentially see conservative voters bucking the Republican
establishment that has turned all its guns on Newt Gingrich. The
establishment really sort of seems to be against him. But his polls are
still good.

Could the people answering the pollsters and going to the caucuses and
primaries and voting actually defy the establishment and vote for Newt
Gingrich? Or is this movement that gets so much credit, this Tea Party
movement, is it actually going to turn out to just be made of standard
issue Republican voters who are going to do what the honchos in the
Republican Party say is right for the Republican Party?

Joining us for the interview: Theda Skocpol, professor of government
and sociology at Harvard, and Vanessa Williamson, who`s a PhD student
there. They are co-authors of the new book, “The Tea Party and the
Remaking of Republican Conservatism.” It`s a sociological analysis of the
Tea Party movement done through research and interviews and field work.

It is empirical and it is very impressive. Thank you both for being

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Great to be here.

MADDOW: Let me ask if I got anything dreadfully wrong in summarizing
parts of your book.

THEDA SKOCPOL, TEA PARTY STUDY CO-AUTHOR: No, you hit the nail right
on the head about the views about work. When Newt Gingrich says the
dignity of work, he`s hitting just the right chord with many conservatives
and Tea Partiers. And they make a distinction between benefits for those
people and things going – even like Pell grants for college students that
go to folks who haven`t paid their dues yet.

MADDOW: Because which you can`t have done as a young person.

SKOCPOL: That`s right.

MADDOW: What is the difference between people who are in the Tea
Party movement – what is the difference between the Tea Party movement and
the conservative base of the Republican Party that existed before we ever
talked about Tea Parties?

question. The Tea Party is very conservative. One of our interviewees
told me that he – he considers himself just a little bit of the right of
Attila the Hun. So, that`s absolutely true.

But just because they`re conservative, it doesn`t mean they`re always
happy with the Republican Party. So, they can always vote for a Republican
over a Democrat, certainly. But that doesn`t mean that they don`t want to
push the Republican Party rightward. I think that`s what we`ve seen.

MADDOW: It is easier to push the Republican Party rightward if they
think your vote is at stake, though. You found that there`s really no
circumstances under which Tea Partiers would support a third party movement
or God forbid a Democrat. Is that right?

SKOCPOL: Almost none. I mean, we found people were very pragmatic
about what it takes to beat Democrats or to get rid of Barack Obama, which
is the number one goal.

And I think Mitt Romney has been banking on that. He`s been assuming
that if he can just ride through this turbulent period in the Republican
primaries, where Tea Party identified people are the most active and
attentive of the Republican base, that he`ll have them in his camp when he
goes against Obama.

But the Newt Gingrich upsurge here which is, what, the third or fourth
non-Mitt Romney upsurge is throwing a little bit of a monkey wrench into
that because even though I don`t think anybody could have predicted that
Gingrich would be a Tea Party favorite, he does remind a lot of these older
white conservatives of the takeover of the Congress back in the 1990s by
the Republican radicals.

MADDOW: And the language that we talked about earlier, and the
introduction at the top of the discussion, about him really hitting it on
the head in terms of some of the anxieties that are motivating Tea Party
activism I think helps understand the enthusiasm for him as well as the
really targeted age-based stuff. I wonder, though, if you have insight
into why the Tea Partiers might have tolerated so many rises of other
candidates against Mitt Romney.

Is there something repellent about Mitt Romney to the Tea Party
mindset? Is there something he`s getting exactly wrong? Because they
really seem to hate him.

SKOCPOL: They think he`s inauthentic. I don`t think hate is the
right word.

We interviewed people in the spring of 2011 and asked them late in the
interview process, did they have a favorite for the GOP nomination? And
the one thing they all agreed on is they weren`t enthusiastic about Romney.
That`s because they just don`t believe he`s for real – something which
many Massachusetts liberals might agree about.

MADDOW: Right. Newt Gingrich has been so many different things,
though. It`s hard to see why he seems more real than Mitt Romney does. I
mean, Newt Gingrich has taken pretty much as many contrary positions on
major issues as Mitt Romney has. I imagine the Romney campaign is very
frustrated people think of Gingrich as more authentic, given he`s having as
much of a patchwork record.

WILLIAMSON: I think for a lot of Tea Partiers, there`s a question of
tone. That Newt Gingrich is hitting the right notes, he`s hitting the
right sort of message.

SKOCPOL: And they like kicking ass. That`s what they want.


WILLIAMSON: And Mitt Romney just hasn`t quite provided that. It`s
not to say they wouldn`t vote for him. They might not be enthusiastic.
But, again and again, interviewees told us what they need to do is beat

MADDOW: Yes? Go ahead.

SKOCPOL: And also argue with Obama. I mean, they want somebody who`s
hard hitting. So, each of these non-Mitt Romneys that`s risen and fallen
has had that style. That, you know, we`re going to sock it to the
Democrats and Obama, which Romney tries but somehow it just doesn`t come

MADDOW: Can I ask you about one last factor about the age issue which
I found really interesting. Having been involved in a lot of different
liberal groups over time, as somebody who`s roughly to the left of Mao, to
use your construction, in groups that have mostly older liberals, there`s a
lot of anxiety about that. And groups of older liberals want to get young
people involved and worry about that a lot.

Do Tea Partiers worry there are not young Tea Partiers?

WILLIAMSON: Well, I will say, you know, as a sort of younger person,
I would attend the meetings. There was light in the eye that this might be
the young person finally coming to the meeting before they realized I was
there to do interviews.

So, it wasn`t that they don`t want young people to attend, but I think
they take a pleasure and pride in their own sort of older person`s wisdom,
that they`ve worked their whole lives and that`s given them perspective
they can`t imagine young people have.

MADDOW: So, they`re not expecting or looking for a tide of young
people. They don`t worry about it the way hippies do. It must be very

Theda Skocpol and Vanessa Williamson, both of Harvard, the co-authors
of “The Tea Party and the Remaking of Republican Conservatism – I know you
came to town to talk to me tonight. I really appreciate you being here.
Thanks for doing this.

SKOCPOL: Thank you very much.

MADDOW: Thanks. I appreciate it.

All right. The best new thing in the world makes its triumphant
return to the show tonight. That`s coming up. And it is very good news.


MADDOW: He`s a former FOX News personality. He`s a former Lehman
Brothers executive. And now, he`s the Republican governor of the great
state of Ohio. He is John Kasich.

His approval ratings in Ohio have dropped somewhere between those of
rush hour traffic and slush, dirty slush, in your shoe. Not only is he
down to 38 percent approval in Ohio, last month, Ohio voted by a 22-point
margin to overturn John Kasich`s signature legislation, stripping union
rights in Ohio. That got recalled by 22 points, a landslide against John
Kasich and the Ohio Republicans.

All of which must be weighing heavily on Governor Kasich as the 2012
race heats up, since Ohio is expected to be as hotly contested a swing
state as it ever is. Governor Kasich and the Republicans did have a plan
for that, too. They passed a law early this year to severely curtail early
voting in Ohio, to make it harder and less convenient to vote in the state
of Ohio. That, of course, political common wisdom says hurts Democrats and
helps Republicans.

Now, Ohio voters have done it again. They are going after Kasich`s
kill early voting law as well. Ohio secretary of state confirming today
that the more than 300,000 valid signatures submitted to recall John
Kasich`s Republican kill early voting law in Ohio are sufficient to put
that issue on the ballot for recall in November. That means the law is on
hold until it can be voted on, which means early voting is saved in Ohio
for the presidential election next year, and it means that Ohioans will be
voting on whether they want to repeal John Kasich`s kill early voting law
on the same day they will be voting for president.

And if this next Ohio effort to overturn a John Kasich law brings out
anywhere near the enthusiasm that the last one did, President Obama and
Vice President Biden will probably be really psyched to be sharing a ballot
with the latest opportunity for Ohio voters to tell John Kasich what they
think of him.


MADDOW: Best new thing in the world today, this is the George
Washington Bridge. It connects New York City to Ft. Lee, New Jersey. It`s
the most heavily used vehicular bridge in the entire world. More than 100
millions cars driving over the decks every year.

It`s a suspension bridge so those two decks of road are hung from
suspender cables which in turn are hung from the main cables that are
strung between the two towers.

This is what the G.W. Bridge looked like when it was first built, when
the last steel girder was put in place back in 1931, 80 years ago. That`s
when with the suspender cables were new. The suspender cables haven`t been
replaced since.

This week, the agency that owns that bridge, the Port Authority of New
York and New Jersey authorized the first chunk of a more than $1 billion
project to clean up the bridge`s main cables, the really big ones and to
replace the smaller cables, the suspender cables, all 592 of them. The
suspender cables alone, if you put them end to end, would be about 9,000
miles long. They`re all different lengths depending on where they are on
the bridge. The shortest ones way 1,500 pounds, the longest 10,000 pounds.

The suspender cables aren`t there for decoration. They`re actually
holding this thing up. So, while they`re replacing them, they can`t take
more than three down at a time.

You want to know what all that engineering awesomeness means for this
part of the word and for the country? It means jobs. Port Authority
officials say this part of the project alone, to fix up the bridge, will
create 3,600 jobs. Right, because when you work on your infrastructure, it
means jobs.

It also means that big things you build that are used by lots and lots
of people keep working as they were designed to and we`re all proud of
them. This is how it`s supposed to work.

And on this beautiful span across the mighty Hudson River, it`s
working. We could be doing this everywhere – best new thing in the world

Have a great night.


Copyright 2011 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by
United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed,
transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written
permission of CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark,
copyright or other notice from copies of the content.>