Guests: Chris Hayes, Rep. Carolyn Maloney, Sam Tanenhaus.
HOST (voice-over): It‘s official.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: On this vote, the yeas are 57, the nays are 41.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MADDOW: The Republicans say the issue of regulation for Wall Street -
likely responsible for this—shouldn‘t even be debated on the floor of
the United States Senate.
Republicans also say they‘ll do anything to stop immigration reform at
the federal level—perhaps preferring that states like Arizona implement
their own bright ideas.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GOV. JAN BREWER ®, ARIZONA: I hope that we meet again on—better
circumstances.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MADDOW: Tonight, meet the friendly folks who wrote the “Papers,
please” law that‘s turning Arizona into a pariah state.
And our viewers kept telling us they were getting creepy fundraising
mailers designed to look like census forms. Then Congress made it illegal
to send out fake census mailers. It turns out they‘re still coming anyway.
Remember the John Birch Society? Fluoride in the water as a communist
mind control plot? I had such a nice time with them at CPAC.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MADDOW: A lot of people say crazy (EXPLETIVE DELETED).
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MADDOW: Now, they‘re making stuff up about me to raise money for
themselves. First of all, you guys, please stop. And if you don‘t stop,
can I have some of the money?
All that, plus George W. Bush‘s new book, the U.S. senator who‘s
taking credit now for a bill he used to say would kill you, and the perfect
gift just in time for Mother‘s Day.
It‘s THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW—starting right now.
(MUSIC)
(END VIDEOTAPE)
MADDOW: Today in Washington, all 41 Republican senators lined up,
unified, along with one Democrat, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, and they all
bravely insisted that Wall Street reform not be debated on the floor of the
United States Senate. Just to be clear here, they did not vote Wall Street
reform down, they voted to not allow it to be discussed.
Even without Ben Nelson, Democrats have 58 votes in the Senate on
this, a huge majority in favor of passing Wall Street reform. But
Republicans are filibustering. They are insisting that it not even be
talked about on the Senate floor—which is not to say the negotiations on
this are over. Republicans say they do want to keep talking. They just
don‘t want to do it in the Senate—you know, where people can see.
Republican Senator Richard Shelby reportedly is still trying to work
out a deal with Democrat Chris Dodd. A number of Republicans are
considered possible votes for some version of reform in the end. But
today‘s vote to not allow debate on the Senate floor really just means that
Republicans want the political negotiations on Wall Street reform to happen
away from the C-Span cameras, in private, off the Senate floor.
This was not a vote on the merits of the bill. This was, “Hey, do you
guys want to start talking about Wall Street reform?” And the resounding
reply from all 41 Republicans plus Ben Nelson was: “No, we do not want to
start debating this.”
Whatever you hear in terms of Beltway common wisdom about this—
believe me—it is not normal for things to take more than 50 votes to
pass the Senate. A majority of a body of 500 -- mathematically speaking, a
majority vote in the United States Senate is 50-plus-one. But on Wall
Street reform, like lots of things, Republicans aren‘t just voting no.
They‘re using a procedural tool to keep a vote from even happening.
Democrats have a majority on this. Republicans just won‘t let them
take a majority vote.
Ever since they lost control of Congress in the ‘06 midterm elections,
Republicans have become a finely-tuned filibuster machine. See how the
number of filibusters skyrockets there at the end in 2007? That‘s the
voice of the Republican minority.
Just since President Obama took office, Republicans have filibustered
the stimulus, the tobacco regulation, extending unemployment benefits,
health reform, of course—you know what? Actually, it‘s pretty much
everything.
Do we have a scroll of that?
Yes. As far as we can tell, Republicans have filibustered every major
piece of legislation since President Obama took office. The only major
actions we‘ve been able to come up with that weren‘t filibustered were the
nominations of the president‘s cabinet secretaries and the nomination of
Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor. That‘s because cabinet secretaries
and Supreme Court nominees rarely if ever get filibustered.
But never say never. Another Supreme Court nomination is coming up
this summer.
Procedurally, this is the reality in the Senate: Republicans are
filibustering everything. They are using Senate rules to block majority
votes on almost every single nominee and on every significant piece of
legislation, now including Wall Street reform. Even though that doesn‘t
get talked about anymore, don‘t lose sight of it. Everybody keeps acting
as though this is not normal. It is not. This is not normal.
The constant ever present, always on filibuster has never happened
before in the history of our country. This has never happened before in
the history of the Senate.
How Democrats will respond to the always on filibuster in the case of
Wall Street reform remains to be seen. Will Democrats manage to win over
some Republican votes? Would they—could they use the reconciliation
procedure to get around the filibuster like they had to do on health
reform? Nobody yet knows for sure. Procedurally, it is not at all clear
what happens next.
As I said, there‘s never been a case in American history where every
single piece of legislation is filibustered. We‘ve never done this before.
But substantively, it is important to keep in mind what the
Republicans are using the filibuster to block right now. They‘re blocking
Wall Street reform now—when more than two-thirds of Americans say they
want Wall Street reform. Everybody who understands that there is an
economic crisis right now that was caused by a financial crisis, everybody
who understands that wants the financial system to be fixed.
So, in practical political terms, how do you make the case that you‘re
against financial reform? It‘s actually not going to be easy. Check out,
for example, this e-mail today from the estimable Tea Party Nation. This,
I think just makes clear how difficult it‘s going to be to make the case
against Wall Street reform.
Quote, “Today is the day that Harry Reid has scheduled a vote to try
and cram the, quote, ‘financial reform‘ bill down our throats.” By which
they mean bring it up for a debate using a majority vote. That‘s cramming
it down your throat in tea party speak.
But back to the letter, this is the good part: “Let me give you one
horrific example of the stupidity in this bill. This bill will create
liability for advertising agencies for ads that the Federal Trade
Commission decides are aiding and abetting false advertising. Imagine you
own an advertising agency. Your job is not to verify what a client is
selling. Your job is to simply create the ad campaign that will drive
customers to their doors.”
So, that‘s the pitch. That‘s the Tea Party Nation pitch to their
supporters about why financial reform is so bad and must be stopped. Their
pitch is: it wouldn‘t allow false advertising. Oh, the outrage.
Imagine the poor Tea Party Nation e-mail appeal writer who‘s tasked
with putting together this message. How can we make Wall Street reform
sound really bad? Would it sound bad if we asked tea party activists to
imagine if they were ad agency executives who didn‘t want to be held
accountable for lying about what they were selling? Would that rile people
up?
Imagine the angry mob taking to the streets now. We want the right to
make false statements in advertising! We demand the right of advertising
executives to not be held liable for lying about what they‘re selling! Is
this what we‘re supposed to be chanting? Could we make it rhyme?
I don‘t know that this campaign against Wall Street reform, because
it‘s against false advertising is going to fit on a sign. I don‘t exactly
know how this is going to work for them. Republicans might be taking every
procedural advantage they have in Congress right now to stop Wall Street
reform. But politically, in terms of the substance, in terms of trying to
convince their base on this one, the political problems here are plain.
Joining us now is Chris Hayes, Washington editor of “The Nation”
magazine.
Chris, thank you very much for coming on the show. Nice to see your
glasses have been found.
CHRIS HAYES, THE NATION: Oh, they have. Thanks for having me.
I think it was Ayn Rand wrote advertising agency owners of the world
unite.
MADDOW: I was—when I got—I got this this morning and I got it
on my BlackBerry before I was sitting down in my regular e-mail on my
computer, and I thought it was something that had been cleverly put
together by one of the whiz kids on our staff, like, wouldn‘t it be funny
if this is what the Tea Party Nation had to resort to?
HAYES: Yes.
MADDOW: It is—it‘s amazing to me. How do—how do Republicans
sell this to their base, that they‘re against Wall Street reform?
HAYES: Well, I think, actually, the more I think about it and the
more I think about this whole bailout thing, the more I think actually the
bailout dog whistle is a way of trying to invigorate their base. I mean,
one of the things I think you see is that the issue of the financial reform
bill is not seizing the imagination. Even of the most hardcore
conservative members of the Republican coalition, the tea party folks, this
bill is not seizing their imagination. They‘re not showing up at town
halls to oppose it in the way they were with health care.
And I actually think the bailout attack wasn‘t even so much designed
for the general public so much as it was just actually a first attempt at
even trying to stoke some outrage and some energy amongst their own core
supporters, which, you know, I don‘t really think is present. I just think
we‘re not seeing the level of outrage there that we saw against the health
reform bill on this bill.
MADDOW: And because they haven‘t been able to sort of gin up outrage
about this among their base, they haven‘t been able to excite their base
with this, and I think you‘re right in that observation—what happens
next? Politically, what‘s their next step toward trying to stop it?
HAYES: Well, I think there‘s a few—there‘s sort of a branch in the
tree here. I mean, one is that, you know, one imagines perhaps everything
is changed and now the Republicans really, really care about their good
faith objections to what‘s in the bill and are trying to make a good faith
effort at negotiating.
The other is that they‘re essentially stalling and they‘re trying to
more or less hold up Wall Street for lots of contributions. And this is
essentially what McConnell and Kyl—McConnell and Cornyn were doing when
they—you know, when they went to Wall Street, is we stand between you
and Wall Street reform. And the longer they can hold it up, the more they
can probably get campaign cash.
And then the third thing I think is possible is that they think if
they stall, they can kind of rerun the health care arc, which is to say, if
you look at the early polling on health care, it also was high and the
longer they dragged it out, the less popular it got. And so, there‘s a
thinking I think among some sectors, if they drag this out, the same thing
will happen.
MADDOW: Democrats do seem to have caught on to the idea, though, that
if they allow it to be slowed down, it will be stopped.
HAYES: Yes.
MADDOW: Democrats seem to have figured that out this time. They also
seem to have figured out that they should fact-check their opponents when
their opponents start to get away with saying things that aren‘t true about
the legislation. My question, though, is whether or not Democrats have
learned any lesson from health care or whether they have a new lesson that
they‘re trying to learn here about actually negotiating with Republicans.
Are the negotiations actually happening, even though there is no
debate on the Senate floor?
HAYES: I think, yes, they are. I mean, you know, people I talk to on
the Hill and other reporters find the same thing, which is that there is—
there are actual negotiations happening. I hope that they‘ve learned a
lesson. It does seem—I mean, one of the things I thought was very
interesting was that the White House came out with a veto threat very early
in this in a way they never did with health care reform. The only thing
they issued a veto on early was that the size of the bill not be too large.
In this case, they‘ve issued a veto threat if the derivatives
legislation is not strong enough. So, they‘re already taking a tougher
line. But I would also say, you know, this is not just in the hands of
Democrats on the Hill. It is incredibly important that public opinion
remain squarely for taking on the banks and reining them in.
And there‘s lots of opportunities for progressives who care about this
to call their senators and to call members on the Hill to show up at
protests. There‘s a march on Wall Street being led by AFL-CIO. There‘s a
group called New Way Forward that‘s doing actions. There‘s a group called
National People‘s Action.
There‘s a bunch of people that are marshalling grassroots organizing
to go after the banks. I think that‘s actually going to be more important
than the deals that get made on Capitol Hill because they‘re going to
respond to what the mood in the country is.
MADDOW: The day that the Democrats start responding to their base
protesting in the streets is the day that I realize that I‘ve woken up and
lived in another country.
HAYES: I‘m a Cubs fan, so I remain hopeful.
MADDOW: I was going to say, you can be the—you can be the cloud,
you can be the silver lining and I‘ll be the cloud.
HAYES: OK.
MADDOW: But we work together well.
Chris Hayes, Washington editor of “The Nation” magazine—thanks very
much for joining us, Chris.
HAYES: Thank you. Thank you, Rachel.
MADDOW: OK. Suggestion for what to get your mom for Mother‘s Day. I
don‘t know your mother, in all likelihood, depending on who you are, but I
swear she does not have this. I really, really don‘t think your mom has
one of these unless she is a rogue Russian missile engineer—in which
case you should probably just think about jewelry or flowers or something
instead.
But for everybody else—a great idea. That‘s ahead.
Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
MADDOW: Well, ahead, a very far right-wing group has invented a quote
from me that I never said, and they‘re using it to solicit money from their
members. So, this is becoming a theme in my life now. We here at the show
has come up with a plan to deal with it once and for all. We think it‘s
fair to everybody. That proposal is directly ahead.
Please stay tuned.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
MADDOW: The big deal news headline out of the world of politics today
was the Republican Party‘s filibuster of Wall Street reform. But there was
supposed to be another big deal thing in politics today. Today was
supposed to be the day that Democratic Senator John Kerry and Republican
Senator Lindsey Graham announced bipartisan climate change legislation.
That announcement, as you probably noticed, did not happen today.
Why didn‘t it happen? Because Lindsey Graham got very mad. He
scuttled his own climate legislation because he says he‘s angry that the
Obama administration might bring up the issue of immigration reform first.
Quote, “This comes out of left field. We haven‘t done anything to prepare
the body or the country for immigration.”
Senator Graham‘s anger has been seconded now by the top Republican in
the Senate, Mitch McConnell, who said yesterday, this isn‘t, quote, “the
right time to do immigration reform.”
Republicans are bending over backwards right now, doing everything
they possibly can, scuttling their own announcements if they need to in
order to make sure that immigration reform does not come up. Remember when
George W. Bush he wanted to do immigration reform in 2007? Again, it was
his own party, the Republicans, who bent over backwards and delivered their
own president a huge political defeat on this issue because they were so
desperate to not do immigration reform at the federal level.
And the fact that it continues to not happen at the federal level is
all the justification that some states need right now to deal with
immigration on their own, which is how we got this—
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GOV. JAN BREWER ®, ARIZONA: The bill I‘m about to sign into law,
Senate Bill 1070, represents another tool for our state to use as we work
to solve a crisis that we did not create and the federal government has
refused to fix.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MADDOW: And so, the state of Arizona now has a new law requiring
police officers to demand the paperwork of anyone who looks like they might
be an illegal immigrant.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPORTER: What does an illegal immigrant look like? Does it look
like me?
BREWER: I do not know. I do not know what an illegal immigrant looks
like. I can tell you that I think that there are people in Arizona that
assume they know what an illegal immigrant looks like.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MADDOW: In the meantime, papers, please.
Before this bill was actually signed into law, we told you about the
guy who introduced it in the first place. It‘s this guy, Republican State
Senator Russell Pearce.
Mr. Pearce is famous in Arizona for having sent an email to his
supporters that included a white nationalist screed, accusing the media of
pushing the view, quote, “a world in which every voice proclaims the
equality of the races, the inerrant nature of the Jewish, quote,
‘Holocaust‘ tale, the wickedness of attempting to halt the flood of
nonwhite aliens pouring across the borders.” Mr. Pearce sent that around
to all of his supporters in which he later apologized for.
Russell Pearce is also famous for having been caught on tape hugging a
neo-Nazi. No, like a real neo-Nazi. Not some sort of metaphorical
Godwin‘s law-invoking neo-Nazi guy, but an actual neo-Nazi guy. See, with
the swastikas?
Russell Pearce is the guy who introduced this radical immigration bill
in Arizona that just became law. But if you want to meet the guy who‘s
taking credit for writing the new law, that would be the gentleman named
Kris Kobach.
Kris Kobach is a birther. He‘s running for a secretary of state in
Kansas right now. His campaign Web site today brags, quote, “Kobach wins
one in Arizona.”
The guy that helped Arizona‘s new immigration bill is also an attorney
for the Immigration Reform Law Institute. That‘s the legal arm of an
immigration group that‘s called FAIR, the Federation for American
Immigration Reform. FAIR was founded in 1979 by a man named John Tanton.
Mr. Tanton is still listed as a member of FAIR‘s board of directors.
Just for some insight into where John Tanton and FAIR were coming from
seven years after he started FAIR, Mr. Tanton wrote this, quote, “To
govern is to populate. Will the present majority peaceably hand over its
political power to a group that is simply more fertile? As whites see
their power and control over their lives declining, will they simply go
quietly into the night or will there be an explosion?” That‘s FAIR, who
helped write Arizona‘s anti-immigrant law.
After John Tanton got FAIR off the ground, for nine of the first years
of the group‘s existence, the group reportedly received more than $1
million in funding from something called the Pioneer Fund. The Pioneer
Fund describes itself as a group formed, quote, “in the Darwinian-Galtonian
evolutionary tradition and eugenics movement.”
For the last 70 years, the Pioneer Fund has funded controversial
research about race and intelligence, essentially aimed at proving the
racial superiority of white people. The group‘s original mandate was to
promote the genes of those, quote, “deemed to be descended predominantly
from white persons who settled in the original 13 states prior to the
adoption of the Constitution.”
John Tanton‘s organization, FAIR, which, again, claims credit for
writing Arizona‘s new immigrant law, John Tanton‘s FAIR was long bankrolled
by the Pioneer Fund—which actually makes after you read some more of Mr.
Tanton‘s writings. Quote, “I‘ve come to the point of view that for
European-American society and culture to persist requires a European-
American majority and a clear one at that.”
In 1997, John Tanton told the “Detroit Free Press” that America will
soon be overrun by illegal immigrants, quote, “defecating and creating
garbage and looking for jobs.” Defecating is the problem, I guess.
Again, this genius is the guy whose group is behind Arizona‘s new
radical immigration law. They take credit for writing it. FAIR is
bragging about having, quote, “assisted Senator Russell Pearce in drafting
the language” of his Senate bill.
In drafting that language, FAIR may have slipped a little something
special in there for themselves. FAIR makes a living off of suing local
and state governments over immigration laws. Tucked inside Article VIII of
Arizona‘s new law is a provision that if groups like them win their cases,
quote, a judge—sorry—a judge may order that the entity, quote, “who
brought the action recover court costs and attorney fees”—which could
create a nice financial boon for the formerly eugenics movement-funded,
advanced the white majority, promote the genetics of white America anti-
immigrant group whose attorneys helped write the new law.
Congratulations, Arizona. This thing is going to make you really,
really, really famous for a really, really, really long time.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
MADDOW: A couple months ago, I got this in the mail labeled as a
congressional district specific 2010 congressional official survey. It‘s
quite clearly designed to look like an actual 2010 census form. But it‘s
just a Republican fundraising letter authorized and commissioned by the
Republican National Committee.
These were mailers that not only exploited people‘s knowledge of the
actual census to get to you open it up and read it, these things also
undermined the actual census. By the time people get their real census
forms in the mail, you‘d be less likely to open that up if the last time
you got something that looks like an official census form, it turned out to
be political junk mail with lots of push poll questions about how evil
communist Obama is.
Because it was messing with the constitutionally-mandated census,
legislation proposing to ban stuff like this passed the House and Senate
unanimously. The law was signed by President Obama on April 7th. The law
made it a crime for the U.S. mail to deliver an envelope from a
nongovernmental entity that had the word census on it, unless—number
one, the solicitation includes disclaimers that it is not a government
document and, number two, the envelope includes the name of the entity that
sent the solicitation and an accurate return address.
So that should have been the end of that. Right?
Except, as we reported on the Maddow blog on Thursday—people are
still getting fake census mailers from the RNC. “Talking Points Memo” also
reported today on one such mailer sent to a voter in California. Several
of our viewers from Washington State sent us fake census mailers they‘ve
received. They all had exactly the same 2010 congressional district census
letter that the RNC had sent out in February. All of them were dated April
12th, five days after President Obama signed the anti-fake census mailer
bill into law.
One viewer sent us the entire package she received, including the fake
questionnaire with the same questions as the February mailer. And the same
appeal for donations under the heading, “Census Certification and Reply.”
Even the envelope which instructs the recipient, “Do not destroy, official
document,” even that contains the term census document.
And while there is a note that says it is not a U.S. government
document, nowhere on the envelope does it say that the RNC is responsible
for these mailers. Census document, registered to, deliver exclusively to,
do not destroy official document. It says nothing about the fact that it
comes from the Republican National Committee. No return address on the
envelope.
This would seem to violate the provision in the new law mandating that
both of those pieces of information be on mailers like this.
But the RNC spokesman, Doug Heye, told us today that while he
couldn‘t go into detail about the rationale used because they don‘t divulge
internal decisions about things like fundraising, the RNC‘s legal
department thinks that their mailers don‘t violate the new law, the law
that everybody thought was written specifically in response to their
creepy, fake census mailers. And so they are continuing to send them out.
Joining us now is the original sponsor of the Prevent Deceptive
Census Look-Alike Mailings Act, Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney, Democrat of
New York. Congresswoman Maloney, thank you so much for being here.
REP. CAROLYN MALONEY (D-NY): Well, thank you for raising the
attention and putting a spotlight on this violation.
MADDOW: Well, let me ask you about the overall rationale here. How
much damage do you think that mailers like this do? Why do you think it‘s
important that something like this be banned?
MALONEY: Well, we‘re still in full swing with the census. And it‘s
very deceptive and it‘s sad that the RNC is trying to make a partisan buck
over - and trying to deceive people in the process. We need an accurate
account, and this is totally misleading.
MADDOW: Do you agree with the Republican National Committee‘s legal
department that this latest census mailer that they‘ve sent out after the
law was passed, that it doesn‘t violate the law?
MALONEY: It appears to have violated the spirit of the law. I have
written to the Postal Department to make a determination on whether or not
it violates it. But clearly, it was dated five days after President Obama
signed it into law.
At the very least, Mr. Steele should check with his Republican
members of Congress, because they all voted for it, and don‘t approve of
the actions that are taking place.
MADDOW: One other RNC spokesperson made what I thought was a pretty
novel argument about this. They told “The Spokesman Review” newspaper that
the party wasn‘t breaking the law with this new mailer because the post
office would have rejected a mailer that wasn‘t in compliance with the new
law, essentially saying they‘ve been cleared and that these mailers are
legal because the post office delivered the mail. What do you make of that
argument?
MALONEY: I think it is absolutely ridiculous. The law was very
clear. My law stated that you had to have a return address and the sender.
And the documents that I‘ve seen do not have that. And in fact, it‘s very
misleading and very large print. They say, “Do not destroy official
government document,” and in very small type, the disclaimer.
So it appears to be very misleading. And it appears to be a
direct violation of the law. Certainly, the intent of the law.
MADDOW: The chairman of the Nebraska‘s Democratic Party has also,
like you, filed a complaint with the U.S. Postal Service about these
mailers. Is that the appropriate avenue? Is that the only avenue that‘s
open for anybody who wants to register a violation of this law?
MALONEY: They should write the Postal Department and ask for
clarification. That is what I have done, and Chairman Clay and other
Democrats to get a determination, officially, from the postal office.
It appears definitely not to reach the law that we passed. But
there may be other mailers out there that are different, that do have the
RNC as the return address. The ones that I have seen that have been sent
to me do not have a return address. They do not have a sender. It says
census, so it appears to be in clear violation of the law. And it happened
five days after it passed unanimously and was signed into law by President
Obama.
MADDOW: Oh, well what‘s a law signed by the president and passed
unanimously by both Houses of Congress? These things we swat away.
Democratic Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney of New York, sponsor of the
Prevent Deceptive Census Look-Alike Mailings Act, which is, in fact, U.S.
law. Thank you very much for your time tonight, ma‘am.
MALONEY: Thank you for putting a spotlight on it, Rachel.
MADDOW: Appreciate it.
MALONEY: Thank you.
MADDOW: Still ahead, the paranoid whack-a-dos at the John Birch
society are using something they made up about me to raise money for their
paranoid whack-a-daring-do(ph). First of all, thank you. Second of all, I
think 10 percent is fair. Cash is always nice. Right?
And President George W. Bush has a November surprise for America.
A preview coming up. I hope there are illustrations. Please stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
MADDOW: Mother‘s Day just a couple weeks away. What do you get for
the mother who has everything? It does depend on how much you have to
spend. But there is a company in Russia marketing something right now I
bet your mother does not have.
Portable cruise missiles that secret themselves away inside what
look like totally ordinary generic shipping containers of which there are
millions in every country all around the globe, which means that cruise
missiles, powerful enough to take out an aircraft carrier - I am not
kidding - are now being marketed as ready to plug and play and be
surreptitiously moved anywhere it isn‘t weird to have a shipping container.
It‘s called the Club K missile system. It‘s being marketed by a
company based in Russia that calls itself More Inform System-AGAT. They‘ve
put out this really spiffy promotional video that you can see on our Web
site today, “The Maddow Blog.”
It shows how you can mount this shipping container with the
missiles inside it on a train or on a truck or on a ship and nobody‘s going
to know what‘s in it. It just looks like a normal shipping container until
you hit the button.
An editor at “Jane‘s Defence Weekly,” which first reported on the
existence of Club K says, quote, “This Club K is game changing. The threat
is immense in that no one can tell how far deployed your missiles could
be.”
Or frankly who might have missiles at all. Jane‘s estimates that
the price tag for these things will be between $10 million and $20 million.
Not radically out of the reach of lots of people who I‘d feel uncomfortable
having the secret capacity to blow up one of our aircraft carriers or, say,
Baltimore.
“The Telegraph” newspaper in the U.K. says that Club K missile
system was recently marketed as the Defense Services Asia Exhibition in
Malaysia. Again, the creepy, very high-res video of the Club K Russian
missile system is posted at “Maddow Blog” today. Nightmares about even
non-nuclear run away weapons proliferation are available every night inside
my head.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
MADDOW: As the Republican Party searches for meaning in the political
minority, Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa continues to beat the type of path
through the wilderness that not everyone has the courage to follow.
You may recall that right up until health reform became law, Sen.
Grassley was one of the most vocal opponents of the legislation.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. CHUCK GRASSLEY (R-IA): You have every right to fear. We should
not have a government program that determines you‘re going to pull the plug
on grandma.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MADDOW: This spring, Sen. Grassley even joined the chorus Republicans
claiming that health reform was unconstitutional. Specifically, he said a
mandate that people have to get insurance was the unconstitutional thing,
even though Sen. Grassley himself proposed a health insurance mandate back
when Republicans were opposed to President Clinton‘s health reform ideas,
too.
Sen. Chuck Grassley is just plain against that health reform
bill. He didn‘t vote for it. He said it would kill your grandma. He said
even the parts that were his own ideas were unconstitutional.
He even went into deeper cloud cuckoo-conspiracy-ville against it
when he said it would magically conjure up 16,000 more IRS agents. He‘s
really, really against it.
Except, now, he‘s for it. “IowaPolitics.com” today posting Sen.
Grassley‘s press release in which the senator is now bragging on how much
that health reform bill he voted against is going to be great for the folks
back home in Iowa.
Quote, “I worked successfully to improve Medicare payments to
doctors in rural states as part of health care reform enacted this year.”
I voted against it and it will kill your grandma, but if there‘s any chance
you like it, would you mind giving me credit for it?
Sen. Grassley‘s up for re-election in November, needless to say.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
MADDOW: The John Birch Society tried to convince Americans in the
middle of the last century that the drive to put fluoride in drinking water
was a communist mind control plot. The John Birch Society tried to
convince Americans that not only was President Eisenhower a conscious
dedicated agent of the communist conspiracy, but that President
Eisenhower‘s controlling agent in the communist conspiracy, the commie to
whom Ike reported for his commie instructions was his brother, Milton. He
looked so nice.
The John Birch Society was actually helpful to some very
conservative politicians for a while. They supported Barry Goldwater, for
example.
But at some point, some big thinking conservatives realized that
whatever help conservatives could get from John Birch conspiracy theories
riling up the base, it was probably outweighed by people at large,
associating conservatives with the people who thought the communists were
mind-controlling you through the water and the president. You know, some
combination of good dental care and Milton Eisenhower.
So the John Birch Society got exiled essentially from the
conservative movement back in the ‘60s. They had only barely survived out
beyond the fringes for decades after that - until this past year.
The conservative movement decided to bring them back into the
fold. The John Birch Society was invited to co-sponsor the big CPAC - the
Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington this year.
At CPAC, I sat down and talked with them. They were still trying
to sell me on the evils of fluoride - I kid you not. But we had a nice
time, actually. Just about everybody at CPAC, including the folks from the
John Birch Society, were very nice to me. I spent some quality time
hanging out with them.
I did not learn very much but we certainly had a pleasant and
cordial time. Given our spirited repartee and hate-free jousting, I was
surprised when one of our excellent viewers recently brought this to our
attention.
It‘s a new six-page John Birch Society fundraising letter which
has gone out to their supporters. On page five, it says this, quote, “We
know that the other side is watching our growth with alarm. Recently, we
were attacked on the air by MSNBC commentator Rachel Maddow. We responded
to time-worn charges online the next day. The third day, she responded to
our reply so we know she and others are monitoring our Web site.”
“She has stated that one of her goals for 2010 is to eliminate
groups like ours from the political scene. To her, we say lots of luck.”
While I gladly take all the luck I can get, let it be known that
I have not stated any goals for 2010, at least not publicly. And the ones
I talk to privately are things like, “Don‘t eat so much fried cheese,
Maddow.” I‘m not even doing very well at that one.
As for stating it is a goal of mine to eliminate groups like the
John Birch Society in 2010, it‘s simply and totally not true. I have not
done that, needless to say, at all. It‘s a lie.
And while I am flattered that the John Birch Society thinks I‘m
powerful enough to threaten them, I‘m probably not, unless the enunciation
of facts about them is threatening their existence.
But if they‘re going to make up stuff about me to raise money, I
do feel a little left out of the money. Whether it‘s Republican Senator
Scott Brown of Massachusetts or the “fluoride‘s a communist mind-control
conspiracy” folks at the John Birch Society, people apparently feel free to
make up stuff that I have not said and not done in order to raise money for
themselves now.
So I have decided that I want in. We‘re looking into the
possibility of creating a new foundation that will license lies about me to
conservative causes and lawmakers, things I haven‘t actually said but might
be politically remunerative to the right people and groups.
I won‘t let anybody in on the secret that I didn‘t actually say
these things, provided the conservatives who want to raise money off of me
give me a cut of the profits. Then I will send 100 percent of my take to
an apolitical, nonpartisan cause that I think is worthy.
It‘s sort of fair, right? I mean, if the John Birch Society is
cashing checks by essentially forging my signature on them and I have no
way to stop them from doing that, couldn‘t I at least get some of the cash?
Joining us now is Sam Tanenhaus, editor of “The New York Times
Book Review” and “Week in Review,” and the author of the book, “The Death
of Conservatism.” Sam, thank you very much for joining us.
SAM TANENHAUS, AUTHOR, “THE DEATH OF CONSERVATISM”: Good to be here
with you, Rachel.
MADDOW: Should I be flattered?
TANENHAUS: Well, you‘re in pretty good company. You mentioned
Eisenhower. Everybody mentions Eisenhower. But the Birchers also said
that Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman were part of the communist
conspiracy.
MADDOW: It is a tidy and very intellectually high-powered conspiracy.
TANENHAUS: Listen, by the time they were done with Milton Eisenhower,
who was talking about them anymore?
MADDOW: Is there always somebody in this role for conservative groups
of being the bogeyman or the John Birch Society in particular? What do you
need to be in order to be their bogeyman?
TANENHAUS: Well, that‘s a good question. What they really hate is
the idea of governance itself. Set aside Democrats or even Republicans.
It‘s the idea of governance. Robert Welch, the founder of the John Birch
Society, founded in 1958, the year after the death Joe McCarthy -
MADDOW: Right. Yes.
TANENHAUS: And really founded to perpetuate that idea - pointed out
that the word “democracy” does not appear in the United States
Constitution. Democracy itself (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
MADDOW: Anti-democratic. Anti-government.
TANENHAUS: Democracy itself was a kind of a - was a plot. Yes.
MADDOW: Is the John Birch Society - I know this is a bit of a weird
question that‘s maybe a little sensitive. Is the John Birch Society only
being allowed back into conservative circles now like attending CPAC, co-
sponsoring CPAC because of death of William F. Buckley? Was he the
gatekeeper to keep them out?
TANENHAUS: Well, he was to a large extent. You know, there was a
tussle when Bill Buckley got rid of them in the mid-‘60s. He made his
first foray in 1962 and denounced Welch‘s theorizing that 90 percent is
controlled by communists and fluoridation of the water and all the rest.
MADDOW: Robert Welch, the founder of the John Birch Society.
TANENHAUS: The founder of the Birch Society. He - and Buckley
denounced that as drivel. But there were many on the right who actually
supported Welch on the principle we‘re seeing in action today - no enemies
on the right.
If they can be useful, you keep them in the tent. Then, by the
mid-‘60s, as you said before, they had gotten so far off the grid that
Buckley, a guy who kind of trafficked in intellectual circles, particularly
in New York and had a lot of smart liberal friends, like Murray Kempton and
John Kenneth Galbraith got a little embarrassed by them.
At the same time, though, as you said, they were forceful. They
were useful. In the Goldwater campaign in ‘64, they were the foot
soldiers. In some sense, they‘re the precursor to the tea partiers we‘re
seeing now, so the right is always nervous about evicting people like that.
MADDOW: Conspiratorial theorizing is always going to be attractive to
a certain segment of people who are energized or more likely enervated by
what‘s going on in politics. Question, though, is once you are the subject
of one of their conspiracies, is there a way to argue out of it? Or are
you in a rationality-and-fact-free zone and all you can do is pretend it‘s
not happening?
TANENHAUS: In fact, you can‘t do it, Rachel. I was thinking about
your very amusing remarks before. Robert Welch actually had a term -
Robert Welch, the genius, presiding genius of the John Birch Society. It‘s
called the reverse principle.
If the - let‘s say the Soviets decide they‘re going to give up
some of their nuclear warheads or the Russians do in our time. They‘re not
really doing that, or if they are doing - say they‘re going to do it, it‘s
because they‘ve got another plan.
So if you say you now want to be embraced by them and you‘re
willing to accept their attacks, and also that you invite them to point
out, you know, statements you have made that you can prove are lies and say
it doesn‘t matter that they‘re lies, because you‘re not saying what you
really think.
So if someone listens really closely to what you‘ve said and what
you really mean to say, they‘ve got you every time.
MADDOW: What if I raise - no, it will never work. There‘s no way
around it except to talk about who they are in the bluntest possible terms,
I think.
But what does it say to you, Sam, that the John Birch Society is
back, after so many years in exile, after conspiracists(ph) had to contend
with people who are sort of gatekeepers in terms of what counts as
mainstream conservatism? What does it mean that the gatekeepers are gone
now?
TANENHAUS: Well, it means that it‘s a movement without serious ideas.
Look at poor David Frum, you know, someone who‘s actually a kind of
consequential guy, protege of Buckley himself.
MADDOW: Yes. (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
(CROSS TALK)
TANENHAUS: Well, more or less evicted from the movement. That‘s
right. He doesn‘t want - I don‘t know. Maybe he has his own conspiracy
about you.
MADDOW: Yes.
TANENHAUS: They all do. But, yes, there are no serious ideas left on
the right. We see who the great idea people are, the ones who pretend to
be - Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh and all the rest. This is about as good
as it‘s getting now, so they don‘t have a Buckley or Irving Kristol or
someone like that to call them out.
There‘s another difference too, Rachel. People like Buckley and
Kristol thought part of the job of conservatism was to persuade serious
liberals, if not to agree with them, at least to rethink their own ideas,
to raise the level of discourse. That‘s not what the extremists do.
MADDOW: Sam Tanenhaus, editor of “The New York Times Book Review” and
“Week in Review,” author of “The Death of Conservatism.” Sam, it‘s great
to see you. Thank you very much for coming in.
TANENHAUS: Oh, my pleasure. Great to be here.
MADDOW: I appreciate it. Coming up on “COUNTDOWN,” Keith
investigates the claim from one of the smartest scientists in the world
that aliens could be out to get us.
But first, on this show, George W. Bush, of all people, gives
Democrats a boost heading into the November elections. That very strange
story, coming up next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
MADDOW: The president today released a video E-mail to his supporters
essentially kicking off the 2010 mid-term election season. His pitch is
that first-time voters who turned out for him and Joe Biden in 2008 become
second-time voters for Democratic candidates in 2010.
Everyone‘s expecting Republicans to gain some seats in November.
But Democrats have just received some unexpectedly good news about their
own prospects for that election.
For that, we turn to our memoir bump correspondent, Mr. Kent
Jones. Hi, Kent.
KENT JONES, MSNBC CORRESPONDENT: Hi, Rachel. This unexpected boost
for Democratic candidates coming from a very unexpected place.
MADDOW: All right.
JONES: Here we go.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
(voice-over): Sometimes it helps to be lucky. Just as Democrats face
the prospect of heavy losses in the midterm elections, former President
George W. Bush has a date to release his memoir, “Decision Points,”
November 9th. That‘s just one short week after the midterm elections on
November 2nd.
For once, his timing is impeccable. Plans aren‘t final yet, but
does this mean “president 22 percent approval rating” will be on a
nationwide promotional tour at the exact time voters are deciding whether
to put Republicans back in power just when Americans are starting to blot
out the 2000s?
Well, George W. “Two Terms Mandate” Bush turn up on Sean
Hannity‘s couch? Crown Publishers said that some of the topics President
Bush addresses in the book are the 2000 election, Iraq, the financial
crisis, Hurricane Katrina, Afghanistan, and Iran.
Now, if you made a list of topics Republicans would rather not
have to talk about this year, it would be roughly the 2000 election, Iraq,
the financial crisis, Hurricane Katrina, Afghanistan, and Iran.
And while you‘re at it, remember this? And this? And this? For
Democrats, the timing of G.W.‘s book is perfect, maybe too perfect. I
wonder, could this be George W. Bush‘s way of saying he‘s sorry?
At any rate, thank you, President Bush for your timely memoir.
Any chance you could schedule your next book for say, November 2012?
(END VIDEOTAPE)
MADDOW: Republicans have been trying so hard to make this a
referendum on Obama. The Democrats thought the best they could hope for -
it would be a choice between Obama and the Republicans. No Democrat ever
dreamed there could be a referendum on Obama versus Bush again.
JONES: Who will show up suddenly?
MADDOW: Thank you, Kent.
JONES: Sure.
MADDOW: That does it for us tonight. We‘ll see you again tomorrow
night. “COUNTDOWN” with Keith Olbermann starts right now.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
(MUSIC)
RACHEL MADDOW, HOST (voice-over): It‘s official.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: On this vote, the yeas are 57, the nays are 41.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MADDOW: The Republicans say the issue of regulation for Wall Street -
likely responsible for this—shouldn‘t even be debated on the floor of
the United States Senate.
Republicans also say they‘ll do anything to stop immigration reform at
the federal level—perhaps preferring that states like Arizona implement
their own bright ideas.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GOV. JAN BREWER ®, ARIZONA: I hope that we meet again on—better
circumstances.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MADDOW: Tonight, meet the friendly folks who wrote the “Papers,
please” law that‘s turning Arizona into a pariah state.
And our viewers kept telling us they were getting creepy fundraising
mailers designed to look like census forms. Then Congress made it illegal
to send out fake census mailers. It turns out they‘re still coming anyway.
Remember the John Birch Society? Fluoride in the water as a communist
mind control plot? I had such a nice time with them at CPAC.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MADDOW: A lot of people say crazy (EXPLETIVE DELETED).
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MADDOW: Now, they‘re making stuff up about me to raise money for
themselves. First of all, you guys, please stop. And if you don‘t stop,
can I have some of the money?
All that, plus George W. Bush‘s new book, the U.S. senator who‘s
taking credit now for a bill he used to say would kill you, and the perfect
gift just in time for Mother‘s Day.
It‘s THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW—starting right now.
(MUSIC)
(END VIDEOTAPE)
MADDOW: Today in Washington, all 41 Republican senators lined up,
unified, along with one Democrat, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, and they all
bravely insisted that Wall Street reform not be debated on the floor of the
United States Senate. Just to be clear here, they did not vote Wall Street
reform down, they voted to not allow it to be discussed.
Even without Ben Nelson, Democrats have 58 votes in the Senate on
this, a huge majority in favor of passing Wall Street reform. But
Republicans are filibustering. They are insisting that it not even be
talked about on the Senate floor—which is not to say the negotiations on
this are over. Republicans say they do want to keep talking. They just
don‘t want to do it in the Senate—you know, where people can see.
Republican Senator Richard Shelby reportedly is still trying to work
out a deal with Democrat Chris Dodd. A number of Republicans are
considered possible votes for some version of reform in the end. But
today‘s vote to not allow debate on the Senate floor really just means that
Republicans want the political negotiations on Wall Street reform to happen
away from the C-Span cameras, in private, off the Senate floor.
This was not a vote on the merits of the bill. This was, “Hey, do you
guys want to start talking about Wall Street reform?” And the resounding
reply from all 41 Republicans plus Ben Nelson was: “No, we do not want to
start debating this.”
Whatever you hear in terms of Beltway common wisdom about this—
believe me—it is not normal for things to take more than 50 votes to
pass the Senate. A majority of a body of 500 -- mathematically speaking, a
majority vote in the United States Senate is 50-plus-one. But on Wall
Street reform, like lots of things, Republicans aren‘t just voting no.
They‘re using a procedural tool to keep a vote from even happening.
Democrats have a majority on this. Republicans just won‘t let them
take a majority vote.
Ever since they lost control of Congress in the ‘06 midterm elections,
Republicans have become a finely-tuned filibuster machine. See how the
number of filibusters skyrockets there at the end in 2007? That‘s the
voice of the Republican minority.
Just since President Obama took office, Republicans have filibustered
the stimulus, the tobacco regulation, extending unemployment benefits,
health reform, of course—you know what? Actually, it‘s pretty much
everything.
Do we have a scroll of that?
Yes. As far as we can tell, Republicans have filibustered every major
piece of legislation since President Obama took office. The only major
actions we‘ve been able to come up with that weren‘t filibustered were the
nominations of the president‘s cabinet secretaries and the nomination of
Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor. That‘s because cabinet secretaries
and Supreme Court nominees rarely if ever get filibustered.
But never say never. Another Supreme Court nomination is coming up
this summer.
Procedurally, this is the reality in the Senate: Republicans are
filibustering everything. They are using Senate rules to block majority
votes on almost every single nominee and on every significant piece of
legislation, now including Wall Street reform. Even though that doesn‘t
get talked about anymore, don‘t lose sight of it. Everybody keeps acting
as though this is not normal. It is not. This is not normal.
The constant ever present, always on filibuster has never happened
before in the history of our country. This has never happened before in
the history of the Senate.
How Democrats will respond to the always on filibuster in the case of
Wall Street reform remains to be seen. Will Democrats manage to win over
some Republican votes? Would they—could they use the reconciliation
procedure to get around the filibuster like they had to do on health
reform? Nobody yet knows for sure. Procedurally, it is not at all clear
what happens next.
As I said, there‘s never been a case in American history where every
single piece of legislation is filibustered. We‘ve never done this before.
But substantively, it is important to keep in mind what the
Republicans are using the filibuster to block right now. They‘re blocking
Wall Street reform now—when more than two-thirds of Americans say they
want Wall Street reform. Everybody who understands that there is an
economic crisis right now that was caused by a financial crisis, everybody
who understands that wants the financial system to be fixed.
So, in practical political terms, how do you make the case that you‘re
against financial reform? It‘s actually not going to be easy. Check out,
for example, this e-mail today from the estimable Tea Party Nation. This,
I think just makes clear how difficult it‘s going to be to make the case
against Wall Street reform.
Quote, “Today is the day that Harry Reid has scheduled a vote to try
and cram the, quote, ‘financial reform‘ bill down our throats.” By which
they mean bring it up for a debate using a majority vote. That‘s cramming
it down your throat in tea party speak.
But back to the letter, this is the good part: “Let me give you one
horrific example of the stupidity in this bill. This bill will create
liability for advertising agencies for ads that the Federal Trade
Commission decides are aiding and abetting false advertising. Imagine you
own an advertising agency. Your job is not to verify what a client is
selling. Your job is to simply create the ad campaign that will drive
customers to their doors.”
So, that‘s the pitch. That‘s the Tea Party Nation pitch to their
supporters about why financial reform is so bad and must be stopped. Their
pitch is: it wouldn‘t allow false advertising. Oh, the outrage.
Imagine the poor Tea Party Nation e-mail appeal writer who‘s tasked
with putting together this message. How can we make Wall Street reform
sound really bad? Would it sound bad if we asked tea party activists to
imagine if they were ad agency executives who didn‘t want to be held
accountable for lying about what they were selling? Would that rile people
up?
Imagine the angry mob taking to the streets now. We want the right to
make false statements in advertising! We demand the right of advertising
executives to not be held liable for lying about what they‘re selling! Is
this what we‘re supposed to be chanting? Could we make it rhyme?
I don‘t know that this campaign against Wall Street reform, because
it‘s against false advertising is going to fit on a sign. I don‘t exactly
know how this is going to work for them. Republicans might be taking every
procedural advantage they have in Congress right now to stop Wall Street
reform. But politically, in terms of the substance, in terms of trying to
convince their base on this one, the political problems here are plain.
Joining us now is Chris Hayes, Washington editor of “The Nation”
magazine.
Chris, thank you very much for coming on the show. Nice to see your
glasses have been found.
CHRIS HAYES, THE NATION: Oh, they have. Thanks for having me.
I think it was Ayn Rand wrote advertising agency owners of the world
unite.
MADDOW: I was—when I got—I got this this morning and I got it
on my BlackBerry before I was sitting down in my regular e-mail on my
computer, and I thought it was something that had been cleverly put
together by one of the whiz kids on our staff, like, wouldn‘t it be funny
if this is what the Tea Party Nation had to resort to?
HAYES: Yes.
MADDOW: It is—it‘s amazing to me. How do—how do Republicans
sell this to their base, that they‘re against Wall Street reform?
HAYES: Well, I think, actually, the more I think about it and the
more I think about this whole bailout thing, the more I think actually the
bailout dog whistle is a way of trying to invigorate their base. I mean,
one of the things I think you see is that the issue of the financial reform
bill is not seizing the imagination. Even of the most hardcore
conservative members of the Republican coalition, the tea party folks, this
bill is not seizing their imagination. They‘re not showing up at town
halls to oppose it in the way they were with health care.
And I actually think the bailout attack wasn‘t even so much designed
for the general public so much as it was just actually a first attempt at
even trying to stoke some outrage and some energy amongst their own core
supporters, which, you know, I don‘t really think is present. I just think
we‘re not seeing the level of outrage there that we saw against the health
reform bill on this bill.
MADDOW: And because they haven‘t been able to sort of gin up outrage
about this among their base, they haven‘t been able to excite their base
with this, and I think you‘re right in that observation—what happens
next? Politically, what‘s their next step toward trying to stop it?
HAYES: Well, I think there‘s a few—there‘s sort of a branch in the
tree here. I mean, one is that, you know, one imagines perhaps everything
is changed and now the Republicans really, really care about their good
faith objections to what‘s in the bill and are trying to make a good faith
effort at negotiating.
The other is that they‘re essentially stalling and they‘re trying to
more or less hold up Wall Street for lots of contributions. And this is
essentially what McConnell and Kyl—McConnell and Cornyn were doing when
they—you know, when they went to Wall Street, is we stand between you
and Wall Street reform. And the longer they can hold it up, the more they
can probably get campaign cash.
And then the third thing I think is possible is that they think if
they stall, they can kind of rerun the health care arc, which is to say, if
you look at the early polling on health care, it also was high and the
longer they dragged it out, the less popular it got. And so, there‘s a
thinking I think among some sectors, if they drag this out, the same thing
will happen.
MADDOW: Democrats do seem to have caught on to the idea, though, that
if they allow it to be slowed down, it will be stopped.
HAYES: Yes.
MADDOW: Democrats seem to have figured that out this time. They also
seem to have figured out that they should fact-check their opponents when
their opponents start to get away with saying things that aren‘t true about
the legislation. My question, though, is whether or not Democrats have
learned any lesson from health care or whether they have a new lesson that
they‘re trying to learn here about actually negotiating with Republicans.
Are the negotiations actually happening, even though there is no
debate on the Senate floor?
HAYES: I think, yes, they are. I mean, you know, people I talk to on
the Hill and other reporters find the same thing, which is that there is—
there are actual negotiations happening. I hope that they‘ve learned a
lesson. It does seem—I mean, one of the things I thought was very
interesting was that the White House came out with a veto threat very early
in this in a way they never did with health care reform. The only thing
they issued a veto on early was that the size of the bill not be too large.
In this case, they‘ve issued a veto threat if the derivatives
legislation is not strong enough. So, they‘re already taking a tougher
line. But I would also say, you know, this is not just in the hands of
Democrats on the Hill. It is incredibly important that public opinion
remain squarely for taking on the banks and reining them in.
And there‘s lots of opportunities for progressives who care about this
to call their senators and to call members on the Hill to show up at
protests. There‘s a march on Wall Street being led by AFL-CIO. There‘s a
group called New Way Forward that‘s doing actions. There‘s a group called
National People‘s Action.
There‘s a bunch of people that are marshalling grassroots organizing
to go after the banks. I think that‘s actually going to be more important
than the deals that get made on Capitol Hill because they‘re going to
respond to what the mood in the country is.
MADDOW: The day that the Democrats start responding to their base
protesting in the streets is the day that I realize that I‘ve woken up and
lived in another country.
HAYES: I‘m a Cubs fan, so I remain hopeful.
MADDOW: I was going to say, you can be the—you can be the cloud,
you can be the silver lining and I‘ll be the cloud.
HAYES: OK.
MADDOW: But we work together well.
Chris Hayes, Washington editor of “The Nation” magazine—thanks very
much for joining us, Chris.
HAYES: Thank you. Thank you, Rachel.
MADDOW: OK. Suggestion for what to get your mom for Mother‘s Day. I
don‘t know your mother, in all likelihood, depending on who you are, but I
swear she does not have this. I really, really don‘t think your mom has
one of these unless she is a rogue Russian missile engineer—in which
case you should probably just think about jewelry or flowers or something
instead.
But for everybody else—a great idea. That‘s ahead.
Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
MADDOW: Well, ahead, a very far right-wing group has invented a quote
from me that I never said, and they‘re using it to solicit money from their
members. So, this is becoming a theme in my life now. We here at the show
has come up with a plan to deal with it once and for all. We think it‘s
fair to everybody. That proposal is directly ahead.
Please stay tuned.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
MADDOW: The big deal news headline out of the world of politics today
was the Republican Party‘s filibuster of Wall Street reform. But there was
supposed to be another big deal thing in politics today. Today was
supposed to be the day that Democratic Senator John Kerry and Republican
Senator Lindsey Graham announced bipartisan climate change legislation.
That announcement, as you probably noticed, did not happen today.
Why didn‘t it happen? Because Lindsey Graham got very mad. He
scuttled his own climate legislation because he says he‘s angry that the
Obama administration might bring up the issue of immigration reform first.
Quote, “This comes out of left field. We haven‘t done anything to prepare
the body or the country for immigration.”
Senator Graham‘s anger has been seconded now by the top Republican in
the Senate, Mitch McConnell, who said yesterday, this isn‘t, quote, “the
right time to do immigration reform.”
Republicans are bending over backwards right now, doing everything
they possibly can, scuttling their own announcements if they need to in
order to make sure that immigration reform does not come up. Remember when
George W. Bush he wanted to do immigration reform in 2007? Again, it was
his own party, the Republicans, who bent over backwards and delivered their
own president a huge political defeat on this issue because they were so
desperate to not do immigration reform at the federal level.
And the fact that it continues to not happen at the federal level is
all the justification that some states need right now to deal with
immigration on their own, which is how we got this—
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GOV. JAN BREWER ®, ARIZONA: The bill I‘m about to sign into law,
Senate Bill 1070, represents another tool for our state to use as we work
to solve a crisis that we did not create and the federal government has
refused to fix.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MADDOW: And so, the state of Arizona now has a new law requiring
police officers to demand the paperwork of anyone who looks like they might
be an illegal immigrant.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPORTER: What does an illegal immigrant look like? Does it look
like me?
BREWER: I do not know. I do not know what an illegal immigrant looks
like. I can tell you that I think that there are people in Arizona that
assume they know what an illegal immigrant looks like.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MADDOW: In the meantime, papers, please.
Before this bill was actually signed into law, we told you about the
guy who introduced it in the first place. It‘s this guy, Republican State
Senator Russell Pearce.
Mr. Pearce is famous in Arizona for having sent an email to his
supporters that included a white nationalist screed, accusing the media of
pushing the view, quote, “a world in which every voice proclaims the
equality of the races, the inerrant nature of the Jewish, quote,
‘Holocaust‘ tale, the wickedness of attempting to halt the flood of
nonwhite aliens pouring across the borders.” Mr. Pearce sent that around
to all of his supporters in which he later apologized for.
Russell Pearce is also famous for having been caught on tape hugging a
neo-Nazi. No, like a real neo-Nazi. Not some sort of metaphorical
Godwin‘s law-invoking neo-Nazi guy, but an actual neo-Nazi guy. See, with
the swastikas?
Russell Pearce is the guy who introduced this radical immigration bill
in Arizona that just became law. But if you want to meet the guy who‘s
taking credit for writing the new law, that would be the gentleman named
Kris Kobach.
Kris Kobach is a birther. He‘s running for a secretary of state in
Kansas right now. His campaign Web site today brags, quote, “Kobach wins
one in Arizona.”
The guy that helped Arizona‘s new immigration bill is also an attorney
for the Immigration Reform Law Institute. That‘s the legal arm of an
immigration group that‘s called FAIR, the Federation for American
Immigration Reform. FAIR was founded in 1979 by a man named John Tanton.
Mr. Tanton is still listed as a member of FAIR‘s board of directors.
Just for some insight into where John Tanton and FAIR were coming from
seven years after he started FAIR, Mr. Tanton wrote this, quote, “To
govern is to populate. Will the present majority peaceably hand over its
political power to a group that is simply more fertile? As whites see
their power and control over their lives declining, will they simply go
quietly into the night or will there be an explosion?” That‘s FAIR, who
helped write Arizona‘s anti-immigrant law.
After John Tanton got FAIR off the ground, for nine of the first years
of the group‘s existence, the group reportedly received more than $1
million in funding from something called the Pioneer Fund. The Pioneer
Fund describes itself as a group formed, quote, “in the Darwinian-Galtonian
evolutionary tradition and eugenics movement.”
For the last 70 years, the Pioneer Fund has funded controversial
research about race and intelligence, essentially aimed at proving the
racial superiority of white people. The group‘s original mandate was to
promote the genes of those, quote, “deemed to be descended predominantly
from white persons who settled in the original 13 states prior to the
adoption of the Constitution.”
John Tanton‘s organization, FAIR, which, again, claims credit for
writing Arizona‘s new immigrant law, John Tanton‘s FAIR was long bankrolled
by the Pioneer Fund—which actually makes after you read some more of Mr.
Tanton‘s writings. Quote, “I‘ve come to the point of view that for
European-American society and culture to persist requires a European-
American majority and a clear one at that.”
In 1997, John Tanton told the “Detroit Free Press” that America will
soon be overrun by illegal immigrants, quote, “defecating and creating
garbage and looking for jobs.” Defecating is the problem, I guess.
Again, this genius is the guy whose group is behind Arizona‘s new
radical immigration law. They take credit for writing it. FAIR is
bragging about having, quote, “assisted Senator Russell Pearce in drafting
the language” of his Senate bill.
In drafting that language, FAIR may have slipped a little something
special in there for themselves. FAIR makes a living off of suing local
and state governments over immigration laws. Tucked inside Article VIII of
Arizona‘s new law is a provision that if groups like them win their cases,
quote, a judge—sorry—a judge may order that the entity, quote, “who
brought the action recover court costs and attorney fees”—which could
create a nice financial boon for the formerly eugenics movement-funded,
advanced the white majority, promote the genetics of white America anti-
immigrant group whose attorneys helped write the new law.
Congratulations, Arizona. This thing is going to make you really,
really, really famous for a really, really, really long time.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
MADDOW: A couple months ago, I got this in the mail labeled as a
congressional district specific 2010 congressional official survey. It‘s
quite clearly designed to look like an actual 2010 census form. But it‘s
just a Republican fundraising letter authorized and commissioned by the
Republican National Committee.
These were mailers that not only exploited people‘s knowledge of the
actual census to get to you open it up and read it, these things also
undermined the actual census. By the time people get their real census
forms in the mail, you‘d be less likely to open that up if the last time
you got something that looks like an official census form, it turned out to
be political junk mail with lots of push poll questions about how evil
communist Obama is.
Because it was messing with the constitutionally-mandated census,
legislation proposing to ban stuff like this passed the House and Senate
unanimously. The law was signed by President Obama on April 7th. The law
made it a crime for the U.S. mail to deliver an envelope from a
nongovernmental entity that had the word census on it, unless—number
one, the solicitation includes disclaimers that it is not a government
document and, number two, the envelope includes the name of the entity that
sent the solicitation and an accurate return address.
So that should have been the end of that. Right?
Except, as we reported on the Maddow blog on Thursday—people are
still getting fake census mailers from the RNC. “Talking Points Memo” also
reported today on one such mailer sent to a voter in California. Several
of our viewers from Washington State sent us fake census mailers they‘ve
received. They all had exactly the same 2010 congressional district census
letter that the RNC had sent out in February. All of them were dated April
12th, five days after President Obama signed the anti-fake census mailer
bill into law.
One viewer sent us the entire package she received, including the fake
questionnaire with the same questions as the February mailer. And the same
appeal for donations under the heading, “Census Certification and Reply.”
Even the envelope which instructs the recipient, “Do not destroy, official
document,” even that contains the term census document.
And while there is a note that says it is not a U.S. government
document, nowhere on the envelope does it say that the RNC is responsible
for these mailers. Census document, registered to, deliver exclusively to,
do not destroy official document. It says nothing about the fact that it
comes from the Republican National Committee. No return address on the
envelope.
This would seem to violate the provision in the new law mandating that
both of those pieces of information be on mailers like this.
But the RNC spokesman, Doug Heye, told us today that while he
couldn‘t go into detail about the rationale used because they don‘t divulge
internal decisions about things like fundraising, the RNC‘s legal
department thinks that their mailers don‘t violate the new law, the law
that everybody thought was written specifically in response to their
creepy, fake census mailers. And so they are continuing to send them out.
Joining us now is the original sponsor of the Prevent Deceptive
Census Look-Alike Mailings Act, Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney, Democrat of
New York. Congresswoman Maloney, thank you so much for being here.
REP. CAROLYN MALONEY (D-NY): Well, thank you for raising the
attention and putting a spotlight on this violation.
MADDOW: Well, let me ask you about the overall rationale here. How
much damage do you think that mailers like this do? Why do you think it‘s
important that something like this be banned?
MALONEY: Well, we‘re still in full swing with the census. And it‘s
very deceptive and it‘s sad that the RNC is trying to make a partisan buck
over - and trying to deceive people in the process. We need an accurate
account, and this is totally misleading.
MADDOW: Do you agree with the Republican National Committee‘s legal
department that this latest census mailer that they‘ve sent out after the
law was passed, that it doesn‘t violate the law?
MALONEY: It appears to have violated the spirit of the law. I have
written to the Postal Department to make a determination on whether or not
it violates it. But clearly, it was dated five days after President Obama
signed it into law.
At the very least, Mr. Steele should check with his Republican
members of Congress, because they all voted for it, and don‘t approve of
the actions that are taking place.
MADDOW: One other RNC spokesperson made what I thought was a pretty
novel argument about this. They told “The Spokesman Review” newspaper that
the party wasn‘t breaking the law with this new mailer because the post
office would have rejected a mailer that wasn‘t in compliance with the new
law, essentially saying they‘ve been cleared and that these mailers are
legal because the post office delivered the mail. What do you make of that
argument?
MALONEY: I think it is absolutely ridiculous. The law was very
clear. My law stated that you had to have a return address and the sender.
And the documents that I‘ve seen do not have that. And in fact, it‘s very
misleading and very large print. They say, “Do not destroy official
government document,” and in very small type, the disclaimer.
So it appears to be very misleading. And it appears to be a
direct violation of the law. Certainly, the intent of the law.
MADDOW: The chairman of the Nebraska‘s Democratic Party has also,
like you, filed a complaint with the U.S. Postal Service about these
mailers. Is that the appropriate avenue? Is that the only avenue that‘s
open for anybody who wants to register a violation of this law?
MALONEY: They should write the Postal Department and ask for
clarification. That is what I have done, and Chairman Clay and other
Democrats to get a determination, officially, from the postal office.
It appears definitely not to reach the law that we passed. But
there may be other mailers out there that are different, that do have the
RNC as the return address. The ones that I have seen that have been sent
to me do not have a return address. They do not have a sender. It says
census, so it appears to be in clear violation of the law. And it happened
five days after it passed unanimously and was signed into law by President
Obama.
MADDOW: Oh, well what‘s a law signed by the president and passed
unanimously by both Houses of Congress? These things we swat away.
Democratic Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney of New York, sponsor of the
Prevent Deceptive Census Look-Alike Mailings Act, which is, in fact, U.S.
law. Thank you very much for your time tonight, ma‘am.
MALONEY: Thank you for putting a spotlight on it, Rachel.
MADDOW: Appreciate it.
MALONEY: Thank you.
MADDOW: Still ahead, the paranoid whack-a-dos at the John Birch
society are using something they made up about me to raise money for their
paranoid whack-a-daring-do(ph). First of all, thank you. Second of all, I
think 10 percent is fair. Cash is always nice. Right?
And President George W. Bush has a November surprise for America.
A preview coming up. I hope there are illustrations. Please stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
MADDOW: Mother‘s Day just a couple weeks away. What do you get for
the mother who has everything? It does depend on how much you have to
spend. But there is a company in Russia marketing something right now I
bet your mother does not have.
Portable cruise missiles that secret themselves away inside what
look like totally ordinary generic shipping containers of which there are
millions in every country all around the globe, which means that cruise
missiles, powerful enough to take out an aircraft carrier - I am not
kidding - are now being marketed as ready to plug and play and be
surreptitiously moved anywhere it isn‘t weird to have a shipping container.
It‘s called the Club K missile system. It‘s being marketed by a
company based in Russia that calls itself More Inform System-AGAT. They‘ve
put out this really spiffy promotional video that you can see on our Web
site today, “The Maddow Blog.”
It shows how you can mount this shipping container with the
missiles inside it on a train or on a truck or on a ship and nobody‘s going
to know what‘s in it. It just looks like a normal shipping container until
you hit the button.
An editor at “Jane‘s Defence Weekly,” which first reported on the
existence of Club K says, quote, “This Club K is game changing. The threat
is immense in that no one can tell how far deployed your missiles could
be.”
Or frankly who might have missiles at all. Jane‘s estimates that
the price tag for these things will be between $10 million and $20 million.
Not radically out of the reach of lots of people who I‘d feel uncomfortable
having the secret capacity to blow up one of our aircraft carriers or, say,
Baltimore.
“The Telegraph” newspaper in the U.K. says that Club K missile
system was recently marketed as the Defense Services Asia Exhibition in
Malaysia. Again, the creepy, very high-res video of the Club K Russian
missile system is posted at “Maddow Blog” today. Nightmares about even
non-nuclear run away weapons proliferation are available every night inside
my head.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
MADDOW: As the Republican Party searches for meaning in the political
minority, Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa continues to beat the type of path
through the wilderness that not everyone has the courage to follow.
You may recall that right up until health reform became law, Sen.
Grassley was one of the most vocal opponents of the legislation.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. CHUCK GRASSLEY (R-IA): You have every right to fear. We should
not have a government program that determines you‘re going to pull the plug
on grandma.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MADDOW: This spring, Sen. Grassley even joined the chorus Republicans
claiming that health reform was unconstitutional. Specifically, he said a
mandate that people have to get insurance was the unconstitutional thing,
even though Sen. Grassley himself proposed a health insurance mandate back
when Republicans were opposed to President Clinton‘s health reform ideas,
too.
Sen. Chuck Grassley is just plain against that health reform
bill. He didn‘t vote for it. He said it would kill your grandma. He said
even the parts that were his own ideas were unconstitutional.
He even went into deeper cloud cuckoo-conspiracy-ville against it
when he said it would magically conjure up 16,000 more IRS agents. He‘s
really, really against it.
Except, now, he‘s for it. “IowaPolitics.com” today posting Sen.
Grassley‘s press release in which the senator is now bragging on how much
that health reform bill he voted against is going to be great for the folks
back home in Iowa.
Quote, “I worked successfully to improve Medicare payments to
doctors in rural states as part of health care reform enacted this year.”
I voted against it and it will kill your grandma, but if there‘s any chance
you like it, would you mind giving me credit for it?
Sen. Grassley‘s up for re-election in November, needless to say.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
MADDOW: The John Birch Society tried to convince Americans in the
middle of the last century that the drive to put fluoride in drinking water
was a communist mind control plot. The John Birch Society tried to
convince Americans that not only was President Eisenhower a conscious
dedicated agent of the communist conspiracy, but that President
Eisenhower‘s controlling agent in the communist conspiracy, the commie to
whom Ike reported for his commie instructions was his brother, Milton. He
looked so nice.
The John Birch Society was actually helpful to some very
conservative politicians for a while. They supported Barry Goldwater, for
example.
But at some point, some big thinking conservatives realized that
whatever help conservatives could get from John Birch conspiracy theories
riling up the base, it was probably outweighed by people at large,
associating conservatives with the people who thought the communists were
mind-controlling you through the water and the president. You know, some
combination of good dental care and Milton Eisenhower.
So the John Birch Society got exiled essentially from the
conservative movement back in the ‘60s. They had only barely survived out
beyond the fringes for decades after that - until this past year.
The conservative movement decided to bring them back into the
fold. The John Birch Society was invited to co-sponsor the big CPAC - the
Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington this year.
At CPAC, I sat down and talked with them. They were still trying
to sell me on the evils of fluoride - I kid you not. But we had a nice
time, actually. Just about everybody at CPAC, including the folks from the
John Birch Society, were very nice to me. I spent some quality time
hanging out with them.
I did not learn very much but we certainly had a pleasant and
cordial time. Given our spirited repartee and hate-free jousting, I was
surprised when one of our excellent viewers recently brought this to our
attention.
It‘s a new six-page John Birch Society fundraising letter which
has gone out to their supporters. On page five, it says this, quote, “We
know that the other side is watching our growth with alarm. Recently, we
were attacked on the air by MSNBC commentator Rachel Maddow. We responded
to time-worn charges online the next day. The third day, she responded to
our reply so we know she and others are monitoring our Web site.”
“She has stated that one of her goals for 2010 is to eliminate
groups like ours from the political scene. To her, we say lots of luck.”
While I gladly take all the luck I can get, let it be known that
I have not stated any goals for 2010, at least not publicly. And the ones
I talk to privately are things like, “Don‘t eat so much fried cheese,
Maddow.” I‘m not even doing very well at that one.
As for stating it is a goal of mine to eliminate groups like the
John Birch Society in 2010, it‘s simply and totally not true. I have not
done that, needless to say, at all. It‘s a lie.
And while I am flattered that the John Birch Society thinks I‘m
powerful enough to threaten them, I‘m probably not, unless the enunciation
of facts about them is threatening their existence.
But if they‘re going to make up stuff about me to raise money, I
do feel a little left out of the money. Whether it‘s Republican Senator
Scott Brown of Massachusetts or the “fluoride‘s a communist mind-control
conspiracy” folks at the John Birch Society, people apparently feel free to
make up stuff that I have not said and not done in order to raise money for
themselves now.
So I have decided that I want in. We‘re looking into the
possibility of creating a new foundation that will license lies about me to
conservative causes and lawmakers, things I haven‘t actually said but might
be politically remunerative to the right people and groups.
I won‘t let anybody in on the secret that I didn‘t actually say
these things, provided the conservatives who want to raise money off of me
give me a cut of the profits. Then I will send 100 percent of my take to
an apolitical, nonpartisan cause that I think is worthy.
It‘s sort of fair, right? I mean, if the John Birch Society is
cashing checks by essentially forging my signature on them and I have no
way to stop them from doing that, couldn‘t I at least get some of the cash?
Joining us now is Sam Tanenhaus, editor of “The New York Times
Book Review” and “Week in Review,” and the author of the book, “The Death
of Conservatism.” Sam, thank you very much for joining us.
SAM TANENHAUS, AUTHOR, “THE DEATH OF CONSERVATISM”: Good to be here
with you, Rachel.
MADDOW: Should I be flattered?
TANENHAUS: Well, you‘re in pretty good company. You mentioned
Eisenhower. Everybody mentions Eisenhower. But the Birchers also said
that Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman were part of the communist
conspiracy.
MADDOW: It is a tidy and very intellectually high-powered conspiracy.
TANENHAUS: Listen, by the time they were done with Milton Eisenhower,
who was talking about them anymore?
MADDOW: Is there always somebody in this role for conservative groups
of being the bogeyman or the John Birch Society in particular? What do you
need to be in order to be their bogeyman?
TANENHAUS: Well, that‘s a good question. What they really hate is
the idea of governance itself. Set aside Democrats or even Republicans.
It‘s the idea of governance. Robert Welch, the founder of the John Birch
Society, founded in 1958, the year after the death Joe McCarthy -
MADDOW: Right. Yes.
TANENHAUS: And really founded to perpetuate that idea - pointed out
that the word “democracy” does not appear in the United States
Constitution. Democracy itself (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
MADDOW: Anti-democratic. Anti-government.
TANENHAUS: Democracy itself was a kind of a - was a plot. Yes.
MADDOW: Is the John Birch Society - I know this is a bit of a weird
question that‘s maybe a little sensitive. Is the John Birch Society only
being allowed back into conservative circles now like attending CPAC, co-
sponsoring CPAC because of death of William F. Buckley? Was he the
gatekeeper to keep them out?
TANENHAUS: Well, he was to a large extent. You know, there was a
tussle when Bill Buckley got rid of them in the mid-‘60s. He made his
first foray in 1962 and denounced Welch‘s theorizing that 90 percent is
controlled by communists and fluoridation of the water and all the rest.
MADDOW: Robert Welch, the founder of the John Birch Society.
TANENHAUS: The founder of the Birch Society. He - and Buckley
denounced that as drivel. But there were many on the right who actually
supported Welch on the principle we‘re seeing in action today - no enemies
on the right.
If they can be useful, you keep them in the tent. Then, by the
mid-‘60s, as you said before, they had gotten so far off the grid that
Buckley, a guy who kind of trafficked in intellectual circles, particularly
in New York and had a lot of smart liberal friends, like Murray Kempton and
John Kenneth Galbraith got a little embarrassed by them.
At the same time, though, as you said, they were forceful. They
were useful. In the Goldwater campaign in ‘64, they were the foot
soldiers. In some sense, they‘re the precursor to the tea partiers we‘re
seeing now, so the right is always nervous about evicting people like that.
MADDOW: Conspiratorial theorizing is always going to be attractive to
a certain segment of people who are energized or more likely enervated by
what‘s going on in politics. Question, though, is once you are the subject
of one of their conspiracies, is there a way to argue out of it? Or are
you in a rationality-and-fact-free zone and all you can do is pretend it‘s
not happening?
TANENHAUS: In fact, you can‘t do it, Rachel. I was thinking about
your very amusing remarks before. Robert Welch actually had a term -
Robert Welch, the genius, presiding genius of the John Birch Society. It‘s
called the reverse principle.
If the - let‘s say the Soviets decide they‘re going to give up
some of their nuclear warheads or the Russians do in our time. They‘re not
really doing that, or if they are doing - say they‘re going to do it, it‘s
because they‘ve got another plan.
So if you say you now want to be embraced by them and you‘re
willing to accept their attacks, and also that you invite them to point
out, you know, statements you have made that you can prove are lies and say
it doesn‘t matter that they‘re lies, because you‘re not saying what you
really think.
So if someone listens really closely to what you‘ve said and what
you really mean to say, they‘ve got you every time.
MADDOW: What if I raise - no, it will never work. There‘s no way
around it except to talk about who they are in the bluntest possible terms,
I think.
But what does it say to you, Sam, that the John Birch Society is
back, after so many years in exile, after conspiracists(ph) had to contend
with people who are sort of gatekeepers in terms of what counts as
mainstream conservatism? What does it mean that the gatekeepers are gone
now?
TANENHAUS: Well, it means that it‘s a movement without serious ideas.
Look at poor David Frum, you know, someone who‘s actually a kind of
consequential guy, protege of Buckley himself.
MADDOW: Yes. (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
(CROSS TALK)
TANENHAUS: Well, more or less evicted from the movement. That‘s
right. He doesn‘t want - I don‘t know. Maybe he has his own conspiracy
about you.
MADDOW: Yes.
TANENHAUS: They all do. But, yes, there are no serious ideas left on
the right. We see who the great idea people are, the ones who pretend to
be - Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh and all the rest. This is about as good
as it‘s getting now, so they don‘t have a Buckley or Irving Kristol or
someone like that to call them out.
There‘s another difference too, Rachel. People like Buckley and
Kristol thought part of the job of conservatism was to persuade serious
liberals, if not to agree with them, at least to rethink their own ideas,
to raise the level of discourse. That‘s not what the extremists do.
MADDOW: Sam Tanenhaus, editor of “The New York Times Book Review” and
“Week in Review,” author of “The Death of Conservatism.” Sam, it‘s great
to see you. Thank you very much for coming in.
TANENHAUS: Oh, my pleasure. Great to be here.
MADDOW: I appreciate it. Coming up on “COUNTDOWN,” Keith
investigates the claim from one of the smartest scientists in the world
that aliens could be out to get us.
But first, on this show, George W. Bush, of all people, gives
Democrats a boost heading into the November elections. That very strange
story, coming up next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
MADDOW: The president today released a video E-mail to his supporters
essentially kicking off the 2010 mid-term election season. His pitch is
that first-time voters who turned out for him and Joe Biden in 2008 become
second-time voters for Democratic candidates in 2010.
Everyone‘s expecting Republicans to gain some seats in November.
But Democrats have just received some unexpectedly good news about their
own prospects for that election.
For that, we turn to our memoir bump correspondent, Mr. Kent
Jones. Hi, Kent.
KENT JONES, MSNBC CORRESPONDENT: Hi, Rachel. This unexpected boost
for Democratic candidates coming from a very unexpected place.
MADDOW: All right.
JONES: Here we go.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
(voice-over): Sometimes it helps to be lucky. Just as Democrats face
the prospect of heavy losses in the midterm elections, former President
George W. Bush has a date to release his memoir, “Decision Points,”
November 9th. That‘s just one short week after the midterm elections on
November 2nd.
For once, his timing is impeccable. Plans aren‘t final yet, but
does this mean “president 22 percent approval rating” will be on a
nationwide promotional tour at the exact time voters are deciding whether
to put Republicans back in power just when Americans are starting to blot
out the 2000s?
Well, George W. “Two Terms Mandate” Bush turn up on Sean
Hannity‘s couch? Crown Publishers said that some of the topics President
Bush addresses in the book are the 2000 election, Iraq, the financial
crisis, Hurricane Katrina, Afghanistan, and Iran.
Now, if you made a list of topics Republicans would rather not
have to talk about this year, it would be roughly the 2000 election, Iraq,
the financial crisis, Hurricane Katrina, Afghanistan, and Iran.
And while you‘re at it, remember this? And this? And this? For
Democrats, the timing of G.W.‘s book is perfect, maybe too perfect. I
wonder, could this be George W. Bush‘s way of saying he‘s sorry?
At any rate, thank you, President Bush for your timely memoir.
Any chance you could schedule your next book for say, November 2012?
(END VIDEOTAPE)
MADDOW: Republicans have been trying so hard to make this a
referendum on Obama. The Democrats thought the best they could hope for -
it would be a choice between Obama and the Republicans. No Democrat ever
dreamed there could be a referendum on Obama versus Bush again.
JONES: Who will show up suddenly?
MADDOW: Thank you, Kent.
JONES: Sure.
MADDOW: That does it for us tonight. We‘ll see you again tomorrow
night. “COUNTDOWN” with Keith Olbermann starts right now.
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY
BE UPDATED.
END
Copy: Content and programming copyright 2010 MSNBC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Copyright 2010 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 Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark,
copyright or other notice from copies of the content.
WATCH 'THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW' WEEKDAYS AT 9:00 P.M. ON MSNBC.