Skip navigation

'The Rachel Maddow Show' for Wednesday, March 28, 2012

Read the transcript to the Wednesday show

Guests: Dan Rather, Ahmed Rashid

ED SCHULTZ, "THE ED SHOW" HOST: Jonathan Alter, great to have you
with us tonight. Thank you.

That`s "THE ED SHOW." I`m Ed Schultz.

THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW starts right now.

Good evening, Rachel. Big news night.

RACHEL MADDOW, HOST: Yes, it is a huge news night. And I feel like
everything we`ve been covering for the last few days is not only in motion,
but the motion is picking up speed.

SCHULTZ: It certainly is.

MADDOW: Thanks a lot, Ed. I appreciate it.

SCHULTZ: You bet.

MADDOW: And thanks to you at home for staying with us for the next

With Newt Gingrich all but dropping out of the race for the Republican
presidential nomination last night, with the news that he`s dramatically
cutting back his staff and his campaign appearances, and he plans to
somehow attain the nomination, he says, just by showing up in Tampa at the
convention to collect it?

With the news out from a new CNN poll that says 92 percent of
Republican voters feel that Mitt Romney is somewhat likely, very likely, or
almost certain to attain the Republican nomination, 92 percent, and no
other candidate is getting anywhere close to that number.

With Ron Paul himself and the Ron Paul campaign all but conceding to
"The New York Times" today that they don`t know why the fervor on the
campaign trail for Ron Paul has not translated into any practical progress
toward the nomination for Dr. Paul, with Rick Santorum`s last great hope
appearing to be the Wisconsin primary on Tuesday and with news that he is
still being outspent there five to one by Mr. Romney, that`s better than
the 10 to one it had been, but still, it`s very bad.

With the not particularly gusty winds of the Republican presidential
race all seemingly, now, at least, blowing in the direction of a Mitt
Romney nomination, two things happened today. Two things happened on Mitt
Romney`s personal campaign trail today that typify what his challenges are
going to be. Two things.

First, there is the Mitt Romney as human being problem. A new ABC
News/"Washington Post" poll shows that Mr. Romney is very broadly disliked.
Now, it sounds mean or personal to say that about a person, I do not mean
it in a mean or personal way, but these are his numbers.

Head to head, Mitt Romney trails President Obama in basic popularity
by 30 -- excuse me, by19 points.

For Mr. Romney specifically, the percentage of people who like him is
34 percent. The percentage of people who do not like him is 50 percent.
That is a higher unfavorable score than President Obama has ever received
at any point in his presidency in this poll. The only other Republican
candidate who has a -- who at any point in this campaign has had an "I
don`t like you" you number as big as that one is Newt Gingrich and Newt
Gingrich appears to love being disliked.

Most worrying for Mr. Romney, though, is this. The 34 percent of
people who say they like him is the lowest "I like you" number for any
leading presidential candidate in this poll at this point in the primary
season since 1984. Ow!

This is not the sort of thing that just befalls you as a candidate,
though. Sad as this may be, this is not the sort of thing that just
happens to you. This is less like a stomach flu and more like a hangover.
This is something that you kind of have to bring upon yourself.

And campaigning today in Wisconsin, Mr. Romney once again showed how
he has brought numbers this bad upon himself. Unprompted, Mr. Romney
brought up what he said was a humorous anecdote -- he used the word
"humorous" -- regarding Michigan and Wisconsin.

So, listen to this. This is the story that he volunteered to
Wisconsin voters today during a telephone town hall. Listen.


with the state of Wisconsin. One of the most humorous, I think, really, is
to my father. You may remember that my father, George Romney, was
president of an automobile company called American Motors. As the
president of the company, he decided to close the factory in Michigan and
move all the production to Wisconsin.

Now, later, he decided to run for governor of Michigan. And so you
can imagine that having closed the factory and moved all the production to
Wisconsin was a very sensitive issue to him, for his campaign.

And I recall at one parade where he was going down the streets, he was
led by a band. And they had a high school band that was leading each of
the candidates. And his band did not know how to play the Michigan fight
song. It only knew how to play the Wisconsin fight song.

So every time they would start playing "on Wisconsin, on Wisconsin,"
my dad`s political people would jump up and down and try to get them to
stop, because they didn`t want people in Michigan to be reminded that my
dad had moved production to Wisconsin.


MADDOW: See! He was running for office, for Pete`s sake! You don`t
want to remind voters how you made a living shutting down American
factories and sending their jobs away.

To be clear, nobody asked Mr. Romney about this. He brought this up
himself, as the funniest thing he could think of to talk to people in the
Midwest about -- the hilarity of shutting down factories and then trying to
avoid voters being mad at you about it. That is how you earn numbers like

And no, it`s not jealousy. People don`t hate rich guys just because
they`re rich guys. Rich guys who have hilarious stories to tell about
closing down American factories, though? Yes, it is conceivable that
people hate that. So that`s one Mitt Romney problem, typified today on the
campaign trail.

The second big problem of the Mitt Romney candidacy also on display in
the other major news from the campaign trail today, and that was Mr. Romney
today collecting the endorsement of President Bush. Now -- not him, the
other President Bush, the other one. Other one! Yes, thank you.

The senior President Bush. That`s actually a picture of George H.W.
Bush and Mitt Romney and Barbara Bush and a pooch meeting together last
year. But the senior President Bush and Mr. Romney will be meeting
together again tomorrow in Houston, to mark the official endorsement of Mr.
Romney`s candidacy by Poppy Bush. That endorsement was announced today.

Now, if you are tracking bushing in presidential politics news this
year, that means that Mr. Romney now has the endorsement of George H.W.
Bush, he has the endorsement of Barbara Bush, the elder, the first
President Bush`s wife, the former first lady, who did robocalls for Mitt
Romney in one of the earlier primary states.

Mr. Romney also that as the endorsement of Jeb Bush, the former
governor of Florida. He also has the endorsement of Jeb Bush, Jr., Jeb
Bush`s son, Jeb, Jr., you may recall, endorsed Jon Huntsman last year, but
since then, Mr. Huntsman dropped out of the race and endorsed Mitt Romney.
And so, by transitive property and because Jeb Bush, Jr. also followed Mr.
Huntsman`s lead, Mr. Romney also has an endorsement from Jeb Bush`s son,
Jeb, Jr.

So, George Sr., Barbara Sr., Jeb Sr., Jeb Jr. -- who are we missing
here? Oh, yes! This is the other big problem for Mr. Romney.

And to be fair, it would be a problem for any Republican nominee this
year. The most interesting story in American domestic politics continues
to be the efforts of post-George W. Bush, post-Dick Cheney Republican Party
politicians figuring out who they are.

The party nominated John McCain and Sarah Palin in 2008, and with all
due respect to them as politicians, these two do not seem to have stuck in
the minds of anyone, really, as the next generation of national leaders for
the Republican Party, and the legacy of George W. Bush himself and of his
presidency, at this point, seems still too toxic for anybody to seek that
particular blessing in modern politics.

Not only do we not have a George W. Bush endorsement for Mitt Romney
or anyone else, but does anybody expect that there`s going to be one? And
if it does happen, would that be a good day for the campaign or a bad day
for the campaign?

And so in order to collect Republican Party establishment bona fides,
in the race for president in 2012, you really can`t tap the last Republican
president, whose legacy is still radioactive and likely will be for a long
time. Because you can`t tap that, you instead have to jump a generation.
You have to skip the most recent experience of Republican national
leadership and go back to that guy`s dad. And that makes for awkward

Look at this. This is what`s called a first day cover. When they
release a new postage stamp for collectors, the first day cover things in
the bottom there. When they release a new postage stamp, they release not
just the stamp itself, but also for collectors or people who have a special
interest in the subject of the stamp, they release this first day thing.

And it has the postmark of the first day it was issued. It has a
little extra piece of information about the stamp, maybe some little bit of
extra art.

This particular stamp came out in March 1972. It is an 8 cent stamp.
It`s the American postal stamp commemorating the importance of family

On this first day cover, you can see, this is an artist sketch of
Margaret Sanger, she`s the founder of Planned Parenthood. The quote that
goes along with her there on the first day cover is, "no woman can call
herself free until she can choose whether or not to be a mother."

This is the Planned Parenthood stamp from 1972. It is the pro-choice

And what you`re looking at here is a letter from George H.W. Bush to
Planned Parenthood that year. Mr. Bush was U.N. ambassador at the time and
this letter, he wrote from his office at the United Nations, to Alan
Guttmacher, the president of Planned Parenthood at the time, congratulating
the president of Planned Parenthood and his colleagues on their new family
planning pro-choice stamp.

Quote, "Efforts like this that help further work of worldwide
importance are something for which country can justly be proud. I`m
honored to own this first day cover and deeply appreciative of the
dedication that it symbolizes." George H.W. Bush writing that to Planned

Before he was a U.N. ambassador, Mr. Bush, of course, had been a
member of Congress. And while he was in the House, he introduced the
Family Planning Act of 1970. For his enthusiastic promotion of family
planning, of contraception, of Planned Parenthood in particular, George
H.W. Bush earned himself a congressional nickname.

His congressional nickname -- can we put it up on the screen? His
congressional nickname was "Rubbers" -- that`s what they called him.

And today through the magic of the Republican Party`s absolutely bat
bleep chaotic politics, today "Rubbers" announced that he was endorsing
this man --


ROMNEY: Planned Parenthood, we`re going to get rid of that.


MADDOW: Back in your father`s Republican Party, George H.W. Bush
wrote in glowing praise of Planned Parenthood. His own Republican
politician father had been the first national treasurer of Planned
Parenthood back in the 1940s. But today, Poppy Bush swallowed all that and
endorsed Mitt Romney, who says he wants to get rid of Planned Parenthood.

George H.W. Bush as president cut in half our number of deployed
nuclear weapons. He negotiated reductions and weapons with Russia when
they were still the Cold War and they were still the Soviet Union. But
that guy, today, swallowed all that and announced he was endorsing Mitt
Romney, who is now questioning whether President Obama might essentially be
a traitor about even talking to the Russians, about talking about achieving
a fraction of the type of arms reduction that Poppy Bush achieved with them
two decades ago.

It`s like this on foreign policy. It`s like this on social
conservatism. It`s like this on basic domestic policy.

Mitt Romney says one of the reasons that Newt Gingrich is unqualified
to be president is because he once liked the idea of cap and trade. Put
aside for a moment the fact that Mitt Romney once too liked the idea of cap
and trade, Poppy Bush actually signed cap and trade into law back in 1990.

We have done cap and trade before. We did on the issue of acid rain.
It kind of worked. And Poppy Bush signed it into law in the Clean Air Act
of 1990. Not just in favor of cap and trade, he signed it, he made it law,
his policy.

But today, he swallowed that and he endorsed Mitt Romney.

So when these guys sit down together, with or without the Maltipoo,
what do they talk about? Presumably antipathy towards Democrats still
unites these guys. In the case of these particular Republicans, having a
little trouble relating to the common man, I suppose could be a fruitful
topic of discussion.

But on the real stuff, on policy, on what they supposedly stand for,
how does the Republican Party inter-generationally talk amongst themselves
and make any sense of who they are now? And if you can`t make sense of it
between just these two individuals at the center of today`s big campaign
trail news, just between these two individual men, if you can`t make sense
of it between then, how can you present your party in a way to the country
that makes any sense to the rest of us?

Joining us now is Dan Rather. He`s the anchor and managing editor of
"Dan Rather Reports" on HDNet.

Mr. Rather, thank you for being here.


MADDOW: Am I -- I mean, people say now I don`t remember it at the
time that George H.W. Bush`s nickname was "Rubbers". Is that possibly
apocryphal? Do you remember that?

RATHER: No, it`s not apocryphal. That`s what he was known in

Never, to my knowledge, never referred to in print, but other members
of Congress started calling him "Rubbers", because he was such a champion
of Planned Parenthood, as was Barbara Bush.

But for those who don`t remember the time, or weren`t of memory age,
George Bush, in order to become the vice presidential candidate with Ronald
Reagan, had to disavow all that. James Baker, who was his chief of staff,
negotiated with the Reagan people.

They, in effect, say, listen, there`s no way we`ll even consider him
for the vice presidency with this position of Planned Parenthood. No
problem, we`ll put that behind him, jump the other way, and the rest, as
they say, is history.

MADDOW: Is that -- is that where the seeds of this were sewn? Was it
in that, essentially, capitulation in order to advance politically with
Ronald Reagan? Or have you sign over time, particularly on this issue of
contraception, Planned Parenthood, these other issues with reproductive
rights -- did you see those seeds sewn in a way that we shouldn`t be so
surprised that it`s coming in such a visible and loud way right now?

RATHER: No, I don`t think we should be surprised. It`s taken some
years to do it. But the critical moment for George H.W. Bush in many ways
in the Republican Party is when he at the 1980 convention said, listen,
I`ll do away with Planned Parenthood, I`ll go, you know, anti-abortion.
That was the critical moment.

Now, it took some years for it to develop. I would say this business
of contraception -- I still can`t believe that here in the second decade in
the 21st century, in a presidential campaign, that we`re talking about
contraception. But do you know any woman of any race, creed, color, or
religion who doesn`t use some form of birth control?

But here we are. In answer to your question, it started in 1980 with
George H.W. Bush making his big change. It was slow for a while and picked
up momentum. And when we reached the first decade of the 21st century, it
began to really pick up momentum.

And then when the Tea Party won big in the 2010 congressional
elections, that was a big jump forward, if you want to look at it that way.

MADDOW: But the Tea Party movement was sort of -- its brand was
everything except social conservatism, right?

RATHER: Exactly.

MADDOW: Its brand was that we would get away from these divisive
issues that didn`t have a fight on the economy and other core things about
the nation. We`d stop fighting about stuff like abortion and we`ve move on
to these fiscal issues with this libertarian-minded Tea Party. It doesn`t
seem to be the way it actually happened at all.

RATHER: Well, no, but that`s politics. Most politicians run what
football knows as the tea formation, which is that you fake one away and go
the other.


RATHER: Which is exactly what they did.

MADDOW: On the big picture of what it means for Mr. Romney, not just
in his effort to lock up the nomination, which does seem like he`s in the
fast lane right now, anything could happen, but seems like he`s in the fast

On the march towards the general election, he is going to be the
Republican Party`s nominee. What does it mean for him to get the blessing
of the Bush family in this way? There`s still the issue about whether
George W. Bush will make an endorsement. But big picture, what do you
think it means?

RATHER: Not very much. Because the Republican Party of president
George H.W. Bush is light years away from the Republican Party today. He
would be considered, today, a leftist, socialist, or something worse, and
pretty for a left. The party has left him long ago.

This endorsement, frankly, is not worth the time to talk about it.
It`s helpful in that at least it`s a positive for Mitt Romney. OK, former
president, and his family, with the exception of the most recent Bush
president, endorses him.

But in the great scheme of things, doesn`t count for very much of

MADDOW: Is it a general election challenge for Mr. Romney or for any
eventually Republican nominee, for the party to now be vehemently opposed
to the major positions of somebody like George H.W. Bush? I mean, what
seems interesting to me about this is the awkwardness of the eyeball to
eyeball communication between these two candidates, who if nobody told you
they were in the same party and they had to introduce themselves to you,
there`s no way you could tell.

Is that a liability, how much the Republican Party has changed in its

RATHER: I think it is a liability, but probably less than many people
think it is and some people wish it would be.

American presidential elections are generally about where the country
is going, what`s ahead for the country, not what`s behind us. That`s what
our elections are generally about. And I`d be very surprised if this
doesn`t follow that pattern.

Therefore, the candidate who can get the optimistic ground, who says,
listen, I`m here to tell you that I`m the best person to carry us into the
future is the candidate who`s going to win. That`s what Ronald Reagan in
1980, and let`s keep in mind that President Obama, who widely differs with
Ronald Reagan on policy, he`s a close student of Reagan, the politician, we


RATHER: And he knows that Ronald Reagan brought to the table in 1980
and again in 1984 when he ran and won by a landslide, was optimism, talking
about the future. And you can see Barack Obama trying to do that.

And you can also see, I think, Mitt Romney pivot, and pivot very
strongly and say, listen, forget about what happened in the primary/caucus
campaign. I`m pivoting to the future and I`m here to tell you that the
future, I`m the best guy to lead the future.

Now, he will also try to demonize President Obama. And the best thing
the Republicans have going for them -- I know right now there are many
people who think, oh, gosh, Obama`s going to win this election. My
personal opinion is -- this election is going to be close. Anybody who
thinks that Mitt Romney or whoever it turns out to be as the Republican
candidate will be easy to beat in November has another thing coming.

This should be a Republican year. One question is whether the
Republicans this year will snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. That
Obama is vulnerable. But they`ve hurt themselves time and again on women`s
issues, other things during the primary campaign.

But by the time we get past Labor Day and start getting into the last
two weeks of the campaign, what we`ve been seeing this spring will seem so
far back in the past that you and I will be smiling about it.

But Romney has to pivot and he has to pivot strongly. He has to
demonize Obama, because the strongest thing he has going for him is so many
Republicans find President Obama, at the very least, extremely distasteful.
And that`s a big motivator for them.

Romney`s vulnerability is as follows -- and I hate to keep going back
in history. But parties that nominate candidates that are not all that
really popular within the party, Michael Dukakis for the Democrats in 1988.

MADDOW: Right.

RATHER: Bob Dole for the Republicans in 1996, a lot of people within
the party in both those cases said, you know, I don`t think this is our
best candidate. I don`t really like this candidate, but I`ll hold my nose
and go vote for him. In both cases, they lost.

And that`s a big part of Romney`s vulnerability.

The other is that he doesn`t come across as authentic. You pointed
out this joke he tried to pull off --

MADDOW: Mitt Romney as human being, the problem. Yes.

RATHER: He`s not authentic. There`ll be a big effort to increase his
authenticity as we get into the main weeks and months of the campaign.

MADDOW: We`ll be talking about that next on the show, his effort to
do that on a late-night show last night with some reverberations mixed

Dan Rather, it is always such a pleasure to have you here. Dan is, of
course, the anchor and managing editor of "Dan Rather Reports" on HDNet.
And I should that you have a really impressive special coming up on
Bahrain, including some really rare footage that very few people in the
world have seen about the protest movement in Bahrain right now.

Congratulations on getting that.

RATHER: Thank you, Rachel.

MADDOW: And we`re going to be posting information about that on our
blog. There`s some of that footage right now. I`m looking forward to
seeing that, Dan.

RATHER: If I can take just a moment, congratulations on your new
book, "Drift," and congratulations on "The New York Times" review.

MADDOW: Thank you very much. When "The Times" review came out
tonight, I just about fainted.

RATHER: Thank you, Rachel.

MADDOW: We`ll be right back.


MADDOW: With the aforementioned very bad "I don`t like him" numbers
out today on Mitt Romney in the new ABC/"Washington Post" poll, the Mitt
Romney campaign knows they`ve got to get their candidate to be more liked
in time for the general election.

One of their options for doing that, well, they could lightly dust
every crowd he`s going to appear before with a spritz of laughing gas.
More realistically, they could do the stuff that campaigns always try to do
in situations like this, which is that they try to humanize the candidate -
- make the candidate seem like more of a regular guy.

Like have his body guy post little videos of him eating pancakes. He
said they were apparently good. Look, man eats pancakes, I eat pancakes.
Man doesn`t seem so bad.

You can also mock up a complex diorama of what appears to be the
Romney bot doing his own laundry and then have the Romney bot son tweets
the said photo.

Or you can put him on humanizing television environments like, for
example, on a late night talk show. This was Mitt Romney last night on
"The Tonight Show with Jay Leno". And on the make other humans like me
more front, the visit may have been successful -- I don`t know.

But in terms of the political issue of the moment, there was a problem
for the Romney campaign in last night`s appearance.


JAY LENO, COMEDIAN: What about pre-existing conditions? I know
people who could not get insurance up until this Obamacare and now they`re
covered and pre-existing conditions --


LENO: And children also. It seems like children and people with pre-
existing conditions should be covered.

ROMNEY: Yes. Well, people who have been continuously insured, let`s
say someone`s had a job for a while and have been insured and they get real
sick and they happen to lose a job or change jobs and they find, gosh, I
got a pre-existing condition, I can`t get insured. I`d say, no, as long as
you`ve continuously insured, you ought to be able to get insurance going
forward. People with preexisting conditions, as long as they`ve been
insured before, they`re gong to be able to continue to have insurance.

LENO: Well, suppose they were never insured?

ROMNEY: Well, if they`re 45 years old and they show up and they say I
want insurance because I have heart disease -- it`s like, hey, guys, we
can`t play the game like that. We`ve got to get insurance when you`re well
and then if you get ill, then you`re going to be covered.

LENO: Yes, but there are a lot of people -- I only mention this
because I know guys who are in the auto industry and they`re not covered
because they work in brake dust and they could -- so they were never able
to get insurance. Then they get to be 30, 35, they`ve never been able to
get insurance. Now they have it. That seems like a good thing.

ROMNEY: Well, look at a circumstance where someone was ill and
haven`t been able to get insured so far.

People who have done their best to get insured are going to be able to
get covered. But you don`t want everyone saying I`m going to sit back
until I get sick and then go buy insurance.

LENO: No, of course.


MADDOW: Remember that time at the first Republican debate when Wolf
Blitzer from CNN asked Ron Paul exactly the same thing. What about someone
who gets sick and doesn`t have insurance, what should we as a society do
about that?

This has gone down in the industry of this campaign as the let him die


whatever he wants to do. That`s what freedom is all about, taking your own
risk. This whole idea that you have to prepare and take care of everybody


WOLF BLITZER, CNN: But, Congressman, are you saying that society
should just let him die?

PAUL: No --



MADDOW: Now, there was nobody in the crowd last night at the Jay Leno
show yelling, "yes, let him die!" the way there was at that Republican
debate. But Mitt Romney was making that same argument. If you`re 45 years
old and you don`t have health insurance and you develop heart disease, too
bad! He says, we can`t play the game like that. So you`ve got to go.

Unless you have enough cash in your pocket to pay for the treatment of
your heart attack, I guess, forget it. You can`t get health insurance, and
if you`re going to get sick, you`re going to die.

Here`s the weird thing about the health reform law. If you haven`t
been paying much attention to the whole policy of health reform, you are
very much likely to be against it. That`s what all the polling says. As a
whole thing, people don`t like the idea of this Obamacare thing they have
heard so much about. It sounds awful, the way it gets talked about.

But when you ask people not about health reform as a whole, not about
this Obamacare thing they`ve heard about, but about what this policy
actually does, turns out they love it! They not only love it if they
already support President Obama on other things, they love it no matter who
they are. Take that CBS/"New York Times" poll, the one that found that 47
percent of Americans disapprove of the law overall, as opposed to 36
percent, who favor it.

So, according to this poll, a huge plurality, almost a majority, does
not want this law. More people very much dislike this law than feel any
other way about it. Except when you ask those same people about what this
law is.

Quote, "Do you approve or disapprove of a provision in the 2010 health
care law that requires health insurance companies to cover those who may
have an existing medical condition or prior illness?" Eighty-five percent
approve. Of the Republicans polled, 76 percent approve.

Do you approve or disapprove of a provision that laws children to stay
on their parent`s health insurance policies until the age of 26? Sixty-
eight percent approval. Just of Republicans, 58 percent approval.

Do you approve or disapprove of a provision that offers discounts to
reduce the Medicare prescription drug coverage gap? It`s commonly called
the donut hole. Seventy-seven percent of people approve. Republicans love
this one -- 71 percent of Republicans approve.

So you ask people if they want the health care law, and they say, no,
it`s unconstitutional! It`s tyranny.

But if you ask people if insurance companies should be able to deny
coverage to somebody because they happen to have cancer, they say, of
course not.

So it`s like asking somebody, do you want a pepperoni pizza. And they
say no. And they say, well, how about some dough with some sauce and some
cheese and some pepperoni on it cooked in a pizza oven, and they say, I`ll
have it!

This comes up again and again in the polling. The Kaiser Family
Foundation released a poll this month with the same conclusion.

Quote, "One of the consistent contradictions and public opinion on the
Affordable Care Act is this, while the law as a whole has never gained
majority support, its component parts have been consistently popular over
the past few years. Many provisions of the law are popular even among
Republicans, like credits to small businesses that offer coverage and a
requirement that plans include easy-to-understand summaries of benefits.
At least three out of four Republicans, Democrats, and independents support
those provisions."

Republicans think they are in this very popular position of railing
against Obamacare. But when they get asked about what they mean, about
what it is they`re going to get rid of, even in supposedly friendly human
interesty territory like a friendly late-night show, what they end up
explaining after just one follow-up question is that they`d prefer the "let
him die" plan.

No matter how bad the epithet Obamacare can be made to sound,
especially if you have some deep-voiced announcer guy, intoning it over the
sounds of "Oh, Fortuna," no matter how bad you make Obama care sound, "let
`em die" sounds worse.

So even though Republicans think they`ve got a P.R. winner with this
anti-health reform thing, and they`re very excited about the prospect that
the Supreme Court might strike it down, they are one single follow-up
question away from "let `em die" policy in terms of their own territory --
and that does not make for a very good bumper sticker either.


MADDOW: This is a picture taken of a picture being taken at Ft. Hood
in Texas. This was taken at a jobs fair today that focused on people who
are married to service members. A jobs fair for military spouses. I think
this is an amazing picture.

The jobs fair idea for veterans or for military families is something
that our company did today as well. NBC News did a huge jobs fair for
veterans today on board the USS Intrepid, an all warship that`s now a
museum in New York harbor. More than a million U.S. veterans cannot find
work, NBC today committed to hiring a thousand veterans over the next three
years. About 1,300 vets showed up today at the New York event, while other
events happened at Ft. Hood and all over the country.

Right at the end of January, you might remember us on this show
covering the nation`s first parade to thank the troops, returning from
Iraq, to say, welcome home. That parade in St. Louis was organized from
the start in conjunction with a big effort to help veterans find work.
That was part of it from the very beginning. Now, we`re about to get a new
round of official welcome home parades. On Saturday morning, Tucson,
Arizona, is having a parade to mark the end of the Iraq war, to thank Iraq
veterans and say, welcome home.

Organizers say they hope you will bring a flag to wave as the troops
go by. That is this Saturday in Tucson, Arizona. The next Saturday, April
27th, the city of Houston, America`s fourth largest city will host its
welcome home parade to mark the end of the Iraq war.

There are also parades now in the planning for Richmond, Virginia, in
May, for Rome, Georgia, in June. And now, this one`s really new. People
in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, want to get a welcome home parade going there
for the July 4th weekend this summer.

Strange as it seems to me, there is still no parade planned for New
York City. Officials at the Pentagon say they applaud the celebrations in
all these other cities, but they don`t want one in New York. They say
because, in part, so many Iraq veterans are still serving in Afghanistan.

And whether or not you agree with their reasoning, the news about our
wars is, in fact, about those two things at once -- stateside trying to
find jobs for veterans, trying to find ways to welcome them home, to mark
the end of the Iraq war, to give veterans a new way forward into civilian
life, and simultaneously, the news of the war that is still on.

In recent weeks, we have seen a surge in the killings of American
troops by Afghan security forces. They call these green-on-blue killings.
The people of the U.S. military is arming and training turning around and
using that training and those arms to kill the Americans who are their
supposed allies.

Marine General John Allen, the top commander in Afghanistan, told
reporters this week that U.S. troops have become appointing what amount to
guardian angels at bases they share with Afghan forces, so no one crosses
over to the American side of these bases and tries to attack them at night
as they sleep in their bunks.


GEN. JOHN ALLEN, USMC: We have taken steps necessary on our side to
protect ourselves with respect to, in fact, sleeping arrangements.
Internal defenses associated with those small bases in which we operate,
the posture of our forces to have someone always over, watching our forces.


MADDOW: America`s top brass in Afghanistan saying, essentially, U.S.
troops need to sleep with one eye open on their own bases.

It`s hard to come home from war. It is harder still to still be
serving in war.

We`ve got more news tonight on just how hard it is to still be serving
in war tonight and why and how that war might end, when we come back.


MADDOW: Just about two years ago, this show went on the road to
Afghanistan and we gave those shows a title.


MADDOW: Good morning, landlocked Central Asia!


MADDOW: Bad hair.

Good morning, landlocked Central Asia was not just a shout-out to
"Good Morning, Vietnam," that Robin Williams movie. It was also a way to
remember one thing about Afghanistan`s geography.

We have over 90,000 American troops in Afghanistan right now. Over
90,000 troops who need to be fed, clothed, housed, kept warm, kept cool,
and kept armed. That means supplies.

And how do you get all those supplies into a landlocked country?
Well, you`ve got two choices. Three, if you count burrowing through the
earth from the other side of the world, but that`s very impractical.

So you`ve got two choices. You can fly everything in on big cargo
planes, which is somewhat doable, but fantastically expensive, and we do
that, in part. The other option is driving.

There are a lot of reasons that Pakistan is very important to U.S.
foreign policy and to U.S. policy around its war in Afghanistan in
particular. But the pact that for a decade we have been driving, about
half the supplies for our war next door through Pakistan is a big strategic
deal. At least it was until this next November when a U.S. air strike
killed 24 Pakistani soldiers along the border.

Pakistan was furious. In response, they shut down the NATO overland
supply routes, completely. They turned off this major overland supply
line, feeding the war in Afghanistan.

Trucking supplies from Pakistan and into Afghanistan has been fraught
for years. Extremists have targeted truck convoys, bombing them, setting
them on fire.

And this isn`t the first time that Pakistan has shut the supply lines
down in anger. But they have never shut them down for this long before.
And even if Pakistani lawmakers wanted to reopen these supply routes now,
there`s real pressure on them not to -- pressure on them from the Taliban,
the Pakistani Taliban, which threatened lawmakers and their families last

If they resume shipping supplies to the Afghanistan through Pakistan,
the Pakistani Taliban said, quote, "We will start attacking all the
parliamentarians and their families." That`s the message from the Taliban
on the Pakistan side of the border.

But on the Afghanistan side of the border, our guest tonight for the
interview reports that it is the Taliban in Afghanistan, the Taliban of
Afghanistan who have been initiating and trying to participate in talks
with the United States about how the American war in Afghanistan ends.

Joining us now for the interview is Ahmed Rashid. He`s got a brand-
new book out called "Pakistan on the Brink: The Future of America, Pakistan
and Afghanistan." Mr. Rashid is essentially the premiere journalist living
and working in Pakistan today.

It is an honor to have you here. Thanks for coming back.


MADDOW: You report that it was the Taliban in Afghanistan who
initiated talks with the U.S., not the other way around. Why was that?

RASHID: Well, the Taliban approached Richard Holbrooke through
Germany and through Qatar. The reason was once the date of withdrawal in
2014 was announced, they essentially wanted a deal.

They didn`t want to leave -- they didn`t want the Americans to leave
Pakistan in a state of civil war. They had made it clear that they wanted
some kind of power sharing deal with the government in Kabul. They didn`t
want to go back to the 1990s and have to re-conquer the whole of
Afghanistan, this time, totally opposed by the whole world, just like they
were in 1990.

And, you know, with they were exhausted. They wanted also to get out
of the umbrella of Pakistan. They have been housed and based in Pakistan
and they have been very fed up with the kind of manipulation of Pakistan.

So they had a lot of reasons to see if the Americans were interested
in an end to the war, in a deal, which could result, first of all in a
decent withdrawal, so you`re not fighting on the way out. And secondly,
something that could eventually bring about a ceasefire, and which could
then lead to political negotiations with President Karzai, for a power-
sharing agreement, so that war does not break out again when the Americans

MADDOW: Has the American strategy, not just for negotiations with the
Taliban and Afghanistan, but regional strategy overall, in terms of ending
the war, in terms of strategic announcement, has it changed a lot since
Richard Holbrooke died?

RASHID: Well, it`s become even more fraught. And I mean, Pakistan
has not talked to the United States for five months. Only the other day,
President Obama met the prime minister. As you said, the road has been
shut down and other cooperation, intelligence cooperation have been shut

Iran, of course, has called, there was always the hope Obama came in
saying he wanted to talk to Iran. Holbrooke hoped at one state he could
hold Iran aside and perhaps talk about Afghanistan, if not the other
issues. Iran is now an enemy.

So the regional situation is very fraught. And you need a major
diplomatic initiative I think to get these major countries. Russia and the
Central Asian republics are, you know, they don`t want a prolonged American
presence, but at the same time, they`re very wary of the Americans leaving.

MADDOW: In terms of Pakistan`s interests and its leverage -- I mean,
Pakistan, as you say, has closed off the NATO supply routes into
Afghanistan. It`s kicked out CIA personnel, it has stopped going on a lot
of joint missions with the U.S. they are continuing to demand that the U.S.
stop the drone bombing campaign.

What else is left for Pakistan to threaten to take away, to use as
leverage in terms of getting what it wants from the United States?

RASHID: Well, I`m hoping that, you know, the meetings this week that
have taken place, three meetings, separate meetings with U.S. officials
have taken place, that this can try and bring, you know, some cooperation
back. The most important is the road.

Pakistan has said that they will charge now for the trucks to travel.
The U.S. has said, we don`t mind if you charge, just open the road.

But the real point is that most of the Taliban leadership is in
Pakistan. And the Pakistanis were very upset that this dialogue that
started secretly between the Americans and the Taliban bypassed Pakistan,
bypassed the intelligence agency, the ISI.

And now the America, I think, has to find a way in which it can bring
Pakistan, if not to the table, at least bring Pakistan into the
negotiations, so they don`t feel totally left out. That is the best way at
the moment to try to re-cement ties. I don`t think the relationship will
ever go back to what it was under President Bush, and the kind of
cooperation and the kind of, you know, things that were happening then.

The U.S. will continue doing certain things like firing off drone
missiles. The Pakistanis will object to that. So, we`re not going to have
a very clear, and we`re not going to have a very committed relationship to
each other.

MADDOW: In terms of Pakistan being on the brink, you describe
Pakistan as not being on the brink of becoming a failed state like Yemen or
Somalia, but rather being on the brink essentially of anarchy. Do you
think it`s really on the brink, literally, that it`s possible that it`s
about to happen?

RASHID: The real crisis in Pakistan is internal, domestic, you know,
economic, social. The fact that we`ve got Pakistani Taliban, there`s an
insurgency in another province, Baluchistan. None of these issues are
being tackled by the government or by the military.

And it`s this -- you know, when Pakistan tries to, you know, keep
India off on one side, Afghanistan off on one side, instead of focusing --
I mean, the theme of my book, essentially, instead of focusing on this
adventurism in foreign policy, there should be a total focus on the
domestic situation, for at least the next decade.

But you have a very powerful military, which remains very ambitious,
which still wants to have some kind of parity with India, which wants to
have influence in Afghanistan, but we`re a country that is falling apart.
And a country that is falling apart can`t do these kinds of things.

It`s very much like what the Soviets went through at the end, you
know, when Gorbachev was in power, as it kind of fell apart. The political
aims of the elite, the ruling elite may be one thing, but, you know, if the
domestic situation is falling apart, how can you project yourself like

MADDOW: Ahmed Rashid, the author of "Pakistan on the Brink: The
Future of America, Pakistan, and Afghanistan," about -- even without the
war in Afghanistan, probably the most important relationship we have with
any other country in the world.

This is amazing. It`s -- I read everything that you write, but this
is great. Thank you very much. Congratulations.

RASHID: Thank you.

MADDOW: The Newt Gingrich campaign has shifted to a big, strange
strategy. We`re calling it the Rosie Ruiz strategy. Details, ahead.


MADDOW: Newt Gingrich has a secret new strategy to win the marathon
that is the race for the Republican nomination. A hint to his secret, it
doesn`t involve actually running the marathon. That`s coming up.


MADDOW: When Newt Gingrich got into the presidential race. He got in
with a bumpy start. He called Paul Ryan`s kill Medicare budget right wing
social engineering, which turns out you`re not supposed to do if you`re a
Republican. So, then Mr. Gingrich had to apologize, so that turned him
into a flip-flopper. So he tried to demand that his old history be erased.


any ad which quotes what I say is a falsehood.


MADDOW: Anyone who quotes me is lying. That was an all time great.

When asked about his terrible, no good, very bad week on the campaign
trail, Mr. Gingrich had an explanation. He said, "Ronald Reagan`s campaign
in 1980 campaign was filled with bumps. It happens if you`re the candidate
of ideas. It`s going to take a while for the news media that you`re
covering something that happens once or twice in the century, a genuine
grass-roots campaign of very big ideas."

So, according to Gingrich his campaign launch only looks like a
disaster but is actually awesome beyond human comprehension.

About a month later, when Mr. Gingrich senior campaign staff all quit,
his campaign was still to anybody not named Newt Gingrich looking like a
really hot mess. But when he was asked about that near collapse, he again
had a ready and amazing response.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And where did you go wrong?

GINGRICH: Oh, I think that it was a big mistake in my part to try to
bring in conventional consultants, because I am, much like Reagan and
Margaret Thatcher, I`m such an unconventional political figure that you
really need to design a very unique campaign that fits the way I operate
and what I`m trying to do.


MADDOW: The campaign`s near-collapse could be explained by the same
thing explained the disastrous launch. It was too awesome for this world.
Mr. Gingrich was too awesome for his own campaign.

Understanding Gingrich h the mind of Gingrich is key to understanding
the big news that broke late last night. The news that he`s
drastically cutting back his campaign schedule and laying off a third of
his staff.

To all the world, that sounds like Newt Gingrich is quitting. But if
you ask the Gingrich campaign, this is not quitting the campaign, it`s a
new strategy for winning the campaign. They decided they can sit out the
campaign, come in third or fourth place in the primaries and just have Newt
Gingrich named the winner at the convention in August. Tada!


GINGRICH: Look, clearly, we`re going to have to go on a fierily tight
budget to get from here to Tampa, but I think we can do it. I intend to be
there all the way to Tampa.

I`m committed to running all the way to Tampa.

All the way through to Tampa.


MADDOW: If you think of the Republican presidential race as a
marathon, Newt Gingrich has stopped running in the marathon and decided to
drive to the finish line instead. You mean the first one across the finish
line wins? OK. I`ll meet you there. I don`t know why all these suckers
are running. My way is so much faster, and it has air-conditioning.

You would be forgiven for thinking that Newt Gingrich looks like he`s
quitting the Republican presidential campaign. That is, in fact, what he`s

But according to Mr. Gingrich`s own assessment of himself, it`s really
just the start of his awesome drive to the finish line.

Now, it`s time for "THE LAST WORD" with Lawrence O`Donnell. Have a
great night.


<Copy: Content and programming copyright 2012 MSNBC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Copyright 2012 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by
United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed,
transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written
permission of CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark,
copyright or other notice from copies of the content.>


Rachel Maddow Show Section Front
Add Rachel Maddow Show headlines to your news reader:

Sponsored links

Resource guide